Court Cancels Mediation, Settlement Negotiations Continue

[BigHairedAristocrat]

I don't see how this is a sign the players are winning. I take it as a sign demaurice smith is actually negotiating in good faith for the first time so a mediator is no longer necessary.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I don't see how this is a sign the players are winning. I take it as a sign demaurice smith is actually negotiating in good faith for the first time so a mediator is no longer necessary.

Well the NFLPA offered settlement as an option in the past, and the owners rejected. Though I believe this a different sort of settlement

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well the NFLPA offered settlement as an option in the past, and the owners rejected. Though I believe this a different sort of settlement

The NFL also offered what nearly every sane person beleives was a reasonable offer, atleast reasonable enough to merit countering... And smith balked and called it the worst deal in the history of sports. It seems likely that smith returned to negotiations due to building pressure from the players whos interests he was supposed to be representing the whole time.

In the end, I believe a deal needs to get done before the ruling next week. I think any deal reached after the ruling would be horribly one-sided and short lived, with another lockout by the owners or a strike by the players within 5 years. The only way we get a long term deal now is if both parties recognize they need eachother and work out a deal they all can live with. Neither side needs to "win." the most important thing is that no one feels they "lost."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The NFL also offered what nearly every sane person beleives was a reasonable offer, atleast reasonable enough to merit countering... And smith balked and called it the worst deal in the history of sports. It seems likely that smith returned to negotiations due to building pressure from the players whos interests he was supposed to be representing the whole time.

In the end, I believe a deal needs to get done before the ruling next week. I think any deal reached after the ruling would be horribly one-sided and short lived, with another lockout by the owners or a strike by the players within 5 years. The only way we get a long term deal now is if both parties recognize they need eachother and work out a deal they all can live with. Neither side needs to "win." the most important thing is that no one feels they "lost."

Your opinion, but you're entitled

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Your opinion, but you're entitled

It appeared to me to be a reasonable offer, and as BHA said, merited at least a counter-offer. It seemed to be a "split the baby" kind of offer with several concessions to the players.

Am I missing something? Are you of the opinion that it was a bad offer or one that was just being made as a sop to public opinion and, if so, why?

Really, I am just trying to understand why it didn't merit at least a counter-offer. You may have covered it in earlier posts and, if so, just point me to them.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It appeared to me to be a reasonable offer, and as BHA said, merited at least a counter-offer. It seemed to be a "split the baby" kind of offer with several concessions to the players.

Am I missing something? Are you of the opinion that it was a bad offer or one that was just being made as a sop to public opinion and, if so, why?

Really, I am just trying to understand why it didn't merit at least a counter-offer. You may have covered it in earlier posts and, if so, just point me to them.

Just saying that for over a year before fans really started caring about this whole labor mess (March 2011) the players made repeated offers to the league, only to be flatly denied over and over again. So why should I blast D. Smith for rejecting the owners' offer and they repeatedly rebuffed the players' offers?

http://www.thewarpath.net/804607-post191.html

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just saying that for over a year before fans really started caring about this whole labor mess (March 2011) the players made repeated offers to the league, only to be flatly denied over and over again. So why should I blast D. Smith for rejecting the owners' offer and they repeatedly rebuffed the players' offers?

http://www.thewarpath.net/804607-post191.html

Nooooooooooooo. I want it to be be black and whiteeeeeeeeeee.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well the NFLPA offered settlement as an option in the past, and the owners rejected. Though I believe this a different sort of settlement

I thought the mediator requested both sides to make an offer prior to the 6th? The owners offered one in the last meeting and now the players have sent their offer.

One could look at it as if the players might have a feeling they might lose the fight due to their possibly illegal decertification. Which would lead them to maybe want to get as much done as possible prior to them losing any leverage.