I apologize if I've come off harsh in any of my posts. It's not intended and I'll try to be more mindful of this going further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
The NFL agreed to show five years of league-wide profitability data to the union -- and that the offer was rejected.
The NFL's proposal included:
• audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005 to 2009, based on individual club statements;
|
I think we have heard from the players that this "data" you are referring to isn't anywhere sufficient enough. I remember D. Smith saying they got more information from Forbes than what they offered with this "audited data". I'm sorry, but when you are negotiating over a billion dollars, simply saying "trust me" will never cut it. It's either show the books, or nothing at all.
Speaking of Forbes, I'd like you to comment on what a business magazine has to say about the situation. Seems they don't share your view (or the owners) about the situation.
Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
Demaurice Smith knew where he was taking these negotiations, he just had to put up the front of negotiating in "good faith" so fans that are blindly loyal to the players would be sympathetic (read; buy his load of crap).
|
I think D. Smith covers this whole"negotiating on good faith" and commitment to negotiating bit.
DeMaurice Smith's Rebuttal in the Rain - NYTimes.com
Quote:
“I understand that there’s probably some things that Jeff Pash has to say. But this is the truth: We know that as early as March of 2009, from the discovery in the television case, that the National Football League engaged in a strategy to get $4 billion of television money – to lock out our fans, lock out our players – even if the games weren’t played.
“When I get ready to leave, I will leave each and every one of you in the media with what we call the decision tree, because this is exactly a document from the National Football League, that talks about how they were going go about securing television money, and I quote, ‘for cash during a lockout.’ So, with all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one party’s commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you … stick to the facts.”
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
How the owners made their money is irrelevant. Should we talk about how Haynesworth made his money and how he performed in "good faith".
|
It is when you are asking somebody to negotiate on faith. Also, good thing you brought up Haynesworth. The owners are complaining about rising player costs, yet owners are throwing stupid contract at idiots like Haynesworth. How is this a NFLPA problem? It would seem the owners need to spend their money better. (especially dan snyder)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
|
From the very article you posted.
Quote:
|
The players' union documents say the 59.5 percent is a stretch.
|
So much for that 59% being fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
You may want to read this. History is a great teacher.
National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Actually people did watch the replacement games, far better than the NFLPA "All Star" games.
- The TV contracts are already negotiated, if the NFL plays games it doesn't matter who is on the field.
- There will be revenue coming in, people will still go to games. Number may be down, but revenue will still come in....and with greatly reduced player costs the owners will likely make a better percentage of profit.
- With no union, anyone could play that wants to, scab, former NFL player, or previous NFLPA member who wants to cross the picket line. |
So you think the NFL will survive based off of 3 scab games? You don't understand, take the talent away and the NFL will die. You can claim to be a fan of the team all you want, but you aren't going to pay 2-5k per year to watch inferior talent. Players come and go, but the talent level remains the same.
You mention scabs but you haven't commented on this. The owners are locking out the players so they can't use scabs. This isn't like the 80's strike when it was the players striking. This is the owners striking and locking out the players. If they play games, then they have to fulfill the contracts of the current players. Which means there will be no scabs.
So your theory about bringing in inferior talent for 2-3 years and it replenishing it with the upcoming college athletes is false. There would be no games played. No scabs. No nothing. The NFL would indeed die, and a new league would form with different investors willing to take the same deal as the current CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
Trust me the NFL isn't going anywhere.
|
It will if the talent goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
We're talking financial risks. And no one is forcing the players to take the risk of getting on the field.
|
There aren't really any more financial risks in the NFL now. It's a straight up cash cow. This isn't the 70's or 80s anymore.