8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Let's recap...if they players take the 59% proposal, they are getting the short end of the stick compared to the last CBA...if the players take the 53% they care getting screwed in the long run compared to the 59% proposal. On top of that they can't look at the books and If they don't take any deal they get locked out.


Sounds like the players are #winning.

CRedskinsRule, what would you do differently from the players?

I don't understand your first part. The 59/53 numbers are from the 2006 CBA. The owners refer to 59 because it makes the players side nearly 60%. The players use the 53 because they want the whole pot considered. I would say when owners of a business are accepting less than half of their businesses revenue that is a win for the employees(players). that isn't all the employees either coaches league officials, team staff, all come fro the owners half as well.

As for what I would do if I were a player. First as NC_SKINS points out, I really can't imagine that bargaining position. But since you asked, I will give it a shot.

1) hire a corporate lawyer who is skilled in negotiating not a diehard litigator. [The time for that was as soon as the owners opted out]

2). Focus on positive messages and positive results. For example, rather than harping on not getting 10 years of data, refer to data shared as a good start, but more would be better.

3). Be ready to respond to an owner bullet list with specific alternatives.

4). Lose the high strung rhetoric, for example refer to the owners march 11th as a disappointment but certainly now we can have a dialogue. Not "its the worst offer in the history of sports". That simply creates untenable positions on both sides.

5). Knowing the owners were intent on locking us out, prep the players for that fact and in the end I may still have decertified like they did, but I would have been in intense dialogue before march and if necessary making very frequent public calls for negotiations. Including times places and set asides to meet.

6). And in the end I would be prepared to compromise and make sure that the union members got a) the best deal that avoided a long lockout and b) not incite them but help them understand the realities and benefits to avoiding lockout/litigation. Yes the most high paid players might balk but a cash floor, better health and a minimal reduction of the salary cap could and would be sold to the bulk of the players as a better deal. I would take a tough stance on 18 games not included at all, tough stances on many non cash but quality of life issues such as OTAs, voluntary work outs etc.

Hope that makes sense.