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

UK Skins Fan wrote:It seems that the players want the benefits of collective bargaining, without all the bother of doing the bargaining part.

Although the owners take the initial PR hit of withdrawing from the existing CBA, the players will take a PR hit from being perceived as the ones who walked away from the negotiations.

I agree - i think the players saw that they stood a good chance of not getting a CBA that suited them and thought they would stand a better chance of litigation - they wanted to de-certify because that route took them out of the labor side of it and put them in position to go for the anti trust litigation that has worked in their favor so far

I heard today that Doty's ruling has a chance (albeit slight) of being changed under appeal and this appeal will take place after Doty rules on the punitive side of that case - this was going to happen no matter what

chiefhog44 wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:I will agree that fighting over 9 billion dollars is nonsensical; however, there was a CBA agreement in place that both parties had previously agreed to. The owners want to change it. Isn't the onus on the owners to open their books and prove that it is necessary for the players to GIVE BACK money? How many of us, would just give back money because the owner of the business asked without showing any proof. The owners should prove to the public and the players that it is necessary for the players to GIVE BACK money, otherwise, they leave them no choice but to go to court. AND give me a break about the owners "offer." Those nice shiny things look great, BUT EVERYBODY knows that the crown jewel of this ISSUE is revenue sharing. So owners make an offer that is reasonable about the revenue sharing AND OPEN THOSE BOOKS!

If you put a rookie wage scale in place, that takes much of what the owners want back out of the equation. The final offer on the table was to split the difference with the players. which would have taken the available money for player contracts from 3.75 billion to 4 billion. That's actually a large raise if you consider that the rookies portion would be much smaller.

Raise? This is about sharing the revenue and the owners wanting to change something that was working - 9 BILLION DOLLARS! IT WAS WORKING!

OPEN THE BOOKS!!! What are they hiding behind that curtain? You SHOW THE BOOKS you take the rug right from under the players legs or do you? What are they hinding back there? I remember a former Eagle owner paying himself a 7 millin dollar salary that had not been disclosed until the books were looked at. Chief, the players didn't start this thing the owners did. If you want the players to go along with you, OPEN THE BOOKS! What are you hiding?

chiefhog44 wrote: The players in my opinion are being a bit ridiculous asking for all these financial statements. Would you go into your boss's office and demand to see his financial books before asking for a raise? Absolutely not. neither do other unions. Come on now. The owners OWN the team. There are no partnerships here. Since when does a company get run by the employees? If you don't like it, go somewhere else. These guys are replaceable. If I were the owners, I would move on with the draft and replace all these idiots in 4 years.

The NFL and the NFLPA are partners that is why they have revenue sharing. There is no revenue sharing with typical unions. Why? Because in a typical union, the employees are NOT the commodity. With sports franchises, the employees are the product. With an oil company OIL is the product. So no, we cannot go to our boss and say let me see your financial statement, but if we had revenue sharing, of course, we would.

The NFL is a monopoly. There is nowhere else to go. Do you know how many anti-trust laws are set aside for the NFL and other franchises to oprerate the way that they do? Several and the NFL risks losing more of those exemptions if this thing goes to court.

These guys are not replaceable. Why do you think, NFL Europe failed but when the NFL plays a game in Europe it sells out. It is quality football with the star attraction. Why doesn't the WFL, WLAF, USFL, XFL and the UFL succeed (let's not forget the CFL successful in Canada was not in the US)? Because they don't play quality football with stars. Colleges have a natural following and they have stars just in case you want to say what about college.

Chief, the facts are facts, if the owners would not have balked at renewing a CBA that has generated more money in the NFL than could have been imagined, we wouldn't be having this thread, would we? If the owners need revenue then as PARTNERS (this not my opinon. it's a fact) with the NFLPA, then they should be honest and open their books and show the NFLPA that this extra renvenue will benefit everyone.

I am like you I want to see NFL football, but since the players didn't start this one and the owners have shown no reason why they did start it, the have the responsibility to do the responsible thing and end this thing.

