Bears would open their books to get a CBA done

[balta1701-A]

Balta - Where are you getting your version of the timeline with the "down to the hour" breakdown? I haven't seen this anywhere. From what I've seen, the $1Billion went to $600+ million, and then to $300+ million...the owners are willing to give back 2/3rd of their original bargaining request.

That was entirely from me paying attention during the extension week. There was no additional offer made prior to the expiration of the original CBA other than the 1 week extension. After that, the $300 million offer didn't appear until Friday, hours before the CBA expired. It might well have been less than 12 hours.

 

You can look at the statements out of the mouths of the players. They didn't take the offer as being serious at all, based on the timeline. Here's Saturday saying it.

New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees, on the same conference call as Mawae, said the owners' final offer Friday "was all a front."

 

"I think it was all a show, with no real intent to get a deal done, other than just to say they made a proposal -- that was no different than anything else that they proposed over the last couple years, couple months, couple weeks," said Brees, a named plaintiff in the players' antitrust lawsuit against the league.

 

Brees and Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday, also a member of the players' executive committee, complained that the players were not given enough time to assess and ask questions about the proposal owners made Friday morning.

 

"It just seems odd you would wait until Friday to put out a 20-point proposal, when each point has a number of different details in it," Saturday said.

The only way that an entirely new offer could have possibly been considered by the NFLPA was if the NFLPA asked for a CBA extension, and if the owners granted that it would have hugely weakened the legal or negotiating cases of the PA because the PA would have been asking for the extension based on that offer. It'd make it nearly impossible for them to have turned it down.

 

If there was legitimate trust between the 2 sides....then maybe the players would have done so. But if there was legitimate trust between the 2 sides, then why wait until the morning of the 2nd deadline for the CBA expiration to make a legit offer unless you're not really trying to make a deal?

[jason]

That was entirely from me paying attention during the extension week. There was no additional offer made prior to the expiration of the original CBA other than the 1 week extension. After that, the $300 million offer didn't appear until Friday, hours before the CBA expired. It might well have been less than 12 hours.

 

You can look at the statements out of the mouths of the players. They didn't take the offer as being serious at all, based on the timeline. Here's Saturday saying it.

The only way that an entirely new offer could have possibly been considered by the NFLPA was if the NFLPA asked for a CBA extension, and if the owners granted that it would have hugely weakened the legal or negotiating cases of the PA because the PA would have been asking for the extension based on that offer. It'd make it nearly impossible for them to have turned it down.

 

If there was legitimate trust between the 2 sides....then maybe the players would have done so. But if there was legitimate trust between the 2 sides, then why wait until the morning of the 2nd deadline for the CBA expiration to make a legit offer unless you're not really trying to make a deal?

 

It seems to me that if the players wanted to negotiate, and actually find a middle ground, they would have just asked for an extension to evaluate the proposal made by the owners. At the 11th hour or not, the offer from the owners is consequential and should have been evaluated. Don't you think? I don't think it would make it impossible for them to turn the offer down. The NFLPA could evaluate and then put out in the media the various reasons why the offer wasn't good enough.

 

To me, regardless of whether or not the NFL's offer was poorly timed or premeditated as a bargaining chip, the NFLPA just doesn't really seem like they want to negotiate. They'd rather attempt a hard line, play games in the media, and roll the dice in the courts.

[AZ54]

IMO the NFLPA was more concerned about managing fan sentiment during the negotiating process than it was with actual negotiating. They lost a bit today when the judge held off on making a decision for a couple weeks and asked them to again go back to the negotiating table. Now that the union has decertified who exactly are the owners supposed to negotiate with? And if the union negotiates it just proves what we already know...that the decertification was nothing but a scam.

 

Because of that this situation puts the owners in the driver's seat. Even if they were to lose this case they'd have evidence needed to file an appeal. Will the players bite on this? I know the judge told them doing so wouldn't hurt their position. I'm not a lawyer but logically I'm not so sure she's right but then there are a lot of things wrong with our laws.

[balta1701-A]

It seems to me that if the players wanted to negotiate, and actually find a middle ground, they would have just asked for an extension to evaluate the proposal made by the owners. At the 11th hour or not, the offer from the owners is consequential and should have been evaluated. Don't you think? I don't think it would make it impossible for them to turn the offer down. The NFLPA could evaluate and then put out in the media the various reasons why the offer wasn't good enough.

 

To me, regardless of whether or not the NFL's offer was poorly timed or premeditated as a bargaining chip, the NFLPA just doesn't really seem like they want to negotiate. They'd rather attempt a hard line, play games in the media, and roll the dice in the courts.

