Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

The owners are wrecking negotiations

Posted on: June 30, 2011 6:37 pm
Edited on: June 30, 2011 6:52 pm
 
At the beginning of the labor talks, when negotiations were ongoing in Washington, which seems like a galaxy far, far away, I heard from several player sources that owners were playing games during the discussions. The sides would reach a verbal agreement on a part of a new CBA in the morning and then the owners would change their minds and the numbers in the evening. It went this way several times, I'm told.

Those types of games, players familiar with the talks explained, later ceased, and that's when talks took a signifcant positive turn with some sources believing several weeks ago that a deal was 80 percent done and a new CBA was on the horizon. That optimism remained until Thursday.

The NFL will disagree with this. And there is certainly room for debate and the owners will say this is simply negotiating. But in a series of text messages from several sources familair with Thursday's discussions, players say the owners are back to their old tricks.

Again, the NFL will deny this, but I believe it is the owners who are destroying this round of talks, even as the two sides are extremely close. I believe the sources that tell me owners are playing mind games with the players: getting their optimism up and then down hoping the players cave out of frustration.

The players held a conference call on Thursday to discuss the events.

Here's the good news: talks havent broken off. The two sides are still negotiating.

Overall, this was a bad day. That doesn't mean a good day won't soon come but this was not great. I get the feeling despite dealing with owner games in the past, this day caught the players by surprise.

A deal still gets done to save the season, I believe, but as the last media optimist standing, I'm about to leave the room.

Stay tuned. More to come.


Category: NFL
Tags: NFL Lockout
 
Comments
hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 2, 2011 9:52 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



tomlye
Since: Nov 28, 2011
Posted on: November 30, 2011 4:42 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: July 10, 2011 9:50 pm
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations

Ya, I should have left that last part about Detroit out.  I was kinda drunk when I wrote that and regretted it later.  Anyway, I'm gonna add you as a fav and 5 star your posts.  



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: July 10, 2011 3:22 pm
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations

Another poster said this so I won't claim it as my own:  We should just let the folks that allowed the demise of Detroit handle all labor negotiations.  You see how well the right to organize helped those businesses out.    When the tail wags the dog, bad things happen.  
I'll skip the what-we're-talking-about debate, since I wasn't drawing parallels to the NFL, just describing the rest of the country. I will say that I reject the false premise that because I don't have employees, I don't know enough about employees to speak authoritatively on them.

But really, I'd have been happy to let the conversation go if it hadn't been for this last bit in the quote box.

Whoever said this is an idiot, and I'm glad it wasn't you. Labor did not cause the fall of Detroit. Short-sighted CEOs and large shareholders and investors did. They refused to get in on the fuel-efficiency game, and while other car companies were churning out hybrids and low-mileage units, Detroit insisted on ramming gas-guzzling dreadnoughts down American throats. When it suddenly started costing $150-200 to fill up at the gas station, their sales (surprise, surprise) plummeted.
The fall of certain American automobile companies is entirely at the hands of the opposite of labor: the tyrants of industry, who saw more short-term profit in gigantic SUVs and trucks, and they acted as they always do. This is why the whole right-to-profit meme isn't just stupid, anti-American, and short-sighted, it actually makes our nation less secure. In a post-9/11 world, you would think some of these guys would see the long view. But they don't. More short-term gains at the expense of the future, more dependence on the thing we could do without (automatically winnng The War On Terror™), and forget taking a short-term hit to profits in order to set up long-term gains for the future. That's the western corporate way.

Oh, and the other part of the western corporate way: make the people pay for everything. Take huge risks, and when they don't pan out, demand a bailout. That's the free market, you see.

PS:
Not sure why you had to throw this in, but get down with your bad self.
It was a joke. And I will get down with my bad self. I did it enough as a teen...



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: July 9, 2011 12:00 am
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations

To answer the rest of these rhetorical questions in general, it's perfectly all right to make more than someone else. Stop pretending the suggestion is to divide everything equally. It's the huge gap at the expense of those on the bottom of it that is the problem. When the CEO makes 400 times what the average employee makes, that's a problem. If it were more like it used to be (40 times), or 100 times, or even 200 times, it would be a vast improvement. There's no excuse for laying off workers, cutting salaries/benefits at the bottom, and then giving yourself a raise to the tune of 400 times the salary of the folks you just laid off.


I agree with this statement, however, in this instance, it doesn't fit.  If we're talking about CEO's and mail runners that make 40k at a fortune 500 company, yes.  Not NFL owners vs. players that have an average salary over a million dollars and even the lowest paid make 200k plus.


There can't be 100% of the people in the top 10%. It's asinine to suggest it even as a rhetorical device.

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean ALL.  If you had 500 employees, no.  If you had 50, you certainly could have all of them be in the top 10%. 