Bruschi recalled his days as a Patriots player, when union chief Gene Upshaw would visit the team.

"He would tell us, above all else, don't ever, ever give any of it back, because once you do, you'll never see it again," Bruschi said, noting that news of Thursday's canceled negotiating session is a reflection of the union taking Upshaw's approach.

Added Bruschi, "Let's remember why we're here in the first place. The players were satisfied with the deal. It was the owners that opted out."

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-engl ... abor-issue

I recognize that most of us don't care whose to blame, we just want to see football and the off-season that supports good football, but the question, I have is why did the owners agree to the the now expired CBA in the first place? Some of the fans are saying it is so wrong for the players to get the % that they have, but the owners didn't think so back then. How is that % killing the game today? WE SEE NO EVIDENCE OF IT.
The players are sticking up for WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE. They are following the advice of Gene Upshaw and they hired Smith to follow through on Upshaw's advice. I wonder how many of us, if we were in these player's shoes, would be so eager to accept anything less that what we have without any evidence that what we have is hurting our job. I am sure some individuals do want to, but how many of us are going to speak out against our union. Not one player has - Many of you have personally met some of these players - do you really think the guys you met are all greedy and don't care about us, fans? There is even a thread active right now about how selfless Chris ey is and how much he cares about us fans - no it isn't about greed in this case. It is about keeping what was willfully given them.

Employees do not get to dictate the terms of their employment. Nor do they have any right to see the accounting of their employers. The players have a sense of entitlement to something that no employee has a right to. They are not partners. They have no right to ten years of accounting and the raw data of every debit and credit. It's none of their business what owners pay for expenses not directly connected with their salaries. And owners have no obligation to provide such information. Furthermore, employers have a right to pay whatever they so choose. Employees have the options of working for the offered wage or of finding alternative employment. Other than an obviously biased judge, the players have nothing on their side in this argument. DeMaurice Smith cared more about being right than about doing right and it is going to cost the players. They should have accepted the last minute offer from ownership. They won't see one nearly as favorable in the future. Let's not forget, the players walked away from the table and decertified.

It is not right to look at this as a business - it is not a 'business' in the normal sense of that word

both of the parties are being VERY GREEDY & now the PR battle for the fans will bring about a lot of BS posturing from both sides



These 2 parties need each other and while the expression is "owners" and "players" they are really 'partners' in something that generates a lot of money
the fact is - the owners need the players and the players need the owners

the owners want a bigger take and the players are using everything and anything they can to not give it back and to keep their share as it is

the players did not make the decision to opt out of their agreement with the owners - they liked how much money they were getting


the players saw that they were heading towards an agreement through negotiation that they did not like - they de-certified so that they could end up in the anti trust courts rather than the labor courts


there is no way the owners are going to just give the NFPLA the information that the players claim they have to have - we all know why


I fault D Smith for not negotiating a way of getting the information the players claim they need in a way that the owners would not find so objectionable - by canceling the negotiating process and heading to the anti trust courts he just prolonged something that I think coud have been negotiated - we are going to see a resolution here but it will now be later rather than sooner BECAUSE the players stopped negotiating


man oh man - I hope that both the owners AND the players get smacked, big time, for doing this

The owners and the players are not partners in any legal sense of the word. The product is the game, not the players. The owners need players. They do not need these particular players. Not a single Washington Redskins fan, to my recollection, stopped being a fan when the Redskins replacement players "scab team" was winning three games enroute to the SuperBowl in 1987. Players come and go. They are not the product. The game itself is. The current players, especially the veteran players, stand to lose the most from the NFLPA's refusal to stay at the negotiating table.

TCIYM wrote:The product is the game, not the players. The owners need players.

Bingo! One way or another, the NFL will still be here in 10 years time. These same owners will be here. These players won't be.

The NFL is a winning brand, and the product is outstanding. If some kind of split takes place that sees the player pool diluted by another league, there will be short term issues for the owners. But I reckon they can outlast any player "rebellion", or rival league (no league has ever really come close to being a rival to the NFL).

