Ongoing CBA discussions

[Mc2guy]

The league to trying to implement an integrative bargaining tactic. The only way to give the players more money, is to increase the size of the pie, which 18 games does. If you stick with a 16 game schedule, there won't be any more revenue to split with the players, and the owners know that the players won't accept a deal for less money than they receive now.

From what I have seen, the players have elected a distributive bargainer in DeMaurice Smith... he views everything in win or lose, yours or mine, for every gain there is an equal loss... basically he sees the pie as fixed, and that his job is to secure as much as possible of it from the owners. Bad move. The owners, with no contract starting on 3/3, can, following a lock out, declare an "impasse" and force players to either work under 2010 negotiated labor rules, or strike. If players strike, the League has already won since public perception is ALWAYS against a strike and fans would quickly turn on the players.

18 games is almost a required outcome if a new deal is to be struck this year.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

The league to trying to implement an integrative bargaining tactic. The only way to give the players more money, is to increase the size of the pie, which 18 games does. If you stick with a 16 game schedule, there won't be any more revenue to split with the players, and the owners know that the players won't accept a deal for less money than they receive now.

From what I have seen, the players have elected a distributive bargainer in DeMaurice Smith... he views everything in win or lose, yours or mine, for every gain there is an equal loss... basically he sees the pie as fixed, and that his job is to secure as much as possible of it from the owners. Bad move. The owners, with no contract starting on 3/3, can, following a lock out, declare an "impasse" and force players to either work under 2010 negotiated labor rules, or strike. If players strike, the League has already won since public perception is ALWAYS against a strike and fans would quickly turn on the players.

18 games is almost a required outcome if a new deal is to be struck this year.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A bargaining impasse occurs when the two sides negotiating an agreement are unable to reach an agreement and become deadlocked. An Impasse is almost invariably mutually harmful, either as a result of direct action which may be taken such as a strike in employment negotiation or sanctions/military action in international relations, or simply due to the resulting delay in negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement.

Since negotiations have not yet reached the point of no return, a very small window of time remains to consummate an agreement, unlikely though it may be.

There remains several issues proving stumbling blocks that will most surely result in an impasse if both sides remain as steadfast in their convictions as they've shown thus far, none more revealing than the issue of revenue sharing. The owners are emphatic about a change in that area, the players are less sympathetic and "that" I'm afraid is where the line will ultimately be drawn. A final take it or leave it offer will be made to the players, and fans fear the players will choose accept the latter.

Here is a simplistic view from Joe Gibbs, coupled with a boost to the ego of Dan Snyder from Ross Tucker.

D.C. Sports Bog - Joe Gibbs on the Redskins and labor strife

[sportscurmudgeon]

No offense to Tucker or to Dan Steinberg here, but this was the point where I got off the wagon:

"Tucker then chimed in, thanking Gibbs for his comments on Snyder and saying that other owners around the league let the bottom line cloud their football decisions, unlike Snyder."

Dan Snyder is not focused on the bottom line? He has not let the bottom line cloud his decisions in the last decade?


Please...


Danny Boy - - as an NFL onwer - - is driven by his ego and his desire to make money hand over fist. Denying that makes everything else one might say of questionable validity...

[sportscurmudgeon]

On the very good chance that there will not be a new CBA by early March 2011, there are 3 possibilities:


1. The owners and players can agree to extend the current CBA and continue negotiating. That is unlikely since the owners acted to shorten the agreement in the first place bringing on this round of CBA negotiations. It is possible but not likely...

2. The owners can make a "last, best and final offer" to the players which the players would refuse and the owners can then implement them going forward pending a variety of legal hearings/trials/arbitrations down the line. The problem with that course is that it puts the players in the driver's seat. They can play until Thanksgiving under the new "owners' rules" and then go on strike killing off the end of the season and the playoffs and the Super Bowl. The owners are unlikely to put that kind of power in the hands of the NFLPA.

3. The owners can lockout the players. That leaves the NFLPA with the route of decertifying and suing the NFL on anti-trust grounds. They might win that suit but winning the suit does NOT force the owners to restart a pro football schedule. It might be a Pyrrhic victory for lots of players...


Absent a new CBA, there really aren't a whole lot of other scenarios here that do not require the intervention of the Tooth Fairy. If there is no CBA, the owners are almost forced into a "lockout" strategy because Option 1 weakens their argument that the current deal is economically burdensome for them and Option 2 hands the NFLPA a loaded gun to put to the heads of the owners.

When it happens, it might help a bit if we all understood that it was inevitable once the owners chose to shorten the current CBA...

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

No offense to Tucker or to Dan Steinberg here, but this was the point where I got off the wagon:

"Tucker then chimed in, thanking Gibbs for his comments on Snyder and saying that other owners around the league let the bottom line cloud their football decisions, unlike Snyder."

Dan Snyder is not focused on the bottom line? He has not let the bottom line cloud his decisions in the last decade?


Please...


Danny Boy - - as an NFL onwer - - is driven by his ego and his desire to make money hand over fist. Denying that makes everything else one might say of questionable validity...

Not hijacking the thread, but a link to that Washington Post article about Gibbs and the CBA was also an insert in this article.

Someone has something good to say about Dan Snyder | Rich Tandler's Real Redskins