Furthermore, the fact you DON'T have employees that draw a wage kinda discounts your expertise on this subject.  You aren't paying over 50% of your revenue in labor.   A janitor struggling to make ends meet for his family, gobbling up as much overtime as he can to feed his children while the chancellor of the school he works at is eating steak and lobster every night isn't the same as an NFL owner driving an Aston Martin and the employee (player) driving a Mercedes-Benz.  Who is going to pay for any and all increases in expenses for ANY business?  John Q. Public will, regardless of who is driving the change.

.
 
I don't need more. I don't need a bunch of expensive crap to make up for crippling self-doubt or insecurity. I have a normal-sized penis and don't need to overcompensate
Not sure why you had to throw this in, but get down with your bad self.



Another poster said this so I won't claim it as my own:  We should just let the folks that allowed the demise of Detroit handle all labor negotiations.  You see how well the right to organize helped those businesses out.    When the tail wags the dog, bad things happen.    



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: July 7, 2011 12:28 pm
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations


If that's the way you feel, that it is your (and our) civic duty for everyone to take care of everyone else, then tell me, why it is that you are still in the top 10%?    Don't you feel guilty about being set when most of the nation isn't?   You mentioned owning your own business which makes me assume you have employees.  Are they in the top 10% with you? Do you pay them that well?  Or do you feel that your investment and risk is more important than theirs, and take a heftier cut of the profits of your business?  If so, who decides that, you or them?
Come, now. You're smarter than that. It is our civic responsibility to take care of each other. We do so largely by paying into the system in the form of taxes, which go to programs for those who need them. We can as individuals give more through charities and other causes. But this red herring false equivalence you've presented is beneath both of us.

There can't be 100% of the people in the top 10%. It's asinine to suggest it even as a rhetorical device. For the record, I do not have employees. I am in entertainment, and I do all the work myself.

To answer the rest of these rhetorical questions in general, it's perfectly all right to make more than someone else. Stop pretending the suggestion is to divide everything equally. It's the huge gap at the expense of those on the bottom of it that is the problem. When the CEO makes 400 times what the average employee makes, that's a problem. If it were more like it used to be (40 times), or 100 times, or even 200 times, it would be a vast improvement. There's no excuse for laying off workers, cutting salaries/benefits at the bottom, and then giving yourself a raise to the tune of 400 times the salary of the folks you just laid off.

Seein as your NOT some Randian a-hole and refuse to laugh all the way to the bank, give to charity anything that would put you over the 50th percentile in earnings and get back to me.  Until then, you sound like a preppy blowhard.  Anyone in the top 10% will still be able to afford a ticket to a game even if ticket prices skyrocket because players are asking for more money.  A drop in the bucket for you if you have to shell out another 50 or 100 bucks to see a game, so I can see why you have no problem with players (that already make a handsome wage) asking for more money.    LMAO.
Okay, you're starting to make me regret calling you "smarter than that". First of all, stop saying the players asked for more money. They didn't. The owners did. If you can't get that one, simple fact straight, you are not to be taken seriously.

Second, the false equivalence is no better the second time around. If I am not poor, I can't advocate for the poor? Lame. Try again. Better yet, apply the same standard to yourself: Until you own an NFL franchise, you're just a blowhard who needs to shut up. See how stupid that sounds?

I have a hard time believing you live in such a black-and-white world as you describe. You're either a Randian a-hole, or you must choose to be poor? Really? There's no middle ground? You can't, say, make good money while helping others? Because a lot of people do that, you know. In fact, a lot of people make good money at jobs that are solely intended to help others.

By the way, the reason I'm in the top 10% is because I do donate so much of my time, money and skills. Otherwise, I'd probably be in the top 5%. I guess as a personal choice, I'd rather help someone else get from zero to one than boost myself from nine to ten. Nine is a pretty damn good life. I don't need more. I don't need a bunch of expensive crap to make up for crippling self-doubt or insecurity. I have a normal-sized penis and don't need to overcompensate.



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: July 6, 2011 11:08 pm
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations

<form action="" method="post">The funny thing is, most people don't even know why the economy sucks. They don't even know that it only sucks for them. The corporations and the top 10% are doing great. Have been for decades. High double-digit profit growth for nearly thirty years straight. It's the rest of the people who are doing poorly. Lucky for me, I am in the top 10%. I'm set. If I was some kind of Randian a-hole, I would just laugh all the way to the bank. But since I know a thing or two about history, economics, and the principles upon which this country was founded, I agitate for the gummint to take mah money away and give it to the lazy poor. /sarcasm Or as I (and the Founding Fathers) like to think of it, paying my fair share for the blessings of liberty. </form>
Some good points lotus, however:

If that's the way you feel, that it is your (and our) civic duty for everyone to take care of everyone else, then tell me, why it is that you are still in the top 10%?    Don't you feel guilty about being set when most of the nation isn't?   You mentioned owning your own business which makes me assume you have employees.  Are they in the top 10% with you? Do you pay them that well?  Or do you feel that your investment and risk is more important than theirs, and take a heftier cut of the profits of your business?  If so, who decides that, you or them? 

