The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

SkinsJock wrote:

the players need to negotiate a settlement not hope to get help from a drawn out litigation process

I think that you are missing one of the parties in this labor dispute. The owners and the players need to negotiate. It is the owners who reportedly made concessions to the players during these "secret" meetings between the players and owners. This the way negotiations work. The owners clearly came in asking for too much back. They have to make concessions to come to a fair deal for both sides. The players will eventually have to make concessions to satisfy the owners. This isn't just the players needing to negotiate. They both need to.

Obviously, the concessions that were made by the owners were not on the table when the union decertified, so as it stands now, litigation helped the owners make some more concessions. The players' timetable can afford even more time in litigation because few of them are looking forward to training camp. I suspect that they do hope to get help from a drawn out ligitgation that doesn't draw out to a point of losing paychecks.

A question that I have at this point is, what is the players' goal now? - "Never give any of it back" - the Upshaw mantra or use the courts to get a fair offer from the owners before giving concessions of their own. I hope that it is the latter.

concessions link

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ent-talks/


possible union goals link

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/ca ... ll/page/2/

Tedy Bruschi's take on the Lockout:

NFL lockout and the challenge of keeping players together. “Come September, it’s going to be impossible, if it goes that far. If the lockout is upheld, I believe this will go into September because that’s when the owners will seriously have leverage. The players won’t start to feel it until they stop getting paid. That first check is September 15. When they start missing those, then it’s like ‘I’ve got to do something here.’”

How he would end the lockout to satisfy both parties. “I think the players are going to have to make some concessions, seriously. I think the owners decided two years ago … [Gene Upshaw] used to come into the locker room when he was executive director of the union, and he’d say ‘Guys, this is how much you get, this is how much they get, and don’t ever give any of it back.’ I think that’s going to have to change and players will have to make some concessions to make this lockout end.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-engl ... hi-on-weei

Deciphering Judge Bye's warning to the NFL and Players:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... l-players/

SkinsJock wrote:I know very little about the legal ramifications but I have never had any doubt that this court will take a while

i think most here knew this will continue to drag out

the players need to negotiate a settlement not hope to get help from a drawn out litigation process

this idiot attorney that's leading them needs to WAKE UP

I think we're saying he's not an idiot. Dragging it out means an endless billing code for him. He not only isn't trying to get a settlement, he's trying to not get one. That is our legal process from top to bottom. Lawyers file frivolous cases and judges (who are lawyers) don't toss them no matter how baseless they are. Lawyers file cases asking judges to write legislation and judges do. Lawyers put victims on trial, sue people with money who are innocent instead of the guilty who are broke. The weaker their case is the more they generate paperwork and delays. "The People" need lawyers to explain their Constitutional rights to them because they are so convoluted because of what lawyers did to it.

Lawyers are greedy, selfish leaches on our society. They produce nothing yet have insatiable appetites to consume the labor of others. In order to get that money, they have a system set up and executed by themselves and everything they do is to stall and delay and expand their own power to get it. Actually settling anything is not only not in their interest, but it is counter to it. When the players accepted their liars, er lawyers, story to go to the courts, they put this into indefinite stall mode. They took this out of their own hands and put it into hands that want it to go on and on and on.

And what's so "perfect" about their system is that even with people like me I still have to pay them too in order to protect myself from their system. I negotiated my last deal exactly as we signed it before the lawyers were involved, yet mine got thousands of dollars from me and the seller's lawyer got thousands of dollars from him to write it down.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: I think we're saying he's not an idiot. Dragging it out means an endless billing code for him. He not only isn't trying to get a settlement, he's trying to not get one. That is our legal process from top to bottom. Lawyers file frivolous cases and judges (who are lawyers) don't toss them no matter how baseless they are. Lawyers file cases asking judges to write legislation and judges do. Lawyers put victims on trial, sue people with money who are innocent instead of the guilty who are broke. The weaker their case is the more they generate paperwork and delays. "The People" need lawyers to explain their Constitutional rights to them because they are so convoluted because of what lawyers did to it.