That's the point though...if the NFL owners had made a good faith offer on the Friday of the deadline...then it should have been the NFL owners offering an extension. If they were making a serious new offer to the players that they thought there was some chance the players would accept, or at least could offer a counter-offer based on it...then they needed to make a show of good faith to go along with their offer. If its a serious offer, then the opposing side's legal team is going to need days to weeks to go through the fine print and make sure there's no poison pill in the proposed text (by some accounts, there was).

 

The owners chose to make that offer with no accompanying sign of good faith. The players were given no reason to believe it was a good faith offer and every reason to believe that the owners were just playing for the cameras.

[LT2_3]

That's the point though...if the NFL owners had made a good faith offer on the Friday of the deadline...then it should have been the NFL owners offering an extension. If they were making a serious new offer to the players that they thought there was some chance the players would accept, or at least could offer a counter-offer based on it...then they needed to make a show of good faith to go along with their offer.

 

I don't think you are using the phrase "good faith" properly. It's a legal term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary....od+faith+effort

 

In this instance, the owners made an offer in "good faith" because it was designed to forward the process towards a deal. The timing of the offer near a deadline does not diminish the fact that it was a "good faith" offer. In fact, it's a standard negotiating tactic that has no bearing on whether an offer was in "good faith."

 

In fact, if anything is not in "good faith" it's the players decertifying to take this strategy to court. See, the problem is that they are suing for things like no draft, and no salary caps - which would never get agreed to by the rank and file of players because it would accompany no salary minimums too. So those scrub players that now make a minimum of $300k per year, would see their salaries decrease significantly. Basically, with what they are suing for, the rich players would make even more money, and the poor players would earn far less. There would be no middle ground. So, the players are fighting in court for something that would hurt the majority of their members simply as a bargaining tactic. If that isn't a complete lack of "good faith" then I don't know what is.

 

If its a serious offer, then the opposing side's legal team is going to need days to weeks to go through the fine print and make sure there's no poison pill in the proposed text (by some accounts, there was).

 

Why? I agree that they wouldn't sign the deal unexamined, but if they came to a tentative agreement in principle, both sides could announce the deal and open free agency within a day or two.

 

The owners chose to make that offer with no accompanying sign of good faith. The players were given no reason to believe it was a good faith offer and every reason to believe that the owners were just playing for the cameras.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. The offer itself was a sign of good faith. I don't see how an offer that includes third party appeals for ALL infractions can be taken so lightly. It may not be the main thing to the union, but it's still a major concession.

 

Also, if you could provide a link that the owners didn't propose a time extension, I'd appreciate it. From everything I've read, the owners made their proposal, the players said "we have to think about it" and before responding, announced the decertification. Now I don't want to make this more complicated than it has to be regarding what either side should have done, but if you can show me something that indicates that the ball wasn't in the players court when they simply walked away, I'd really love to read it.

[balta1701-A]

I don't think you are using the phrase "good faith" properly. It's a legal term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary....od+faith+effort

 

In this instance, the owners made an offer in "good faith" because it was designed to forward the process towards a deal. The timing of the offer near a deadline does not diminish the fact that it was a "good faith" offer. In fact, it's a standard negotiating tactic that has no bearing on whether an offer was in "good faith."

 

In fact, if anything is not in "good faith" it's the players decertifying to take this strategy to court. See, the problem is that they are suing for things like no draft, and no salary caps - which would never get agreed to by the rank and file of players because it would accompany no salary minimums too. So those scrub players that now make a minimum of $300k per year, would see their salaries decrease significantly. Basically, with what they are suing for, the rich players would make even more money, and the poor players would earn far less. There would be no middle ground. So, the players are fighting in court for something that would hurt the majority of their members simply as a bargaining tactic. If that isn't a complete lack of "good faith" then I don't know what is.

This is where you and I differ. Defining "Good faith" for me is missing the point of my statement.

 

A good faith offer, as you say, is one that is designed to move the process towards a deal. I do not believe that the owners' final offer was designed to move the process towards a deal.

 

It was timed and written such that it could never be accepted under the circumstances, and by some accounts it had a poison pill in it (players shares of total revenue shrinking to below 40% by the end of the CBA). Most importantly perhaps, it didn't do anything to address the largest matter of substance that the Union has focused on; improved disclosure.

 

It was, in my view, an offer timed and written so that it wouldn't be accepted, so that when the Players Union did decertify and go to the courts, the Owners could come out and say "we made a final offer that was better than any offer we made, it was in the Players' hands and they walked away". So that some fraction of the people outside, writing on message boards and the like, would blame the players for walking away and not the Owners for how it went down up until the moment when it went away.

 

That's why I don't think it was a good faith offer. I think it was entirely to play for the cameras.