Players Union decertifies

[SAPHOJUNKIE]

Per Chris Mortensen, ESPN NFL insider.

Players union has filed decertification papers in Minneapolis court.

Peaceful renegotiation of new CBA is now a thing of the past. The courts will decide, and there may be no football this year.

[Xanathol]

The 50/50 split was talked about that is true. But the information your not including is the owners didn't fell that was a serious offer. And to be honest this is not even as fair as the NFLPA would have you think. Here is an article explaining why CSN Boston: Curran: NFLPA's 50-50 offer isn't what it seems - LockerPulse

I 100% agree with you when you say the owners didn't start talking until the judge spanked them in court. But can you say the players have? They are the ones who say they won't even talk until the owners open the books. That's not talking thats makeing a demand.

Once again if people are going to get all upset at the owners for something the players need to be held accountable to. That's all I am saying.

Ummm you do realize that your article says the exact same thing I did, except they spin it to not tell you the percentages current vs owner proposed?


Here, let me illustrate it - and you can check the numbers with what the article did provide if you don't believe me.


2009, the total revenue pot is ~$9 Billion. Under the 2009 CBA, ~$1 billion comes off the top for expenses to the owners, then the owners get a 40% split of the $8 billion that is left and the player pool is the 60% of that $8 billion left.

40% of $8 billion == $3.2 billion
60% of $8 billion == $4.8 billion

So the players got $4.8 billion.

The owners got $4.2 billion - $1 billion for expenses, $3.2 billion from the pie cutting.


~$4.2 billion = 47% of ~$9 billion
~$4.8 billion = 53% of ~$9 billion


Or in other words, in terms of the overall revenue, the owners get 47%, the players get 53%. Check the math if you don't believe it.


The owners' first proposal would have given them ~$2 billion off the top for expenses, then the same 40/60 split.

40% of $7 billion == $2.8 billion
60% of $7 billion == $4.2 billion

So there, the players would have gotten $4.2 billion.

The owners would have gotten $4.8 billion - $2 billion off the top, then $2.8 billion from the pie.

Using the numbers above, you can see that the situation would have flipped-flopped, meaning instead of 47% going to owners, the owners would have gotten 53%, and vice versa for the players.

The players countered with a proposal for a 50/50 split of all revenue. No money off the top, just split the entire thing 50/50, or in 2009, $4.5 billion to the owners & players.


The article you linked tries to spin things in the owners' favor by comparing the '50/50' number to the 60% piece of the pie. They don't directly lie about the numbers, they just show them to you the way they want you to see them. The 50/50 was most definitely right in the middle of the two offers, and the owners *walked out* in response to that and filed charges against the NFLPA, saying they were not negotiating in good faith. That just makes you go 'wow'...



More updates...

Kevin Mawae, per the twitter world, was quoted as saying over the 15 days of negotiations, they had a total of ~8 hours face time with the NFL owners. Makes sense, as we already knew the owners weren't even showing up for most of those meetings.


D Smith finally responds on the infamous 'final proposal' by the NFL, sharing the previously unknown percentage values. Basically, the NFL wanted the players to start off at ~44% of all revenue ( remember - 2009 was a 47% owners, 53% players split ) and have that number decrease over the coming years to 40%.

[matthewschiefs]

Ummm you do realize that your article says the exact same thing I did, except they spin it to not tell you the percentages current vs owner proposed?


Here, let me illustrate it - and you can check the numbers with what the article did provide if you don't believe me.


2009, the total revenue pot is ~$9 Billion. Under the 2009 CBA, ~$1 billion comes off the top for expenses to the owners, then the owners get a 40% split of the $8 billion that is left and the player pool is the 60% of that $8 billion left.

40% of $8 billion == $3.2 billion
60% of $8 billion == $4.8 billion

So the players got $4.8 billion.

The owners got $4.2 billion - $1 billion for expenses, $3.2 billion from the pie cutting.


~$4.2 billion = 47% of ~$9 billion
~$4.8 billion = 53% of ~$9 billion


Or in other words, in terms of the overall revenue, the owners get 47%, the players get 53%. Check the math if you don't believe it.


The owners' first proposal would have given them ~$2 billion off the top for expenses, then the same 40/60 split.

40% of $7 billion == $2.8 billion
60% of $7 billion == $4.2 billion

So there, the players would have gotten $4.2 billion.

The owners would have gotten $4.8 billion - $2 billion off the top, then $2.8 billion from the pie.

Using the numbers above, you can see that the situation would have flipped-flopped, meaning instead of 47% going to owners, the owners would have gotten 53%, and vice versa for the players.

The players countered with a proposal for a 50/50 split of all revenue. No money off the top, just split the entire thing 50/50, or in 2009, $4.5 billion to the owners & players.


The article you linked tries to spin things in the owners' favor by comparing the '50/50' number to the 60% piece of the pie. They don't directly lie about the numbers, they just show them to you the way they want you to see them. The 50/50 was most definitely right in the middle of the two offers, and the owners *walked out* in response to that and filed charges against the NFLPA, saying they were not negotiating in good faith. That just makes you go 'wow'...