Lawyers are greedy, selfish leaches on our society. They produce nothing yet have insatiable appetites to consume the labor of others. In order to get that money, they have a system set up and executed by themselves and everything they do is to stall and delay and expand their own power to get it. Actually settling anything is not only not in their interest, but it is counter to it. When the players accepted their liars, er lawyers, story to go to the courts, they put this into indefinite stall mode. They took this out of their own hands and put it into hands that want it to go on and on and on.

And what's so "perfect" about their system is that even with people like me I still have to pay them too in order to protect myself from their system. I negotiated my last deal exactly as we signed it before the lawyers were involved, yet mine got thousands of dollars from me and the seller's lawyer got thousands of dollars from him to write it down.

If we capped the number of available Bar Licences at 50% of what currently exist, there would be plenty of legitimate work for lawyers, and they'd stop the meritless crap...

If Upshaw were still running the NFLPA we would not be in this situation

I seriously doubt that the 'deal' that is nogotiated will be as good as the last offer put forth by the owners just before this crap started - we'd all be better off if D. Smith were not handling this

Countertrey wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: I think we're saying he's not an idiot. Dragging it out means an endless billing code for him. He not only isn't trying to get a settlement, he's trying to not get one. That is our legal process from top to bottom. Lawyers file frivolous cases and judges (who are lawyers) don't toss them no matter how baseless they are. Lawyers file cases asking judges to write legislation and judges do. Lawyers put victims on trial, sue people with money who are innocent instead of the guilty who are broke. The weaker their case is the more they generate paperwork and delays. "The People" need lawyers to explain their Constitutional rights to them because they are so convoluted because of what lawyers did to it.

Lawyers are greedy, selfish leaches on our society. They produce nothing yet have insatiable appetites to consume the labor of others. In order to get that money, they have a system set up and executed by themselves and everything they do is to stall and delay and expand their own power to get it. Actually settling anything is not only not in their interest, but it is counter to it. When the players accepted their liars, er lawyers, story to go to the courts, they put this into indefinite stall mode. They took this out of their own hands and put it into hands that want it to go on and on and on.

And what's so "perfect" about their system is that even with people like me I still have to pay them too in order to protect myself from their system. I negotiated my last deal exactly as we signed it before the lawyers were involved, yet mine got thousands of dollars from me and the seller's lawyer got thousands of dollars from him to write it down.

If we capped the number of available Bar Licences at 50% of what currently exist, there would be plenty of legitimate work for lawyers, and they'd stop the meritless crap...

Why not just cap 50% (or more) of the lawyers?

Isn't that the same thing? Personally, I'd rather ship them to Greenland, but that's another story...

Countertrey wrote:Isn't that the same thing? Personally, I'd rather ship them to Greenland, but that's another story...

Well sure, on one hand lawyers are amoral, greedy, arrogant power hungry leaches on society, but on the other hand...



Sorry, that's all I had...

Countertrey wrote:Isn't that the same thing? Personally, I'd rather ship them to Greenland, but that's another story...

Why? Do you hate Eskimos?

yupchagee wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Isn't that the same thing? Personally, I'd rather ship them to Greenland, but that's another story...

Why? Do you hate Eskimos?

So you're thinking lawyers don't taste good either?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
So you're thinking lawyers don't taste good either?

You're not using enough hot sauce

1niksder wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
So you're thinking lawyers don't taste good either?