TCIYM wrote:

The owners and the players are not partners in any legal sense of the word.

Good twist of legalese. Who said "legal" but you? They are partners in that they SHARE revenue and not only share it - the players get a majority of it as it stands right now. Now, explain why the owners EVER agreed to such a sharing.

The product is the game, not the players. The owners need players. They do not need these particular players.

And what is the game but players on the field. The federal government recognizes the unique relationship owners and sports figures have. That is why there are different sets of rule. You and I can argue semantics all day, but in the end your comparison of the NFL/NFLPA with the typical owner/union relationship does not fly even the FEDs know that. Again, ask yourself why NFL owners agreed to revenue sharing!

Not a single Washington Redskins fan, to my recollection, stopped being a fan when the Redskins replacement players "scab team" was winning three games enroute to the SuperBowl in 1987. Players come and go. They are not the product. The game itself is.

Great analogy there, since there were only a handful of no-shows and all the games were sell outs at scab games. Next thing you will be telling me is the "Scab League" would have survived more than a season and a new NFL would be born. Facts are WFL, USFL, WLAF, CFL (US), XFL, NFL -Europe all failed for the same reason - not enough fan interest to generate TV contracts and other paid sponsers. Of course, you have a better explaination since star players with the top talent are not needed.

The current players, especially the veteran players, stand to lose the most from the NFLPA's refusal to stay at the negotiating table

Yes, they lost BIG TIME the last time they went to court and winning a judgment that altered the game as we know it to their favor. Look, owners, players, fans and businesses stand to lose more this time because the money stakes are higher. The players know that they are gambling and they are willing to risk that to get a better deal. They had no chance agains the owners. The owners have every right to want to renegoiate the CBA. The players have every right to say, No. The owners have every right to "Lockout" the players. The players have every right to "decertify" their union. NOW AIN'T THAT JUST THE RED BLOODED AMERICAN WAY! Using one's rights to get what they want. WHOSE FAULT IS THAT! Now, we fans have every right to blame who we want and if we wanted too, we could even boycott games this year as a show of fan solidarity - that was tried in 1987 - didn't work, but it is our right.

TCIYM wrote:

Employees do not get to dictate the terms of their employment. Nor do they have any right to see the accounting of their employers.

Really go tell the movie and music stars that! Charlie Sheen- $2 million an episode. You should be out saying NFL players, you don't want all that money, look what it did to Charlie!

The players have a sense of entitlement to something that no employee has a right to.

Obviously, you do not know what RIGHTS the players have - one is to decertify. Yes, TCIYM, there is a reason a football player who hasn't played a down in the NfL can command a $50 million dollar signing bonus. Here is some more news to you. THE OWNERS do not have to pay it! NOBODY forced them to pay it. SURE, if they don't another OWNER WILL - some solidarity. Blame that on the players.

They are not partners. They have no right to ten years of accounting and the raw data of every debit and credit. It's none of their business what owners pay for expenses not directly connected with their salaries. And owners have no obligation to provide such information.

True, but it doesn't hurt to ask and the owners can say no and risk going to court, but why not open up the books if it would get the players to give in to a deal? Why not steal the thunder from from the Union? You claim that you are losing money prove it.

Furthermore, employers have a right to pay whatever they so choose.

Yeah, and they have a right to whine and cry about paying a rookie $50 million before he sets foot on the field. The players don't FORCE owners to pay them big money and TCIYM, if you say that they do, then your entire weak argument goes out the door. According to you, the owners can go out and get other NFL Joes and field their team - yeah right.
Why do the owners pay and then whine since they have the right to pay whatever they choose?

Employees have the options of working for the offered wage or of finding alternative employment. Other than an obviously biased judge, the players have nothing on their side in this argument.

Uh, the NFL always runs a fine line on whether it operates like a monopoly or not. It's business manners will always be subject to th courts like the "AMerican Needle" clase. Facts are there is no other type of employment of the sort in the NFL. Oooh, here it comes! Find another line of employment. Of course, the NFLPA is going to court because they think Judge Doty might be given the case. That is the American way.