More updates...

Kevin Mawae, per the twitter world, was quoted as saying over the 15 days of negotiations, they had a total of ~8 hours face time with the NFL owners. Makes sense, as we already knew the owners weren't even showing up for most of those meetings.


D Smith finally responds on the infamous 'final proposal' by the NFL, sharing the previously unknown percentage values. Basically, the NFL wanted the players to start off at ~44% of all revenue ( remember - 2009 was a 47% owners, 53% players split ) and have that number decrease over the coming years to 40%.

What the article basicly tells you is that under that offer things would basicly stay the same.How is that pro owners? So the players "fair offer" was to keep things the same just word it diffrent. How is that negotiating? You know that the owners are not happy as things are so lets just make the words diffrent?

They might have only had 8 hours face to face but that doesn't mean the owners were not there to talk. Funny how you right away put the blame on them. Most of that time the medator is talking to one party or anther then he goes to talk with the other. The medator is the one who is the link between the two sides. That in know way means one side was not willing to talk. And what you have never said is that it was the PLAYERS who left this. The owners wanted to continue medatation. The players are the ones who took this to court.

And you do realize basicly your arguement is 53-47 split if fair only if it goes the players way right?

[Xanathol]

What the article basicly tells you is that under that offer things would basicly stay the same.How is that pro owners? So the players "fair offer" was to keep things the same just word it diffrent. How is that negotiating? You know that the owners are not happy as things are so lets just make the words diffrent?

They might have only had 8 hours face to face but that doesn't mean the owners were not there to talk. Funny how you right away put the blame on them. Most of that time the medator is talking to one party or anther then he goes to talk with the other. The medator is the one who is the link between the two sides. That in know way means one side was not willing to talk. And what you have never said is that it was the PLAYERS who left this. The owners wanted to continue medatation. The players are the ones who took this to court.

And you do realize basicly your arguement is 53-47 split if fair only if it goes the players way right?

Now I'm not sure if you are arguing just to argue or if you even followed the mediation proceedings at all. The players were at every meeting - the owners were not, sending their lawyers instead. That's a fact dude - why do you keep defending them right out of the gates?

In regards to the article you linked and your comments.... seriously?!

Current: 47/53
Owner requested: 53/47

That's 6% up for the owners, 6% down for the players.

Player counter: 50/50

That's meeting half way, 3% up for the owners, 3% down for the players.


If you think that 'basically didn't change anything' or was not a negotiation, then perhaps http://www.merriam-webster.com may help you out? I mean seriously, I don't know how else to be civil and acknowledge what you're doing here.

According to you, its ok for the owners to be there 8 hours out of 15 days... but not the players. According to you, a counter of +/- 3% for a request of +/- 6% is "no change at all" if it comes from the players.

The best gem has to be this, though:

And what you have never said is that it was the PLAYERS who left this. The owners wanted to continue medatation. The players are the ones who took this to court.

Again, get your facts straight. There was no offer to extend negotiations, and the mediator recommended stopping the efforts!

after carefully reviewing all of the events that have transpired, it is the considered judgment of myself and Deputy Director Scot Beckenbaugh, who has been engaged with me throughout this process, that no useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time

So just stop saying the owners wanted to continue talks - they did not.

The owners are simply stating that now, publicly, to win over public opinion because they know the players cannot negotiate, else risk having the decertification called a sham and the antitrust case thrown out.

I am fairly convinced you're just making claims based on what the owners / Roger / Pash are saying because its what you want to believe. From now on, please, if you wish to make one of these claims like 'the players walked out', provide a link to back it up, like showing that the owners offered to continue. You get the picture.

[matthewschiefs]

Now I'm not sure if you are arguing just to argue or if you even followed the mediation proceedings at all. The players were at every meeting - the owners were not, sending their lawyers instead. That's a fact dude - why do you keep defending them right out of the gates?

In regards to the article you linked and your comments.... seriously?!

Current: 47/53
Owner requested: 53/47

That's 6% up for the owners, 6% down for the players.

Player counter: 50/50

That's meeting half way, 3% up for the owners, 3% down for the players.


If you think that 'basically didn't change anything' or was not a negotiation, then perhaps http://www.merriam-webster.com may help you out? I mean seriously, I don't know how else to be civil and acknowledge what you're doing here.

According to you, its ok for the owners to be there 8 hours out of 15 days... but not the players. According to you, a counter of +/- 3% for a request of +/- 6% is "no change at all" if it comes from the players.

The best gem has to be this, though:



Again, get your facts straight. There was no offer to extend negotiations, and the mediator recommended stopping the efforts!
So just stop saying the owners wanted to continue talks - they did not.

The owners are simply stating that now, publicly, to win over public opinion because they know the players cannot negotiate, else risk having the decertification called a sham and the antitrust case thrown out.

I am fairly convinced you're just making claims based on what the owners / Roger / Pash are saying because its what you want to believe. From now on, please, if you wish to make one of these claims like 'the players walked out', provide a link to back it up, like showing that the owners offered to continue. You get the picture.