You're not using enough hot sauce

You're talking my language now. I keep a bottle of Tabasco in my car and another in my desk at work. At home I have a variety of hot sauces in the pantry for varying tastes. I'd think lawyers would be nice and tender since it's not like they ever put in a days work. They're parasites living off the work of others. They'd be sort of like veal that way. Personally I'm a vegetarian, but I might make an exception...

and this just in from former players in both the NBA and the NFL

I understand that it's Barkley and Dilfer - there's a lot of merit to the thought that the owners are not going to settle for a CBA that favors the players

IMO there are a lot of players that are not getting paid enough but there are far more that are getting WAY too much

if the players allow this to drag on too much longer the new CBA will be even worse - enough already - get what you can get - it will still be a good deal

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1521 ... or-battles

I'm hoping the players realize that the way this new CBA gets done soon is to look at the fact that the last CBA was really too good a deal for them - we all know that the owners have been making a ridiculous amount of money BUT fact is the players have been enjoying a deal that was biased in their favor - it's time to rectify that

sorry guys - it's time to give a little and still make a lot

the longer this goes on, the more I hope the new CBA deal favors the NFL - but, that's just me

The latest 'reports' have the following:

no 18 game season

more Thursday night games starting in a couple of years

the players share goes from 60% to about 48% it looks like the 'plan' will mean that the players' share is not far off what it was

a better player pension plan

the owners will not take anything off the top anymore

this could be as many as a 10 year CBA (but at least, a 6 year deal)

the owners will get a 'new stadium allowance'

4 years for free agency


this 'deal' is not as good as what the players could have accepted before - BUT it is a fair deal for both sides

SkinsJock wrote:The latest 'reports' have the following:

no 18 game season

more Thursday night games starting in a couple of years

the players share goes from 60% to about 48% it looks like the 'plan' will mean that the players' share is not far off what it was

a better player pension plan

the owners will not take anything off the top anymore

this could be as many as a 10 year CBA (but at least, a 6 year deal)

the owners will get a 'new stadium allowance'

4 years for free agency


this 'deal' is not as good as what the players could have accepted before - BUT it is a fair deal for both sides

SkinsJock, thanks for the breakdown, but your 60% figure comes from the revenue after the owners had taken a billion off the top. The 60% (rounded from the actual of 59.6 %) figured in after the owners took their cut off the top. When total revenue was figured without the cut the top, the players share came out to 50% under the old CBA. Thus the players are actually going from 50% to 48%.

Under the previous CBA, they received 59.6% of "designated revenues" after the owners took a $1 billion cut for operating expenses and such. Moving forward, the players could get something in the neighborhood of 48% of the total monetary pie (one that won't be sliced up first) -- potentially giving them a static percentage of expanding revenues while the owners recoup some of the ground many felt was surrendered in the previous CBA signed in 2006.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... e-agenda/1

Whether NFL training camps open on time, or whether the lockout delays them, one thing is clear: Teams have had far less time to assemble their training camp rosters, as the lockout has delayed free agency and canceled minicamps and organized team activities.

In an attempt to compensate for that, NFL teams are considering expanding the size of training camp rosters from 80 players to 90 or so. Jason La Canfora of NFL Network reports that multiple NFL general managers have voiced support for the idea.

PFT

you're right Red - this new agreement is still being looked at as something the owners feel is 'better' for them and, while the players don't really like it, it's a deal they can live with - let's face it, both are still going to make billions

the new agreement is still not going to be as good as the one the players walked away from and I'm gald that TWIT of a lawyer, DeMaurice Smith, didn't take it - he has not helped the players much at all IMO

SkinsJock wrote:The latest 'reports' have the following:

no 18 game season

more Thursday night games starting in a couple of years

the players share goes from 60% to about 48% it looks like the 'plan' will mean that the players' share is not far off what it was

a better player pension plan

the owners will not take anything off the top anymore

this could be as many as a 10 year CBA (but at least, a 6 year deal)

the owners will get a 'new stadium allowance'

4 years for free agency


this 'deal' is not as good as what the players could have accepted before - BUT it is a fair deal for both sides

On second look at your breakdown, I notice that the "rookie wage scale" is not addressed. Any word on what's going on with that?

Red_One43 wrote:On second look at your breakdown, I notice that the "rookie wage scale" is not addressed. Any word on what's going on with that?

