http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...n-union-decertifies-labor-talks-owners-031111 Thus far I'm siding with the owners- overall, anyway. The players make darn good money and certainly get their fair share of the money. Their tactic of decertifying to use a judge they own to sue the owners totally takes away any respect I have for them. They sue with a 'bought' judge, then unionize again. That's just plain bogus. The owners/league have yet to properly address the needs of retired players who start breaking down in their 40 & 50's due to all the hits they take. And their idea of an 18 game season is stupid. They need to take more accountability for what the players go through. The reason I overall side with the owners though is that the players walked out on negotiations and the owners had been the ones making most the concessions. Stand in like men and make it work, guys.
The owners make darn good money and certainly get their fair share of the money. That sounds like a pretty biased take on what's happened. Here's a good primer, IMO: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110302
My 2nd-best friend in junior high, Roger Stillwell, 1st team All-America 1973 as voted by both UPI and Football News. In the 4th best draft the Chicago Bears ever had, 1975. He was a starter in his very 1st rookie game. No rookie Bears defensive tackle did that for the next 28 years (Tommie Harris, 2003). After 3 seasons, a knee injury forced him to get special devices to pull himself out of bed. He had a ramp to enter the bathtub and walked with a cane. An HBO documentary was made about him and when I watched, I learned of his condiiton for the first time. He slithered around on the floor like a snake, not able to crawl. In 1992 he won $4M, and settled for the $2M insurance would pay, from the team doctor. Died 2006. http://www.classcreator.com/Colorad...-Prep-1970/class_profile.cfm?member_id=643237
Two things: First, Of course the owners get their share. But, unlike the players, they also assume all the risk. That's worth something. And, as owners they are entitled to their fair share. Second, that was a good article you posted. It also pointed out the extreme bias of the judge. I mean, I can't deny it's a shrewd move on the players to force the owners to have a judge who is openly pro player and anti owner. I know if I were a player, I'd do it as well. But, to me, it's a 'bought' judge due to his open biases. And it is a sham to decertify, continue to be a union, and then unionize again after a biased judge gives them everything they want. I also continue to maintain that they should continue and hammer away as a plan.
And it's precisely for reasons like this the owners have to get more serious about ways to take care of injured and retired players.
Similarly, of course players get their share. But, unlike the owners, they also perform all the service that makes the money. That's worth something. And, as players, they are entitled to their fair share. Can you offer a reasoned legal opinion of the decisions he made and explain how it shows a bias? No? I can't either. But the writer of that article can, as he seems to have a legal background, and his opinion was that the judge ruled fairly based on the actual evidence and facts presented. He could be wrong, but at least he has a background in what he's talking about. You don't. The ESPN article I provided in no way supported the idea that the players are being greedy or that the judge is biased. What it said was that the judge seems fair and that the players would rather lock in a fair judge than take their chances with a new one. If you have a good counterpoint piece from someone who knows what he/she is talking about, I'd be happy to read it.
Well, suffice it to say I side more with the owners and you more with the players. And maybe we should just leave it at that. Also, although not a lawyer, I do have a legal background and deal with legal issues every day. I am a mediator and decide cases between insurance companies up to $150,000 and my decisions are not open to appeal. It helps to not ass-ume too much on other people.
I was arguing your contention that the players are essentially greedy and should shut up and make a deal. Your claim that "players make enough" (with no reasoning for why that's the case except, probably, "they make a lot more than I do") can as easily apply to owners. I think both sides should be doing whatever they need to maximize their end. That's how business works.
What I was arguing, just so you know, is that the player and owners were using a mediator (which I feel is appropriate) and that it is reported the owners were making a lot of concessions but the players were simply demanding. The purpose of mediation is to explore common ground. It's to compromise. Instead, the players are leaving mediation and following a tactic that is indeed a sham and disingenuous in my opinion to force the owners to deal completely on their terms to get what they want and screw compromise. I've never been a fan of that way of thinking- from either side.
The owners are resorting to locking out the players under the principle that the players would "break" before the owners, so it's not exactly like the owners are adverse to hardball tactics. I don't begrudge either side resorting to such tactics, so long as they aren't dirty. And decertifying isn't dirty, it's a perfectly legitimate procedure, as far as I can tell. If you have some neutral source (ESPN, AP, etc) that supports the idea that the owners have been giving and giving and the players have been taking and taking, I'd be interested to read it.
OT: NFL Formally Announces Lockout of Players http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-nfl-lockout-idUSTRE72B25I20110312 (Reuters) - The NFL officially announced a lockout of players by team owners following the move by the players' union to dissolve themselves and pursue action against the league in the courts, the league said in a statement on Saturday. A lockout effectively closes down the league's activities and will halt any trade activities and any other dealings between players and clubs.
Re: OT: NFL Formally Announces Lockout of Players Baseball took a big hit when they had a shortened season. It was nearly death for the NHL. The NBA played a short season and seem to have come through without taking a hit. So with the NFL doing the harakiri thing, the NBA could fill some of the void. But the morons are about to have their own lockout or strike.
Re: OT: NFL Formally Announces Lockout of Players Memo to mods: Dear mods, why not merge this with the O/T thread started last night.
Re: OT: NFL Formally Announces Lockout of Players Despite all the chicken *expletive deleted* stuff going on, I think they'll make an agreement prior to next season.
I don't have a single specific article, just snippets from several. Here's a good common sense article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...03/11/nfl.labor.front.ap/index.html?eref=sihp
Another good article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/03/11/whatnext/index.html#
To me, saying give me 1B and then later saying, well you can just give me 500M is not really making a concession.
Again, to me, both sides need to step up and act like grown men and not spoiled babies. You can favor the players (or owners) all you want, but that doesn't make childish behavior right- does it?
