Players lost in Court

[Spesh]

Are you doing any reasearch what so ever, AT ALL? The players DO want more money. The key sticking point in all of this is the what percentages of profit the players were getting. The NFL tried to show 75% of money was going to players, but those figures didn't show everything. It also did not show the "true up" profits, that is profits above what was forcasted ( eg 4% in 2011). The players are looking at getting paid more and want a a look at the books and want "true up" projections through 2014 to be included.

He has not.

He has yet to prove anything other then his own biased interpretation. I've posted at least 5 links to articles straight from the courtroom, players, and owners(and their lawyers), and every response posted is "No! No! No! The players dont want to negotiate because i said they dont!".
The players forced the owners to the negotiation table without having to recertify(something the owners absolutely refused to do, and flat rejected meetings with the decertified players on March 28th). Somehow, that equals players losing. At this point, in the face of overwhelming evidence and proof available right in front of his eyes, im assuming he's either trolling or schizophrenic.

 

[Geforce]

Of course it's about money and more money.

Showing the books does not prove anything of any pertinence to the deal. Whether the NFL frnachises are making or losing money, the owners want a new deal as a better business model, regardless of the bottom line.

For players to know exact numbers does no good. They can bargain just as effectively by not knowing the books. the only thing opening of books does is open a can of worms to irrelevant discussions.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------



Knew you were coming back with a sword on that one.

Please explain how they could bargain effectively without knowing the books? Please explain how the players can give up an addition $1 Billion in revenue just by taking the NFL at their word. Especially after the owners brokered a TV deal behind their backs.

 

[Geforce]

He has not.

He has yet to prove anything other then his own biased interpretation. I've posted at least 5 links to articles straight from the courtroom, players, and owners(and their lawyers), and every response posted is "No! No! No! The players dont want to negotiate because i said they dont!".
The players forced the owners to the negotiation table without having to recertify(something the owners absolutely refused to do, and flat rejected meetings with the decertified players on March 28th). Somehow, that equals players losing. At this point, in the face of overwhelming evidence and proof available right in front of his eyes, im assuming he's either trolling or schizophrenic.

No...he's just player hating.

 

[Spesh]

No...he's just player hating.

:rimshot:

 

[Roonnette]

The players forced the owners to the negotiation table without having to recertify(something the owners absolutely refused to do, and flat rejected meetings with the decertified players on March 28th). Somehow, that equals players losing. At this point, in the face of overwhelming evidence and proof available right in front of his eyes, im assuming he's either trolling or schizophrenic.

The players do not need to be a certified Union to negotiate terms according to National Labor Relations Act:

ss. 157 Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining

ss. 152 The term “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.

This goes back to owners' argument of sham, and the appeal to court to send this back to the Labor Board for determination before ruling on the case.

The problem arises when one player feels slighted and does not want to honor the agreement made between the bargaining unit and employers. Then, since there is no certified Union, it's difficult to establish existence of majority of players deciding to have representation in absence of evidence of election by majority. Then, the contract is unenforceable. Which is why the negotiations do not make sense, which is why this mediation order is unusual in this circumstance, unless decertification is a sham or players negotiating is a sham. No other way around it.

Any time the players negotiate, they lose. If they negotiate as union, they must agree to less favorable terms. if they negotiate in court, they defeat their own argument of why they are in the court. Check mate.

 

[Fintastic2124]

You guys make me not want to attend college anymore....:confused:

 

[DZimmer000]

Roonnette,
You are WAY off with what you're saying. Please go to Profootballtalk and get the updates there. Florio is in idiot on most things, but he's a lawyer first and foremost and has been giving good insight into what is happening. NOTHING he is saying is remotely near what you're saying.

 

[Spesh]

The players do not need to be a certified Union to negotiate terms according to National Labor Relations Act:

This goes back to owners' argument of sham, and the appeal to court to send this back to the Labor Board for determination before ruling on the case.

Oh, i have little doubt of the legality of negotiating without being a union. Never once said anything that could be construed as such. The owners just refused to do so. Posting this for the second time, as you ignored it the first because it contains overwhelming evidence that the players DO in fact want to negotiate:

You are 100 percent correct.Lawyers for the owners refuse to meet with the settlement attorneys for the players unless the trade association identifies itself as a union, which the players won't do at this time. The players, according to multiple sources, planned to meet with the owners March 28 and spend the week settling this mess. All that had to be done was have a short document go to federal judge Susan Nelson's court saying that the NFLPA's executive board would serve as advisors. The NFL's answer was no. This will be the only way a deal can be reached. Like you, we all wish both sides would go to the bargaining table instead of the courts.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6286514

This, of course, doesnt take into account the unofficial negotiations Mike Vrabrel and others involved with the lawsuit tried to set up with the owners executive board that never came about. That also ignores the fact that the judge already indicated the owners argument, of decertifying being a sham, was faulty.

So yeah. Sympathetic judge, forcing the opposition to mediate at the location they desired, mediator that isn't the owners preference, judge drilling into owners lawyer during hearing, getting their former union president approved as a attorney for the case...If those are losing terms, i need to lose more often.

Had you started this thread with "I hate the players and they should lose", im confident it would be no less then 4 pages long full of posters applauding the sentiment. Instead, you've declared victory when overwhelming proof of the contrary is right in front of your eyes and have attempted to twist all logic into a interpretation that makes sense to your flawed reasoning. It has been reported multiple times that the players are very pleased with the events of the last week. I tend to believe those reports are true when you look at what they have gained in this fight so far. The judge has yet to make any sort of ruling. Anyway you cut it, the players haven't lost.