I saw this earlier:

Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that the talks will turn on Thursday to the rookie wage scale, given that trust has been restored via a revenue system that requires no trust or guesswork or anything other than the total revenue figures and a calculator.

An unnamed NFC executive told Breer that a deal with “within striking distance.” But an unnamed AFC executive cautioned that “[t]here are enough legitimate issues to where it could all fall down still.” Breer also reports that NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith has won the trust and respect of the owners over the past month, which has helped persuade the owners to soften their positions.

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:On second look at your breakdown, I notice that the "rookie wage scale" is not addressed. Any word on what's going on with that?

I saw this earlier:

Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that the talks will turn on Thursday to the rookie wage scale, given that trust has been restored via a revenue system that requires no trust or guesswork or anything other than the total revenue figures and a calculator.

An unnamed NFC executive told Breer that a deal with “within striking distance.” But an unnamed AFC executive cautioned that “[t]here are enough legitimate issues to where it could all fall down still.” Breer also reports that NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith has won the trust and respect of the owners over the past month, which has helped persuade the owners to soften their positions.

Thanks for the info!

SkinsJock might want to reevaluate his opinion of Smith after reading Breer's comment about him, but then again, he might not.

I'm biased - this twit is a lawyer and I don't trust lawyers

I think that DeMaurice Smith has not helped the players BECAUSE he's a lawyer

In all fairness, I'm not sure that anyone could have handled this very well but I'm sure that things did not go well initially PRIMARILY because this twit (lawyer) wanted to establish himself more than he wanted to get a new CBA in place as soon as possible

I'm glad this appears to be almost done - I just think it would have been accomplished sooner and most likely in a better way for the players if they had not had this twit representing them


Get a CBA done soon
I like 'lawyer' jokes - actually even more than jokes about 'blondes' - I admit it I'm biased

SkinsJock wrote:I'm biased - this twit is a lawyer and I don't trust lawyers

I think that DeMaurice Smith has not helped the players BECAUSE he's a lawyer

In all fairness, I'm not sure that anyone could have handled this very well but I'm sure that things did not go well initially PRIMARILY because this twit (lawyer) wanted to establish himself more than he wanted to get a new CBA in place as soon as possible

I'm glad this appears to be almost done - I just think it would have been accomplished sooner and most likely in a better way for the players if they had not had this twit representing them


Get a CBA done soon
I like 'lawyer' jokes - actually even more than jokes about 'blondes' - I admit it I'm biased

I'll go with my "but then again he (SkinsJock) might not."

SkinsJock wrote:I'm biased - this twit is a lawyer and I don't trust lawyers

I think that DeMaurice Smith has not helped the players BECAUSE he's a lawyer

In all fairness, I'm not sure that anyone could have handled this very well but I'm sure that things did not go well initially PRIMARILY because this twit (lawyer) wanted to establish himself more than he wanted to get a new CBA in place as soon as possible

I'm glad this appears to be almost done - I just think it would have been accomplished sooner and most likely in a better way for the players if they had not had this twit representing them


Get a CBA done soon
I like 'lawyer' jokes - actually even more than jokes about 'blondes' - I admit it I'm biased

Boy, do we all wish Gene Upshaw was still leading this charge? Would it have been better.............?

tribeofjudah wrote:.. do we all wish Gene Upshaw was still leading this charge? Would it have been better.............?

Not sure tribe - the players were made to feel that the owners could not be trusted - I think that D. Smith knew how to get a new deal done but he wanted to look like he was a hero in doing it


the owners were VERY determined to get out of the old deal

the players were VERY determined to not take a step back

D. Smith was VERY determined to come out of this looking like he did a great job - that was more important to him than making a good deal for the players


I think we'll see a deal that both the owners and the players can live with ... the thing is, this has dragged on and on - if it were not for this twit (lawyer) this new CBA could have been resolved sooner

I'm sure we'll see a deal that is not that bad for either the players or the owners - you have to wonder why it took over a 100 days