Who do you blame for the current lockout?

[Spider-Dan]

What evidence do you offer to support your claim? I gave you some examples that supported my belief, lets see some examples that support your belief.

OK.  My evidence to support my claim that the owners chose to lock the players out before negotiating a complete resolution is the lockout that is currently in effect, enacted by the owners.  My evidence to support my claim that the players chose to sue to end the lockout before negotiating a complete resolution is the lawsuit brought by the players to stop the lockout.

What part of this is in dispute?

The players didn't declare they had won because they hadn't. The NFL immediately filed an appeal and asked for a stay.

That stay wasn't granted until a few days later.  Meanwhile, immediately after the ruling, DeMaurice Smith said that the players were eager to resume mediation.

You're right, we have not been in the negotiations so we don't know for sure all what was offered, but frankly actions speak louder than words. The players are the ones that decertified so they could take it to the courts, that is a fact and it's undisputable. They walked away from the negotiation table first and then the owners locked them out. The players made the first move away from negotiations, not the owners.

They decertified in response to the owners' declared intention of locking them out on x date, as well as the owners' action of securing a TV contract clearly designed to outleverage the players.

If I tell a roommate (and by "tell," I mean repeatedly, over the course of several years) that I'm going to kick her out on June 15 unless she meets certain conditions, and she packs up her stuff  and leaves on June 13, did she "make the first move"?

[Pappy13]

The league isn't losing money. The league made some $9 billion last year. When has it ever made that much before? Answer: NEVER! If a few teams are having trouble that is an owner vs owner issue.

As has been pointed out already, Gross income does not equate to net income. The owners are not suggesting they are losing money, only that their profit margin is shrinking while the players profit margin is increasing.

Decide how to split up YOUR PIECE of the pie among yourself and don't touch the players piece of the pie!

Are the owners and the players not BOTH of part of the NFL? Would there be a league for the players to play in if the owners closed shop? Doesn't it behoove the players to try to reach an agreement with the owners?

So obviously whatever deal is in place is working as the league is growing,

Yes it's working fine for the players as their yearly intake is growing each year.

the fans are happy,

The fans are only happy when the games are being played which requires a league. There is no NFL without the owners.

and the money is flowing in at a record rate. Yet the owners want the players to take a cut? HA! Good luck with that.

According to the owners, they have been taking a smaller cut each year. Maybe you find that hard to believe, but the fact of the matter is the owners were unhappy with the CBA and the players weren't. Usually the one unhappy is getting the short end of the stick. On top of that the owners were willing to allow a third party to look at the financials of each team and report to the players whether or not their profit margins were in fact shrinking. I don't think they would be willing to make that concession unless it were actually true.

And comparing it to the auto industry or the airline industry as you did in your long ass diatribe is LAUGHABLE!  Those industry's were on the verge of BANKRUPTCY! They were damn near finished and gone under. It was take cuts or goodbye.

I don't know where I compared it to the auto industry or the airline industry specifically.

The NFL isn't in that situation, the leverage is with the players in this situation.

EXACTLY! And that is why they don't want to negotiate. They have the NFL by the balls for the first time and they are squeezing them hard. I don't exactly begrudge them that, but then the NFL has EVERY RIGHT to say enough is enough and lock the players out. If the players don't win in the courts, the side that gets to do the squeezing might be changing. I'll feel bad for the players then, but it will be there own fault. Now if they win, I just don't hope they destroy the NFL as we know it.

[Pappy13]

OK.  My evidence to support my claim that the owners chose to lock the players out before negotiating a complete resolution is the lockout that is currently in effect, enacted by the owners.

After the players decertified. What else were the owners supposed to do at that point? Throw up their hands and say "You got us, we give"? There was no union left to negotiate with.

My evidence to support my claim that the players chose to sue to end the lockout before negotiating a complete resolution is the lawsuit brought by the players to stop the lockout.

What part of this is in dispute?

That's recent events. That does nothing to support your claim that it has ALWAYS been that way. How does that support your claim that the owners were NOT negotiating in good faith? They locked out the players only AFTER the players decertified, NOT before.

That stay wasn't granted until a few days later.

The owners had already filed an appeal. The imposed resumption of the season wasn't going to last unless the players won on appeal which would have happened well before the season was to start. They had won nothing at that point except a lower court's ruling which they were expected to win and which was expected to be overturned on appeal. Everyone knew that was merely the first step in a very long process.

Meanwhile, immediately after the ruling, DeMaurice Smith said that the players were eager to resume mediation.
They decertified in response to the owners' declared intention of locking them out on x date, as well as the owners' action of securing a TV contract clearly designed to outleverage the players.

Ah, declared intention. I see. I don't suppose the players declared any intentions did they?

If I tell a roommate (and by "tell," I mean repeatedly, over the course of several years) that I'm going to kick her out on June 15 unless she meets certain conditions, and she packs up her stuff and leaves on June 13, did she "make the first move"?

