So, who's side are you on now?

[twylyght]

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.

The professor is right about knowing your market value by comparing yourself to your peers and seeing how they are compensated. I am NOT inclined to think that employees need to be treated like a business partner when their own capital is not invested. Hence, it is a business' discretion to share their revenue information with their employees.

If we are to look to what has happened to other professional sports leagues, we would see that NOTHING GOOD has EVER come from opening your books to the players if you are an owner. You either end up with a deal that cripples the growth of the league, or the union chooses to believe that the data presented to them is fabricated. Sometimes it is both.

Now that this will land back in Judge Doty's court again, he will AGAIN side with the Union and very likely either set the league back a decade or result in its eventual demise.

[Rhys]

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.

Shut up, your logic and reasoning have no place here. Only acceptable comments are

"Fug DeMaurice"

"Players are poo"

"Unions a fugging poo"

Or another variant of those. Chose one and move along.

:rolleyes:

[Happy Panther]

"When I meet with the union lawyers, they say, 'Mr. Richardson, we want more money, we want more benefits and we want to work less.' Then they say, 'Let's begin the negotiations.'

And we have a negative cash flow of $200 million.

Whoever wins or loses in the court of public perception, our owner has come off as somewhere between clueless and a flat out liar...

[pantherclaw]

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

So why can't they base that on the information that the league has already provided them? Once again, they don't need it team by team....and that is the point I'm making.

[panthers55]

I support neither of them. I support getting a CBA done and moving on. Neither side really deserves to win and like always the little guy, ie. the fan, are the ones that always gets the shaft.

[mmmbeans]

does anyone actually have enough information to have an informed opinion?

/doubt it.

//don't let that stop you.

[MadHatter]

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.

Not true if it is a privately held company.

You are entitled to a fair compensation for the work that you provide. The profitability of the company has nothing to do with the amount that you as a n employee should be compensated.

[MadHatter]

The professor is right about knowing your market value by comparing yourself to your peers and seeing how they are compensated. I am NOT inclined to think that employees need to be treated like a business partner when their own capital is not invested. Hence, it is a business' discretion to share their revenue information with their employees.

If we are to look to what has happened to other professional sports leagues, we would see that NOTHING GOOD has EVER come from opening your books to the players if you are an owner. You either end up with a deal that cripples the growth of the league, or the union chooses to believe that the data presented to them is fabricated. Sometimes it is both.

Now that this will land back in Judge Doty's court again, he will AGAIN side with the Union and very likely either set the league back a decade or result in its eventual demise.

It will end up in Dotty's courtroom. He will side with the Union. It will be appealed. A sane judge will overturn his ruling and rule in favor of the NFL.

[rayzor]

i blame the owners for getting the NFL into this mess, but i blame De Smith for being unable to get out of it.

i've been on the players side but now i'm on everyone's side other than Smith.

[c0r]

i have been on the players side since reading this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6177574

now, i feel like they refused to negotiate with the owners and i lost a little respect for them that way, but they had to decertify or the owners would have ALL the power (which they still have most of it anyway)

[BountyHunter]

I voted neither but i can't see where we can blame the players on this. The owners were the ones to opt out of the current agreement that was supposed to run through 2012. If they opted out because of financial hardship then they should have to give proof of such to the players. Just to say you aren't making a fair share without proof isn't a good reason to tear up an agreement. The players don't feel like they should have to step back and concede things that have already been agreed to. If the deal was bad to begin with then the owners shouldn't have signed off on it. Since they did they should have seen it through to the end.

[c0r]

this poll is dumb, it should only have two options.

[Skew]

"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.

does anyone actually have enough information to have an informed opinion?

/doubt it.

//don't let that stop you.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a Google search to find all the information about what each side has presented, how each side has reacted, and the proposals that are and are not being addressed. If people want to vote on who's side they are on before doing the research, I'm not going to get bent out of shape and be pissed about it. I have other things more improtant to spend my time worrying about.

Shut up, your logic and reasoning have no place here. Only acceptable comments are

"Fug DeMaurice"

"Players are poo"

"Unions a fugging poo"

Or another variant of those. Chose one and move along.

:rolleyes:

If other people's opinions regarding football topics bother you to the point where you have to tell people to "shut up" on a message board, I would suggest sticking to viewing porn when surfing the internet, not spending your time at a message board. Just a friendly suggestion.

[Rhys]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a Google search to find all the information about what each side has presented, how each side has reacted, and the proposals that are and are not being addressed. If people want to vote on who's side they are on before doing the research, I'm not going to get bent out of shape and be pissed about it. I have other things more improtant to spend my time worrying about.

If other people's opinions regarding football topics bother you to the point where you have to tell people to "shut up" on a message board, I would suggest sticking to viewing porn when surfing the internet, not spending your time at a message board. Just a friendly suggestion.

Hahaha, buddy, that was a sarcastic comment. I wasn't serious when I told him to 'shut-up.' Unfortunately tone cannot be expressed in text, so I substituted an emoticon of 'rolls eyes (Sarcastic)'

I'm not getting bent out of shape about people posting in a message board. Nor would I get bent out of shape at a person for pissing in the wind. Just trying to get people to have a little perspective before they post their wonderfully deep and well researched "Fug Demawrice Smith" comments.