DeMaurice Smith cared more about being right than about doing right and it is going to cost the players. They should have accepted the last minute offer from ownership. They won't see one nearly as favorable in the future. Let's not forget, the players walked away from the table and decertified.

Let's not forget it was the owners who refused to renew what was always working. The players were willing to accept what has generated $9 billion dollars in revenues. It is the owners who initially started this thing by asking for more money without proving to the public or the players that they are losing money. Let's not forget it was Gene Upshaw that said never give any of it back because you will never get it again. DeMaurice is doing his job.

Now, go after those movie stars before our NFL players make that kind of money and end up like Charlie Sheen.

As soon as I see the "right to play football for a living" statute I'll think the players have a grievance.

UK Skins Fan wrote:The NFL is a winning brand, and the product is outstanding. If some kind of split takes place that sees the player pool diluted by another league, there will be short term issues for the owners. But I reckon they can outlast any player "rebellion", or rival league (no league has ever really come close to being a rival to the NFL).

This true UK , but why do you think that the product is outstanding?

Why is Madden football so popular?


What is the atmosphere like when the NFL comes to London?

Do you think that London can sustain an NFL franchise?

Why do you think the London Monarchs not survive NFL Europe league?


Why do you think NFL Europe ultimatley folded?

TCIYM wrote:As soon as I see the "right to play football for a living" statute I'll think the players have a grievance.

Actually, players have a right to play football if they make the team and have a contract. Why do you think a properly executed decertification 6 months after the expiration of the CBA prevents a "lockout?" NOTE I said properly "executed." That may have not been the case of what happened this Friday.

But since there is no statue, you can keep believing that they don't have a grievance.

Once again, you missed the point - the players didn't ask for a change in the CBA that was working and generated $9 billion in revenue - who is losing the money when $9 billion dollars is out there. Show me the MONEY - I mean BOOKS!!

The owners are the ones with a grievance. They they were the ones threatening to lockout the players for the last two years. They are the ones saying gimme my money back not the players saying gimme more. If the owners extend the now expired CBA, this thread wouldn't exist.

I'm hoping that someone gets a fans association together - I'd love to cancel my DirectV including my SuperFan deal as a form of protest against the players AND the NFL


I could care less why the owners agreed to a deal and now want to change it - IT MEANS NOTHING

I could care less that the players are saying we don't want to give up ANYTHING - THEY ARE JUST AS GREEDY AS THE OWNERS

both parties are making way too much money

ARE YOU KIDDING ME - the players are basically claiming that they are fairly paid AND the owners are basically saying that they, as owners of stadiums and such, should be getting more for "expenses'

THIS IS REALLY STUPID

Red_One43 wrote:
Actually, players have a right to play football if they make the team and have a contract.

Factually incorrect. Employment is "at-will." Either the employer or the employee may terminate at any time for any reason, or for no reason. There is no right to work.

TCIYM wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:
Actually, players have a right to play football if they make the team and have a contract.

Factually incorrect. Employment is "at-will." Either the employer or the employee may terminate at any time for any reason, or for no reason. There is no right to work.

Alright fair enough. But these employees, if their union decertifies 6 months after the CBA expires, still have a right to work their jobs and the owners cannot prevent them from working. Now, the owner can certainly have the coach cut anyone he chooses after they are allowed to come back to work or deny employment to anyone they choose a la Kevin Mawae. But, let's see if they cut Drew Brees or Payton Manning. Von Miller may have just determined which owners do not want him.

SkinsJock wrote:I'm hoping that someone gets a fans association together - I'd love to cancel my DirectV including my SuperFan deal as a form of protest against the players AND the NFL


I could care less why the owners agreed to a deal and now want to change it - IT MEANS NOTHING

I could care less that the players are saying we don't want to give up ANYTHING - THEY ARE JUST AS GREEDY AS THE OWNERS

both parties are making way too much money

ARE YOU KIDDING ME - the players are basically claiming that they are fairly paid AND the owners are basically saying that they, as owners of stadiums and such, should be getting more for "expenses'

THIS IS REALLY STUPID

I have no argument with this argument, because in these hard times for many folks, it does look pretty stupid to be arguing over a billion dollars. But don't forget this country was built on fighting for what one believes is right, not what makes sense to others.