If I tell a roomate that I have a contract with that says the last day she can live with me is June 12th and I tell her that I'm not going to renew that contract, but that I would be more than happy to negotiate a new one and she fails to negotiate a new contract, should she leave on June 12th or continue to live there? And if she's still there on June 13th, should I just allow her to stay for as long as she wants or should I be allowed to put a lock on the front door so that she can't come back? If not, why not? And which of the above 2 scenario's is closer to actual events?

[Spider-Dan]

After the players decertified. What else were the owners supposed to do at that point? Throw up their hands and say "You got us, we give"?

Are you seriously representing that the owners would not have locked the players out (after promising to for over 2 years) if only the players had not decertified?

You're putting the cart before the horse, here.  The decertification was in response to the lockout, not the other way around.  You cannot claim with a straight face that the players would have decertified without the looming lockout.  There would have been no point to doing so.

There was no union left to negotiate with.

Irrelevant.  There is no union now and the league is still negotiating with the players.

That's recent events. That does nothing to support your claim that it has ALWAYS been that way. How does that support your claim that the owners were NOT negotiating in good faith?

The terms of the TV contract show that the owners were not negotiating in good faith.

They locked out the players only AFTER the players decertified, NOT before.

Again, semantics.  Without a lockout, a decertification doesn't even accomplish anything.  The decertification was a response that, for legal reasons, had to be enacted before the lockout officially took effect (in order to allow the players to sue to stop the lockout under anti-trust laws).

The owners had already filed an appeal. The imposed resumption of the season wasn't going to last unless the players won on appeal which would have happened well before the season was to start. They had won nothing at that point except a lower court's ruling which they were expected to win and which was expected to be overturned on appeal.

1) I challenge you to cite major news outlets that "expected" the players to win their case.
2) You speak as if the ruling has been overturned already; it has not.  The decision not to stay the ruling was overturned, but that's not even remotely the same thing as overturning the ruling itself.

So let's get you on record now: if the players win the appeal, and their response is to return to the negotiating table (exactly as it was after they won on the original ruling), how does that affect your position on whether or not the players have been negotiating genuinely?

If I tell a roomate that I have a contract with that says the last day she can live with me is June 12th and I tell her that I'm not going to renew that contract, but that I would be more than happy to negotiate a new one and she fails to negotiate a new contract, should she leave on June 12th or continue to live there? And if she's still there on June 13th, should I just allow her to stay for as long as she wants or should I be allowed to put a lock on the front door so that she can't come back? If not, why not? And which of the above 2 scenario's is closer to actual events?

For your analogy to be accurate, all players' contracts would have to have been scheduled to end on June 12th.  And yet, for reasons unknown, owners continued to sign players to contracts past the end of the time where they planned to lock players out (unless their desired conditions were met).

[Pappy13]

Are you seriously representing that the owners would not have locked the players out (after promising to for over 2 years) if only the players had not decertified?

Are you seriously representing that the players would not have decertified and filed an anti-trust lawsuit after promising to for over 2 years and then going ahead and doing it?

The decertification was in response to the lockout

Shocking since it was prior to it.

You cannot claim with a straight face that the players would have decertified without the looming lockout. There would have been no point to doing so.

I absolutely can. They decertified because they had to prior to the end of the CBA to be able to file anti-trust charges at that time, they would have had to wait 6 months. That's the whole point of litigation, anti-trust charges, they couldn't wait 6 months lockout or no lockout.

Irrelevant.  There is no union now and the league is still negotiating with the players.

Which I find quite odd. I'm assuming that any agreement would have to include the NFLPA recertifying? I don't know how they can reach a collective bargaining agreement now without certifying again.

The terms of the TV contract show that the owners were not negotiating in good faith.

No it doesn't, it shows the lack of faith they had that the players would negotiate and they were attempting to protect themselves.

Again, semantics.  Without a lockout, a decertification doesn't even accomplish anything.

Yes it does, it allows them to file anti-trust litigation against the league which includes the lockout, but is not restricted solely to the lockout.

The decertification was a response that, for legal reasons, had to be enacted before the lockout officially took effect (in order to allow the players to sue to stop the lockout under anti-trust laws).

Wrong, the decertification had to be done prior to the end of the CBA or they wouldn't have been able to file for another 6 months. It had nothing to do with when the lockout was called, it had to do with when the CBA expired.

1) I challenge you to cite major news outlets that "expected" the players to win their case.

I'll see what I can do.

2) You speak as if the ruling has been overturned already; it has not.  The decision not to stay the ruling was overturned, but that's not even remotely the same thing as overturning the ruling itself.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6557162

"The 8th Circuit's decision to keep the lockout in place could be a signal of how the two sides will fare in the full appeal. The majority opinion, from Judges Steven Colloton and Duane Benton, sided with the NFL. Judge Kermit Bye dissented in favor of the players."

"The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the players no longer are represented by a union," the majority wrote. "We have considerable doubt about this interpretation."

What exactly makes you think the judges are gonna change their minds before June 6th?