Seein as your NOT some Randian a-hole and refuse to laugh all the way to the bank, give to charity anything that would put you over the 50th percentile in earnings and get back to me.  Until then, you sound like a preppy blowhard.  Anyone in the top 10% will still be able to afford a ticket to a game even if ticket prices skyrocket because players are asking for more money.  A drop in the bucket for you if you have to shell out another 50 or 100 bucks to see a game, so I can see why you have no problem with players (that already make a handsome wage) asking for more money.    LMAO.   





Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: July 6, 2011 2:45 pm
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations

However my point is no matter if you there is a God or not, the most content happy people you will ever meet follow some type of religion. So why to HATE or show such distaste for it???
Prove it. I do not accept your ludicrous claim that "the most content happy people you will ever meet follow some ype of religion". Prove it, or leave it as the completely made-up lie it is.

As for why people show distaste for religion, may I offer you a serving of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Holocaust? September 11, 2001? Genital mutilation of women? Beheadings for ten year-old girls? Drowning children for having the hiccups? Crucifixion? Indulgences? Thinly-veiled rationale for polygamy?

Did you do any of those things? Unlikely. You are not religion or religion's spokesperson, and therefore are innocent of such atrocities. So if I were you, I wouldn't appoint myself religion's defender. There are far too many crimes, and you probably don't want to be on the wrong side of that case.



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: July 6, 2011 2:35 pm
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations

It seems to me you are comparing the Governments mission statement to what business owners are required to do.  Which is not the case.  Two different entities.
It's not the government's mission statement, it's ours. All of us. Opt out of that mission statement and you opt out of being an American.

You, too, are correct in that employees don't have the right to tell the business owners what to do. But they do have the right to organize, bargain collectively, and make businesses suffer if they don't do what the employees want. This is simply balancing scales long tilted in business' favor.

For their part, business doesn't have the right to deny employees the aforementioned rights. Business owners are required to pay taxes and (in most cases) offer benefits. They have regulations they must abide by which lowers the amount of profit they make. They are also limited in how they can respond to employee demands. They may not (as they once did) simply kill offending employees. They may not (according to the law that no modern President, Republican or Democrat, has enforced very well) simply fire them and hire permanent replacements, use excess capacity to undermine employees, or prevent organization.
The point of my saying that there is no right to profit is to counter the meme that profit-by-any-means is not only justified, but preferred. We have everything so backward in this country nowadays that we actually believe this. That's what a century of unrelenting propaganda buys you. I mean, corporations are inherently anti-American. They are pure tyrranies, fashioned out of whole cloth, using bribery, lawyers, and courts.

They only exist because their incubation chamber - the courts - are the least accountable branch of government, almost completely insulated from the people. Had there been any kind of transparency to what the greedy few were trying to do, it would have been just as vigorously fought as were the labor disputes that gave rise to labor rights (The US has the world's most violent labor history).

All the while, trillions were spent indoctrinating generations with the Gordon Gekko creed, so that now, NFL owners can get away with holding entire states hostage for money. People act like it's a violation of the owners' civil rights if they're not given all the tax breaks, giveaways, and subsidies they demand. It's exactly the opposite. It's upholding the rights of everyone else. But since upholding those right would interefere with the "right" to profit, they are ignored. And that's just one example - a minor one, at that. This NFL brouhaha is nothing compared to other situations.

The funny thing is, most people don't even know why the economy sucks. They don't even know that it only sucks for them. The corporations and the top 10% are doing great. Have been for decades. High double-digit profit growth for nearly thirty years straight. It's the rest of the people who are doing poorly. Lucky for me, I am in the top 10%. I'm set. If I was some kind of Randian a-hole, I would just laugh all the way to the bank. But since I know a thing or two about history, economics, and the principles upon which this country was founded, I agitate for the gummint to take mah money away and give it to the lazy poor. /sarcasm Or as I (and the Founding Fathers) like to think of it, paying my fair share for the blessings of liberty.



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: July 3, 2011 12:55 pm
 

The owners are wrecking negotiations

Read it yourself, genius. WE THE PEOPLE (who ARE the government) of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This is the PREAMBLE. Our mission statement, if you will.



It seems to me you are comparing the Governments mission statement to what business owners are required to do.  Which is not the case.  Two different entities.  And yes you are right.  There is no "right" to profit.  There is also no "right" for an employee to tell an employer what his profit margin is going to be. 


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com