Your doing what your accuseing me of. I have said time and time again I think the owners are being greedy. And I have even AGREED with you on some things. Like when I said that I 100% agree the owners were not really talking until they got spanked by the judge. So tell me what wrong doing has the players done in this? Are the 100% innoncent?

The owners for the most part are greedy shelfish people. (see me putting blame on the owners) But the players share in that trait alot. The players are now telling College players who will be in the draft not to attend the draft. Saying hay we are not even currently working to get a deal done but give up that once in a lifetime moment you have worked so hard for. In hearing your name called in front of friends and family.

The decertification is a sham IMO. The secound they reach a deal they will all of a sudden decide to reform the union. The owners would not give them what they wanted so they took them to court instead of sitting and trying to work things out so they might get the deal they want. And BTW the players have publicly stated they will talk if the owners open there books. Meet our demands and then we will talk. You know if the owners did that you would get mad about that two.

[wilqb16]

The owners for the most part are greedy shelfish people. (see me putting blame on the owners) But the players share in that trait alot. The players are now telling College players who will be in the draft not to attend the draft. Saying hay we are not even currently working to get a deal done but give up that once in a lifetime moment you have worked so hard for. In hearing your name called in front of friends and family.

Seems to me that choosing between the owners and players is choosing between a douche and turd sandwich.

[N TX Dave]

why do you keep defending them right out of the gates?

Let me ask you why do you keep defending the players right out of the gate. You both are saying the same thing over and over again and again. State you facts once and drop it obviously neither of you is going to convince the other.


Both sides are at fault both sides have valid points and both sides have BS points. But generally I am siding with the owners because the players are demanding to see the books opened, well show me one privately held company that opens the books to their employees and yes the players are employees of the NFL they are not partners. If the players would come up with something other than they have to show us the books then I agree with them but to "demand" the books to be opened is not negotiating so they are going to take it to court and try get a judge to force it which in my opinion would be wrong.

And like I said earlier both sides can kiss my

[chief31]

The 50/50 split was talked about that is true. But the information your not including is the owners didn't fell that was a serious offer. And to be honest this is not even as fair as the NFLPA would have you think. Here is an article explaining why CSN Boston: Curran: NFLPA's 50-50 offer isn't what it seems - LockerPulse

I 100% agree with you when you say the owners didn't start talking until the judge spanked them in court. But can you say the players have? They are the ones who say they won't even talk until the owners open the books. That's not talking thats makeing a demand.

Once again if people are going to get all upset at the owners for something the players need to be held accountable to. That's all I am saying.

Bottom line?

If the owners hadn't tried to scam everybody through that TV contract, and ended the last CBA, there would be plenty of time to get a deal worked out.

You can point at anything the players have done and say "SEE?!?!?!? They are now the bad guys!!!" But the owners started this fight with claims of poverty, and, as business goes, are still fighting for every cent that they can get, while imposing a lockout.

The players did not ask for this fight. They did not opt out of the last CBA. And the players did not strike. The owners imposed a lockout.

Are the players completely blame-free? No.

But this whole thing was brought on by the owners. And the owners have cancelled The NFL. Not the players.

[matthewschiefs]

Bottom line?

If the owners hadn't tried to scam everybody through that TV contract, and ended the last CBA, there would be plenty of time to get a deal worked out.

You can point at anything the players have done and say "SEE?!?!?!? They are now the bad guys!!!" But the owners started this fight with claims of poverty, and, as business goes, are still fighting for every cent that they can get, while imposing a lockout.

The players did not ask for this fight. They did not opt out of the last CBA. And the players did not strike. The owners imposed a lockout.

Are the players completely blame-free? No.

But this whole thing was brought on by the owners. And the owners have cancelled The NFL. Not the players.

I think many are misunderstanding my argument. I am NOT saying that the owners are ANY less to blame for this whole mess then the players.

In fact I blame them for a good part if not most of it. But It just bugs me when the players do things and do not get the backlash that the owners do. The players demanding the owners open the books before they even talk is just as wrong as a lot of what the owners did. If the owners had said we won't even talk unless you meet our demand of 18 games people would jump all over them and rightfully so.

I just think if people are going to bash one side they need to bash the other when there wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Both sides have far more then most people and we are the ones who put alot of that money in there pockets. I no I did by the Chiefs tee shirt I wear to bed everynight. and the many jerseys i have bought. BOTH sides need to finaly start to say ok maybe i can live with this if you give me this. Something NEITHER side has done a lot of.

[Chiefster]

Well, they can do whatever they want; I'm on a fan strike!

...Besides, I plan on seeing a lot of college football.

[matthewschiefs]

Well, they can do whatever they want; I'm on a fan strike!

...Besides, I plan on seeing a lot of college football.

I have been on a fan strike of college football for years. No nfl i might go crazy.

disclaimer Matthewschiefs lied when he said he might go crazy. He is a sick sick man. Use caution before approching.