From Hub Arkush of Pro Football Weekly:

From the moment the owners started this battle almost three years ago by opting out early from a Collective Bargaining Agreement that appeared — and continues to appear — to any reasonable observer to have worked extremely well, the players have said, "Hey, we kind of like the current deal and are happy to keep working under it, but if there is a problem, just show us your books, and if it's there, we'll talk about fixing it. And to that the owners have basically said, "No, even though our claims appear to any knowledgeable observer to be more about greed than need, you're not entitled to see the facts or expect us to prove our claims in any way. You just have to trust us and give us what we want to make things fair."

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/0 ... he-lockout

Red_One43 wrote:Alright fair enough. But these employees, if their union decertifies 6 months after the CBA expires, still have a right to work their jobs and the owners cannot prevent them from working. Now, the owner can certainly have the coach cut anyone he chooses after they are allowed to come back to work or deny employment to anyone they choose a la Kevin Mawae. But, let's see if they cut Drew Brees or Payton Manning. Von Miller may have just determined which owners do not want him.

I think you're confusing two different issues. If the NFLPA had not decertified prior to expiration of the current CBA then they would have had to wait six months to pursue any legal remedies per the terms and conditions of the prior CBA to which they agreed. That does not come into play as they did in fact decertify prior to the expiration of the CBA. Decertification was necessary under antitrust laws because a union cannot litigate on behalf of individuals filing individual lawsuits against individual owners. The cases are actually Peyton Manning vs. Jim Irsay, Tom Brady vs. Bob Kraft, etc., they are not every NFL player class action versus the NFL. Should the court issue an injunction against the lockout, which could take weeks, it would be expected the NFL owners would appeal to the 8th Circuit Court Of Appeals. During the appeal process there would still be no NFL business as usual. The NFL has a contingency plan to operate under the same CBA rules as last season should the injunction be upheld and no new CBA agreement be reached. Owners knew the players would never agree to a $1BB, or what amounts to a $500,000 per player per year reduction in revenue sharing. In business you never start where you want to end. That still doesn't entitle players to a fishing expedition of accounting nor does it entitle owners to know the accounting of other teams. Truthfully, I think neither side wanted to negotiate. When people want to work resolutions they don't take three day vacations with the statutory clock tolling on them.

TCIYM wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:Alright fair enough. But these employees, if their union decertifies 6 months after the CBA expires, still have a right to work their jobs and the owners cannot prevent them from working. Now, the owner can certainly have the coach cut anyone he chooses after they are allowed to come back to work or deny employment to anyone they choose a la Kevin Mawae. But, let's see if they cut Drew Brees or Payton Manning. Von Miller may have just determined which owners do not want him.

I think you're confusing two different issues. If the NFLPA had not decertified prior to expiration of the current CBA then they would have had to wait six months to pursue any legal remedies per the terms and conditions of the prior CBA to which they agreed. That does not come into play as they did in fact decertify prior to the expiration of the CBA. Decertification was necessary under antitrust laws because a union cannot litigate on behalf of individuals filing individual lawsuits against individual owners. The cases are actually Peyton Manning vs. Jim Irsay, Tom Brady vs. Bob Kraft, etc., they are not every NFL player class action versus the NFL. Should the court issue an injunction against the lockout, which could take weeks, it would be expected the NFL owners would appeal to the 8th Circuit Court Of Appeals. During the appeal process there would still be no NFL business as usual. The NFL has a contingency plan to operate under the same CBA rules as last season should the injunction be upheld and no new CBA agreement be reached. Owners knew the players would never agree to a $1BB, or what amounts to a $500,000 per player per year reduction in revenue sharing. In business you never start where you want to end. That still doesn't entitle players to a fishing expedition of accounting nor does it entitle owners to know the accounting of other teams. Truthfully, I think neither side wanted to negotiate. When people want to work resolutions they don't take three day vacations with the statutory clock tolling on them.

