UpShaw has the leverage | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

UpShaw has the leverage

I disagree. It only takes a 50% vote to decertify the union. A large number of players who are cut or fear they will be will vote to decertify the union if no deal is reached. When that happens then "powerful" Gene Upshaw has as much say in this as you or I.
 
That's a great read.

Today is all about hoping that these veterans do get pissed off and hurt Upshaw's position. If it doesn't happen, the owners are going to have to swallow hard and say yes to 60%.
 
rafael said:
I disagree. It only takes a 50% vote to decertify the union. A large number of players who are cut or fear they will be will vote to decertify the union if no deal is reached. When that happens then "powerful" Gene Upshaw has as much say in this as you or I.
Click to expand...

If decertification is on the table, it will be when Upshaw says it should be. I think he's almost itching to do it. He has made his money and could probably become even more powerful in the non-union world.
 
Disagree completely with the arguments that are presented in the article. I don't think Upshaw has any leverage. Typically when there are lockouts or disputes such as this, the majority of the blame usually goes to the players and their "greed" (i.e., Upshaw and the players union). Plus, the NFL can go on without the players union. They showed that back in the late 80's. So, it's basically a situation where the players need the NFL more than the NFL needs the players. In that case, Tagliabue holds the leverage, not Upshaw.
 
Jimmy James said:
That's a great read.

Today is all about hoping that these veterans do get pissed off and hurt Upshaw's position. If it doesn't happen, the owners are going to have to swallow hard and say yes to 60%.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand why the owners don't give in to 60%, they still makes hundreds of millions either way and if they agree they will continue to make more and more money. if they don't than they are going to lose millions after a lockout or strike.

just my thought but I don't know what it's like to have that kind of money
 
From what I understand, we're talking about 4 billion dollars here when we talk about the difference between 56 and 60. 4 billion is a lot of money even to a league of 32 billionaires.

What I'm saying is that they're trying a gambit that might save them $1-3 billion of that money. If it doesn't work, they'll do what they have to do in order to put the worms back in the can.
 
nick1 said:
I don't really understand why the owners don't give in to 60%, they still makes hundreds of millions either way and if they agree they will continue to make more and more money. if they don't than they are going to lose millions after a lockout or strike.

just my thought but I don't know what it's like to have that kind of money
Click to expand...
You could make the same argument about the players. Why don't the players give in to 56%? The thing is, at least from what I've read, the players won't budge on 60%, but the owners are less firm on the 56%.

But, the argument, as I understand it, is that the smaller market teams cannot afford to give up any more revenue to the players and stay a viable (i.e., profitable) team in whatever market they are in.
 
nick1 said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/060302

good article explaining why UpShaw can demand what he is out of the CBA talks
Click to expand...

i guess it rtemains to be seen how much power he has. the players are still under the CBA for this year and next and there are going to be a lot of unhappy FAs that are not getting the big money they were expecting without the CBA extension. I will not be surprised if there is a lockout by the owners after the 2007 season and then upshaw can try to dictate to the owners and we can see how much power he has then.
 
nick1 said:
I don't really understand why the owners don't give in to 60%, they still makes hundreds of millions either way and if they agree they will continue to make more and more money. if they don't than they are going to lose millions after a lockout or strike.

just my thought but I don't know what it's like to have that kind of money
Click to expand...

because it's their money. They own the NFL, not the players. It's like me saying that Procter and Gamble shouldn't mind giving everyone a 20% pay raise because they make billions of dollars a year.
 
Calgaryfin said:
That is the same dream that the NHLPA had and the owners took them to the cleaners.
Click to expand...

That's beause the NHL was dead broke. Apples and oranges.

Very simple... don't like the players proposed CBA? Bust the union. Go ahead. Turn it free market...
 
Ohio Fanatic said:
because it's their money. They own the NFL, not the players. It's like me saying that Procter and Gamble shouldn't mind giving everyone a 20% pay raise because they make billions of dollars a year.
Click to expand...

It's not like that at all.

:shakeno:

these aren't assembly line workers, there superstars... THEY bring the money in.

The day a million kids pay a hundred bucks each to buy a proctor and gamble employee's jersey is the day the situations will be similiar.
 
Last time I checked, the pen that signs the paychecks was being held by the owners. Not the other way around.

Tell me who has the leverage, again?

The owners also have other ways of making $$$. The players don't have such options unless they are established stars.

"Either you sign our contract and play for us, or we'll find someone else who will". That should be the owners' offer.

Any of you feel like paying $200 a ticket? Go ahead and side with the players if you enjoy that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom