Everything the players did was in response

Everything the players did was in response to actions either taken or long-prepared by ownership.

I don’t think you and Stuart are understanding what I am trying to say. I agree with you that the owners started this crap. The owners are at fault. But the two of you keep putting the players on a pedestal like they’re all high and mighty. Like I’ve said already, the owners suck for causing this whole situation. But the players equally suck because they fed us this “we want to play” bullcrap which is obviously nowhere near the truth. This entire lockout could have been prevented had they had a little more patience and weren’t so hard-headed.

Let me ask you a question: why did they players ask for a 50/50 split than balk when they received it? Is that the action of a group of players whose main purpose is to get a deal done and play football again?

Borscht for everyone!

I am not saying an equal share, but the statement is that this is a normal percentage for labor intensive organizations to spend on their labor. I am just saying that if that is the case, that percentage needs to also cover other individuals, not just the players. The argument that this is normal is specious. The payers are not the only employees that need to be fed out of that pie, and if the stats are indeed what they claim, they are supporting the owners side more than the players.

yes, but from a business standpoint, which is the argument, the owners are not out of the ballpark if that statistic is correct counting every employee as part of the pie they need to cut. If “labor intensive organizations” pay 50% in labor costs, it isn’t 50% to the superstars, it is also to the janitors and landscapers, and thus the argument that this is a “normal percentage” that the players want, makes it look like they just want their money, screw everyone else, we don’t care if all of the labor money goes to us. I am not saying this is the case, but the argument that was made, leads to that inevitable conclusion.

If I ran a multi-billion dollar business, I would prepare for down times, even if I never wanted it to happen. If the players wanted to avoid this, don’t agree to a CBA with an opt-out clause. The owners saw an issue and pursued a completely legal and valid option that the players were aware of when they agreed to the CBA originally. Quit whining because businessmen decided to do something they could legally do to head off what they perceived as a problem. We wouldn’t be discussing this if the players hadn’t given the owners the option to see if they wanted to continue this CBA until it ran its full course either.

The vast majority of decisions are made without all the facts being available. If you waited for every relevant fact to be at hand before taking sides in an argument, you’d die of old age with a long, long list of unresolved arguments.

Good point. In the end, (besides being condescending to the great Peyton Manning and hurting those poor players feelings) the line in the sand was that the owners wouldn’t turn over every single expense report of their finances to the players. What a ridiculous demand in the first place! I was surprised the owners gave them as much independently auditied info as they did. Yet despite being more than the teams even disclose to each other, it wasn’t “enough” for the players.
For example, if I want to make an offer on a house, how ridiculous would it be for me to expect the owner to turn over the records of how much money they have invested in the house, their w-2 statement, the amount of money in their bank account and a list of the costs of every improvement they made, or else. No, I’m going to do my homework, decide what their house is worth to me and then buy the house or not.
I realize this is not the best example, but my point is that the complete detailed financial statements are irrelevant. The owners are not going to be nickeled and dimed over every expense and micromanaged by the players union. The players had enough financial info to answer the question “what is it worth to me to play in the NFL?” If what they were offered wasn’t enough and they want to decertify, fine. But, stop hiding behind the excuse of needing all the financials.

We also know that the previous CBA (the one that just expired) was, to use your words, “dramatically skewed” in favor of the players and that the players agreed to the opt-out clause.

Did the owners “plan for years” to opt-out? Probably.

Was the NFLPA completely un-aware of these plans? Doubt it. They have smart guys on their side too.

-

If you agreed to a deal that heavily favored the other party and it included an opt-out clause, wouldn’t you use it? Possibly even knowing you’d use it before you even signed the agreement?

Why would you sign it knowing you were going to opt-out, you might ask? There are many reasons… you didn’t want the income to stop flowing, so you agreed to a lopsided deal for the next few years, knowing you’d re-negotiate in the future.

And, THAT is possibly where the owners made their biggest mistake. Maybe they should have bargained harder for what was fair at the time. Maybe they should have included a more specific language in the opt-out clause or agreed in writing on what financial data would need to be handed over in future re-negotiations.

Is it possible that the union knew full well of the owners plans and even gave them assurances that they would re-negotiate in good faith when the opt-out became an option?

other than “the news told me so” or “I hate the rich owners, the greedy bastards”