Decertification

[riddel]

Nope. I wasn't.

Well you should have been....the guy is pulling nuggets out of his arse.

[Anybodyhome]

There's just one small detail: the reasons the owners opted out of the current CBA in 2008 was not due to any financial hardships.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

Please keep in mind the owners opted out when Gene Upshaw was still alive.

"Upshaw said Goodell's e-mail listed three reasons for the early termination: high labor costs, problems with the rookie pool and the league's inability, through the interpretation of the courts, to recoup bonuses of players who subsequently breach their contract or refuse to perform."

None of these three reasons says anything about financial hardship. The "high labor costs" may seem to some a sign of money issues, but it could just as easily be interpreted as the owners not getting what they pay for.

"The owners also want a change in the system to distribute the money more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans."

This goes hand-in-hand with the labor cost structure mentioned above.

The issue is not "financial hardship" as much as it is a new definition of how the money is going to be split up- a reallocation of sorts.

Let's get real. The NFLPA was pissed off over roughly a $600M reallocation of revenue. Seriously? There are 32 teams in the NFL which makes this an argument over $18.75M per team... less than a lot of signing bonuses we've seen over the years, or Julius Peppers' last year's salary in Carolina.

[blackcatgrowl]

Well you should have been....the guy is pulling nuggets out of his arse.

No, you're a clueless tool who's copying and pasting poo from legal websites without knowing all the facts or relevant information and trying to give a layman's interpretation of a complex legal and financial matter.

You can say all day "derp derp, you're pulling poo out of you ass, derp.", but the fact is, like the way you interpreted Prodiddy's comments, your interpretation of this situation is deeply flawed and uninformed.

[riddel]

There's just one small detail: the reasons the owners opted out of the current CBA in 2008 was not due to any financial hardships.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

Please keep in mind the owners opted out when Gene Upshaw was still alive.

"Upshaw said Goodell's e-mail listed three reasons for the early termination: high labor costs, problems with the rookie pool and the league's inability, through the interpretation of the courts, to recoup bonuses of players who subsequently breach their contract or refuse to perform."

None of these three reasons says anything about financial hardship. The "high labor costs" may seem to some a sign of money issues, but it could just as easily be interpreted as the owners not getting what they pay for.

"The owners also want a change in the system to distribute the money more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans."

This goes hand-in-hand with the labor cost structure mentioned above.

The issue is not "financial hardship" as much as it is a new definition of how the money is going to be split up- a reallocation of sorts.

Anytime a company attempts to reduce union members' wage scale, they must show financial hardship to justify the reduction.

The NFL is claiming financial hardshp. Jerry Richardson is drawing pie charts and lecturing Manning on "rebanuw" charts.....lol

[Anybodyhome]

If the owners wanted to present a proposal, then they should have done it with ample time for the union to decertify....the owners set the proposal forward with too little time and in many ways stalled the owners in an attempt to prevent the players from being able to decertify and then come 12am, the owners would have been able to lockout the union...now there is no union to lockout....this was a chess match...not checkers...

Not quite completely factual. The owners provided a 150-page complete, new and improved CBA proposal during the first week of mediation, approximately 9 days ago, to which the union never responded.

[riddel]

No, you're a clueless tool who's copying and pasting poo from legal websites without knowing all the facts or relevant information and trying to give a layman's interpretation of a complex legal and financial matter.

You can say all day "derp derp, you're pulling poo out of you ass, derp.", but the fact is, like the way you interpreted Prodiddy's comments, your interpretation of this situation is deeply flawed and uninformed.

Here's the thing....I've been commenting on the CBA negotiations since day one and everything that I've quoted from the Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining law books has been 100% accurate. It's not like I'm writing or making up the stuff. I may come across as a tool, but I'm a well informed tool. You on the other hand don't know squat and keep pulling stuff out of your arse...

[riddel]

Not quite completely factual. The owners provided a 150-page complete, new and improved CBA proposal during the first week of mediation, approximately 9 days ago, to which the union never responded.

Yes. I reported it when it happened.

The players union has said since day one, that the loses must be substantiated via financial data. The owners never substantiated the data, so the players union is not going to sign a proposal that reduces their wages without substantiating proof.

[Ja Rhule]

Anytime a company attempts to reduce union members' wage scale, they must show financial hardship to justify the reduction.

The NFL is claiming financial hardshp. Jerry Richardson is drawing pie charts and lecturing Manning on "rebanuw" charts.....lol

NFL might have a point... Economy sucked ass in the past 2 years. I can assure you their sales deeped down atleast a little. But I also can assure you the owners made poo load of money prior to 2008 crash. Our economy is going through recession... We, fans don't get raises due to economic conditions, why should the players get em? While roughly 60% of Americans live pay check to pay check, these millionaires want more. Why should they get a better treatment?

[Ja Rhule]

Yes. I reported it when it happened.

The players union has said since day one, that the loses must be substantiated via financial data. The owners never substantiated the data, so the players union is not going to sign a proposal that reduces their wages without substantiating proof.

What is substantial data? Income statement and Cash Flow statement? Seems like a lot of information to give...

[Happy Panther]

Anytime a company attempts to reduce union members' wage scale, they must show financial hardship to justify the reduction.

The NFL is claiming financial hardshp. Jerry Richardson is drawing pie charts and lecturing Manning on "rebanuw" charts.....lol

The owners have generally not argued that they are losing money, but rather the need to invest money in other things.

Until JR and his dumb pie chart. He, the spokesman of the owners, argued that the NFL is losing $200M.

I wonder if this was a mistake and now he is caught in the lie? If he had kept his mouth shut the NFL might not be in a position where it is claiming financial hardship...

[Happy Panther]

What is substantial data? Income statement and Cash Flow statement? Seems like a lot of information to give...

audited financial statements.

They can even give them to an independent 3rd party who can summarize and remove anything blatantly sensitive

[Anybodyhome]

Anytime a company attempts to reduce union members' wage scale, they must show financial hardship to justify the reduction.

The NFL is claiming financial hardshp. Jerry Richardson is drawing pie charts and lecturing Manning on "rebanuw" charts.....lol

How are the owners reducing the wage scale? Reallocation of revenue sharing does not equate to a pay cut. Players and agents still negotiate salaries with the individual teams. I haven't heard or read anything that suggests the league is going to cut anyone's pay.

[Ja Rhule]

The owners have generally not argued that they are losing money, but rather the need to invest money in other things.

Until JR and his dumb pie chart. He, the spokesman of the owners, argued that the NFL is losing $200M.

I wonder if this was a mistake and now he is caught in the lie? If he had kept his mouth shut the NFL might not be in a position where it is claiming financial hardship...

NFL combined EBIDA might be $200m less than last year but I highly doubt they losing money.

[blackcatgrowl]

derp, Icanhazlegalquote, derp

As a matter of fact, I do know what I'm talking about. I work with Anti-trust lawyers 8 to 12 hours a day. I work with former Federal Trade Commission people who have stood before the Supreme Court and made arguments. I know members of U.S. Supreme courts. I have an Assistant D.A. on speed dial. A bunch of them are NFL fans and have talked about this crap with me and around me.

Your definition of "informed" is the same level of "informed" that people have when the jump to conclusions based on their own narrow point of view, and a sliver of information.

You've completely ignored the NFL side of the argument, that they DID offer to provide financial data. You're also ignoring the fact that now that the NFLPA is decertified this is no longer a "Union" negotiation issue. It is an Anti-Trust issue, which uses a completely different area of law.

You can say all day that you've been quoting public legal information, but if your INTERPRETATION is wrong about the law, then you could quote the entire US Code, and still be wrong.