So let's get you on record now: if the players win the appeal, and their response is to return to the negotiating table (exactly as it was after they won on the original ruling), how does that affect your position on whether or not the players have been negotiating genuinely?

It doesn't change it in the slightest. They will continue to put up a front that they would like to negotiate, all the while doing everything possible to win in the courts. The NFL has nothing to gain in the courts. Either the players win and things change considerably or the owners win and things go back to the way they have always been, trying to reach a new CBA.

For your analogy to be accurate, all players' contracts would have to have been scheduled to end on June 12th.  And yet, for reasons unknown, owners continued to sign players to contracts past the end of the time where they planned to lock players out (unless their desired conditions were met).

It doesn't matter because if a new agreement is reached, contracts would be unaffected. In other words, the league was proceeding as if a new CBA could be reached. I fail to see how that proves the owners were not bargaining in good faith.

[Spider-Dan]

Are you seriously representing that the players would not have decertified and filed an anti-trust lawsuit after promising to for over 2 years?

Please explain what possible benefit would result from decertifying without an imminent lockout.

The point of decertifying is to challenge the lockout as an anti-trust violation.  If there is no lockout, what does decertifying accomplish?

I absolutely can. They decertified because they had to prior to the end of the CBA to be able to file anti-trust charges at that time, they would have had to wait 6 months. That's the whole point of litigation, anti-trust charges, they couldn't wait 6 months lockout or no lockout.

And what anti-trust charges can they bring without the owners locking them out?

No it doesn't, it shows the lack of faith they had that the players would negotiate and they were attempting to protect themselves.

So in other words, when the owners take the first action in negotiating lockout-friendly TV contracts, they are "just protecting themselves" and not acting in bad faith.  When the players respond to this by decertifying, not only are the players not "just protecting themselves," but somehow this proves that they were never seriously negotiating all along?

It simply does not make sense for party A to accuse party B of negotiating in bad faith when the first action taken by either side is party A trying to actively undermine party B's bargaining position.

[The players] will continue to put up a front that they would like to negotiate, all the while doing everything possible to win in the courts.

Likewise, the owners will continue to put up a front that they would like to negotiate, all the while attempting to starve out the players while they continue to receive money from the TV contracts.

I fail to see how this gives the owners any sort of moral authority.

It doesn't matter because if a new agreement is reached, contracts would be unaffected. In other words, the league was proceeding as if a new CBA could be reached. I fail to see how that proves the owners were not bargaining in good faith.

Players and teams have agreed to contracts.
Owners are refusing to honor these signed contracts, opting instead to lock players out.
Owners have been very vocal about their intention to lock players out, in spite of the contracts they have just signed their players to.
How can you come to the conclusion that the players' response to a threat that was repeated publicly many times (and carried out!) means that the players were negotiating in bad faith?

[Pappy13]

Please explain what possible benefit would result from decertifying without an imminent lockout.

That's what we are about to find out should the players win on appeal.

I'm done arguing this Spider. We can go 'round and 'round all day and it won't change anything. Just FYI, I wasn't the one who voted players in the poll, I actually voted it's both of their fault as it is. However I do hope the players lose the lawsuit so that they will get back to the negotiations table and get CBA before the season is completely lost. I believe that's the only way it will happen and I fear what might happen should the players win.

[masterfins]

At this point I think it's just a pi$$ing contest between both sides, both wanting to show the other side they are "right".  Unfortunately, until the players start losing paychecks, and the owners start losing ticket/concession revenues, nothing will get accomplished.  Then we'll have a couple weeks of sloppy, turnover filled games not worth watching.

[MikeO]

Is that why we had a thread from disgruntled season ticket holders about why they decided to cancel their tickets?

they are obviously the vocal minority of one team.

When you look at 32 teams across the board that information is the opposite of a handful of people in one thread on one message board. 

[MikeO]

Now if they win, I just don't hope they destroy the NFL as we know it.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

give me a break

[Phishfan]

they are obviously the vocal minority of one team.

When you look at 32 teams across the board that information is the opposite of a handful of people in one thread on one message board. 

Really? We have also pointed out that ticket sales have declined for three straight years but I forgot that you don't like to observe facts that counter your point.. I'd say the evidence of fan satisfaction (at least with the stadium experience) is on my side.

[masterfins]

Is it possible the owners are talking up ticket sales going strong to push fans to renew their seats, or other fans to buy now to get good seats??  Would the owners do something like that??  (that's sarcasm in case you can't figure it out)

[MikeO]

From all reports it sounds like the owners have broke.

Only select owners are meeting with Smith and some NFLPA reps in these meetings thsi past week. And half of the owners are being kept out of the loop and found out about the meeting on the news and weren't even told about them.

Looks like the owners have finally turned on each other! THANK GOD!!

[Pats2006]

They need to just end it... everyone loses.. fans, players, owners.. tdmmc  COME ON!!

Dont know if I could go without football.. ill be lost

[MikeO]

THE OWNERS ARE BREAKING!!!! Players will win, as I have said all along!

Per CBS Sports:

Freeman writes that â€