Actually, I am not confusing two issues. To taqke away the "Sham" arguement from the owners, the union needs to decertify 6 months after the CBA expires. If they decertify before the CBA expires which they did, then they risk the decertification being labeled a sham by the owners which it is. If they waited 6 months after, the owners agreed with the signing of the previous CBA that they would not challenge the decertification as a sham. Of course, the NFLPA could not wait until 6 months, because players will start caving. As we all know, their case hangs on what judge gets the case. Read the link below if you haven't read it before check out what I am saying above.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... not-apply/

You still haven't addressed the fact that the just recently expired CBA was generating $9 Billion which would be successful in most eyes. You haven't addressed that the owners have shown no proof that they really need the Billion or any amound back. You say that that is the owners right. Agreed, but it is the players right to decertify - the only thing they have to try to keep what has been theirs for years. "Give me back money. C'mon, why don't you want to negotiate?" That is how the owners appraoched this which the players have said that a mountain of distrust has been built. There are many other ways to ask for money. I have argued that the players are partners, but one thing that you are right about is the owners definitely don't see it that way and the players aren't happy about it.

http://www.defendernetwork.com/nfl-play ... bor-talks/

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas ... -done_.ece

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/seahawks ... bor-issue/

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... p-secrets/

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/40 ... d-distrust

TCIYM wrote: Employees have the options of working for the offered wage or of finding alternative employment.

Let's relook at this one. When I was growing up, if an NFL team drafted a player that player had to play for that team or not play at all. Same as the rules in the civilian world, if you don't like that organization or its pay, you go find another company willing to pay you the better. Well, not the same. There is no other company like the NFL. Your argument of find alternative work does not fly with the Federal Government.

The Federal Government recognized the the NFL borders on the edge of being a monopoly, so to avoid that designation the NFL amended its draft rules to allow a potential "employee" to say no to the wages and position with an employer without any penalty whatsoever. That potential employee sits out at least a year and goes back into the draft. Bo JAckson did this.

Why do you think the Federal Government ruled against the way that the NFL conducted its draft? Because finding work in an equivalent business to the NFL is impossible and that constitutes a monopoly. Monopolies are illegal in Our Great Country. The government cut the NFL some slack.

Don't forget the NFL lost its anti-trust suit agains the USFL - once again the NFL was cut slack and had t pay the USFL $1.

The NFL better hope they get a judge friendly to their position or they might stand to lose even more of their exemptions. The players aren't the only ones gambling here.

My point - There is a special owner/employee relationship between the NFL owners and the NFL players. I know that you know this, but yet, you try to argue your point using a model that doesn't fit.

One federal judge with an obvious anti-ownership bias who doesn't have a legal leg upon which to stand hardly qualifies as the backing of the entire federal government. The NFLPA rushed to keep the case in the Doty court because they know no other judge would be so quick to dismiss ownership as having a legitimate case. You can bet the farm and the cow that NFL ownership will appeal the case right out of Doty's court should he pull another rabbit decision out of his hat. If the case is out of Doty's court the players will lose hard.

*grabbing popcorn*.. lawyer talk, gota luvit

And almost immediately following my last post it was announced the case has been transferred to Judge Susan Nelson's court. Here comes the NFLPA whining session about how the case was transferred from their pocket judge.

TCIYM wrote:One federal judge with an obvious anti-ownership bias who doesn't have a legal leg upon which to stand hardly qualifies as the backing of the entire federal government. The NFLPA rushed to keep the case in the Doty court because they know no other judge would be so quick to dismiss ownership as having a legitimate case. You can bet the farm and the cow that NFL ownership will appeal the case right out of Doty's court should he pull another rabbit decision out of his hat. If the case is out of Doty's court the players will lose hard.

If the ruling of the court stands then it has the backing of the Federal Government. It is interesting how you use legalese when it suits you and throw it out when it doesn't.