So, who's side are you on now?

[Jangler]

Human nature is to wait until it's too late.

[twylyght]

The players or the owners?

I was listening to the Sirius NFL network earlier today, and even the announcers who were former players and had been CLEARLY on the side of the players before were completely baffled by the way D Smith walked away like this.

[Stumpy]

Herm Edwards said pretty much the exact same thing. Seems most former coaches and players are baffled by the players' decision.

Hall of Famer Mike Ditka saw the stalemate as selfish, fearing retired players will be hurt the most if the NFL shuts down. "What this is about is the people in the game, the owners and the players," said the former Bears tight end and, later, Chicago's coach. "That's all they care about."

As for talks breaking off, he added: "I think it's wrong. I don't see any reason for that to happen. ... I am surprised and I'm disappointed. I think fans are losers more than anybody."

[KSpan]

I voted neither, but the owners definitely seemed to make plenty of concession.

[Jaxel]

I've been on the Owner's side. I realize that Players take certain risks to play football, but at the sametime they are risks that the players understand they have to take to be a part of business. So some of these claims by NFL players are ridiculous.

I went into Graphic Design knowing full well I could be working an 80 hour week every week and only get compensated about 45k a year, but I didn't care because I love design... Does my love for design mean I should make more money... no.

[JungleCat]

Both sides share the blame so I voted "neither". I hope both sides can figure out a way to fix it.

[Rhys]

"Derpty derpty derp I red that them ownurs made a good deal and Demawrice tunred dem down cawz heeza peace of fugging poo."

None of us know fair the concessions were at the very end of negotiations. What the concessions were are in dispute as it is, yet we all want to pick sides and declare Smith a moron. In a likelihood, we're the morons. We have an extremely limited view of what's going on, yet we're brimming with moronic opinions about Smith, the players, and the owners.

GO ahead, pick a side if it makes you feel better. Pick a side because you read some biased comments from one side or the other, or you ate up the public posturing by one side. We're the morons.

[iamcline]

Owners.

[Lumps]

Don't really have a side.

I know this, the players have no business seeing the books of each of the 32 teams.

That would be like me asking to see the books for the company I work for, and then demanding a new pay wage based on that.

They don't need to see anything more than they have.

It's als clear to me the players union never intended to stay in good faith. they were going to decertify regardless.

The owns are making more than a fair offer.

Either way...I just want to see them come to a resolution before mid july...as it's clear there won't be one before the draft.

Funny, while I was up at UNCC today I talked with a doctor in industrial psychology and I brought up this topic. She told me that if you were an employee, you should have rights to some of the information of the business and if you were a smart, you would bring this to the attention of the owner/boss and ask why you are getting compensated unfairly and that the companies information is your right becasue you are a part of that company making them that money.

It was a broad conversation and she did not go over exactly what some information meant but I think the players are fair to ask what percent they are getting since they are more than just a part of the company they basically are the company.

The only problem I have with the owners offer is it is very vague. There seems like there is A LOT of fine print, a lot of time limits on what they are offering. I don't like that, it just means we'll be back here in two years when everything expires. I am not taking a side because I don't know much about it but I will consider a doctor in industrial psychology opinion before any huddler. This was a doctor from Chapel Hill teaching here.

So if you are thinking you need to get paid more, you might want to change your perspective a little to get the best leverage. Just thinking you're not allowed to any information and you should just accept what is given to you wouldn't really go too far. She also said to look up salaries of everyone else in the company and use that as well. She said knowing what the person made next to is something companies don't like you to know for a reason.

Of course she also said this really only applies to salary type jobs and is highly subjective to how the company feels about things like this. This would only apply if the company valued your work, and you knew you were contributing too much to the company for them not to care. She brought up the company GE I believe and they do things properly, everyone knows what the other person is making and the top 10% get raises, the lower 10% are fired. It's a very good system and employees are very happy, very very hard to get into 'family' companies like that.

When we are talking about billions of dollars, and you being one of the few workers who bring sin that much money, you'd have to be pretty ignorant to just sit there and accept whatever you're told you're worth.

[Rhys]

This is a similar kind of stupidity that we're blessed with as you seeing a sign on the side of the road for a politician with two words under it "John Dipsh*t, Leadership, Integrity" and you think to yourself, "Derp, that's ther kinda guy I want repursentin me!"

[Ja Rhule]

Owners

[Lumps]

If what the owners are offering is fair for everyone why only offer it for two years? Is there anywhere explaining exactly what they are offering I didn't research anything, I just read a couple things that said what they offered was a two year agreement.

The offer may be fair but does it really matter if they can just change it in two years/when they want? Could this not mean we'll just have a lockout in two years?

I think huddlers logic is as follows:

The owners offered a fair deal. Deal was declined. Now there is not football, but I love football. No football was because of declining the agreement. Players are enemies.

Which I get, we are fans, we just want football but it doesn't warrant taking a side. BOTH sides are ultimately keeping us all from football.

[Snake]

Both are acting like babies. The union is just winning the battle of who is the biggest one.

[Happy Panther]

I know this, the players have no business seeing the books of each of the 32 teams.

This is incorrect. As ridell has pointed out, because the NFL has claimed financial hardship (remeber the pie chart) they have a legal duty to back this up by showing financial statements

2. Financial information of company. When an employer claims financial inability to meet a union wage demand, the financial information of the employer's company becomes relevant. The Supreme Court held that if such a claim by the employer is important enough to be made at the table, it requres some proof of its accuracy. Refusal to grant wage increases because the employer claims it could not stay competitive or would lose the profit margin was held by the board to invoke financial inability. Therefore, financial data become relevant. In the absense of such a claim, an employer may see nondisclosure of financial information as a reaffirmation of management prerogative and by the employees as an obstacle to effective bargaining.