PDA

View Full Version : More Good News -CBA talks cancelled



steelblood
02-10-2011, 09:59 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/stor ... NHeadlines (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines)

Thursday's talks have been cancelled. Glad to know that both sides are working hard to compromise. :roll:

Mister Pittsburgh
02-10-2011, 10:00 AM
Lame. I think not having a season is inevitable.

Oviedo
02-10-2011, 10:24 AM
There will be a season but I doubt there is much of an off season. There will be a draft, but free agency will be complete chaos.

2011 will end up be a transitional year with increased restrictions of free agents because free agency will rpobably coincide with training camp/preseason and probably 16 games laying the groundwork for 18 games in 2012.

I don't expect an agreement until June at the earliest because that is when the players will start to feel the financial pressure.

aggiebones
02-10-2011, 10:24 AM
Don't worry, there WILL be a season.

Players have NOT been conserving. They are terrified. They'll put on a good face short term, then they'll shut it down. About 20-30% probably have been conserving for this, the rest are desperate. The owners qually have zero interest in losing A NICKEL of the money coming to them.

Trust me, this is a ploy to get media attention and put pressure on the owners. It will get irritating listening to the media. So I suggest after this looong and ultimately painful season, just watch college basketball or hockey or whatever else you can possibly stomach and turn the channel when football discussions come on.

siss
02-10-2011, 11:03 AM
I hope you are all right. Because if there isn't football, they will lose a lot of fans.

Starlifter
02-10-2011, 11:33 AM
I have quite a bit of experience with CBA's, unions and negotiations. There is no pressure yet to get a deal done - so it won't be. I suspect there will be a lockout but I think it will be a short one. The players in my opinion have the leverage however I don't believe they are unified to do what it takes to get the best deal. A lockout has been a strong reality since the owners opted out of the CBA - yet very few players have planned for it.

i think there will be a very short pre-season but that we will have football next year.

Oviedo
02-10-2011, 11:53 AM
I have quite a bit of experience with CBA's, unions and negotiations. There is no pressure yet to get a deal done - so it won't be. I suspect there will be a lockout but I think it will be a short one. The players in my opinion have the leverage however I don't believe they are unified to do what it takes to get the best deal. A lockout has been a strong reality since the owners opted out of the CBA - yet very few players have planned for it.

i think there will be a very short pre-season but that we will have football next year.

I don't think the players have a leverage advantage. They can only work one place and that is in the NFL. Many know that their careers are short and while we know all the stars making obscene amounts of money the relaity is that probably two-thirds of the league needs those pay checks and they aren't going to hold firm once summer comes.

Billionaires did not become billionaires by losing labor disputes and not being able to turn things in their favor. My biggest concern is Demaurice Smith. The guy to me is a bigger douche bag than Goodell. Every time he talks all I get the sense of is he is trying to build his rep and will take everything down to do it.

costanza2k1
02-10-2011, 12:01 PM
I hope you are all right. Because if there isn't football, they will lose a lot of fans.

Good I hope so, get some of the bandwagon fans out of our stadiums and let the real fans back in with affordable prices.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
02-10-2011, 12:56 PM
I think that of all the pro sports, NFL players are systemically least able to unite the way others can. A few reasons.......

1) The NFL player has the shortest career expectancy of any other. The window of earning power is potentially very small.

2) Too many union members to not earn enough money to be set for life. Just going by the Steelers cap, I counted 24 players with a base salary above $1M in 2010. That number included player who were released, practice squad players, IR players, everyone prior to the 2010 season. This is less than half the roster who probably feels that they are not "set for life" and would be losing out in their goal to get there. Too many "have nots" to counter the "haves".

3) History - The league has busted the union once. Players understand that and will be afraid of it happening again.

Starlifter
02-10-2011, 01:08 PM
I have quite a bit of experience with CBA's, unions and negotiations. There is no pressure yet to get a deal done - so it won't be. I suspect there will be a lockout but I think it will be a short one. The players in my opinion have the leverage however I don't believe they are unified to do what it takes to get the best deal. A lockout has been a strong reality since the owners opted out of the CBA - yet very few players have planned for it.

i think there will be a very short pre-season but that we will have football next year.

I don't think the players have a leverage advantage. They can only work one place and that is in the NFL. Many know that their careers are short and while we know all the stars making obscene amounts of money the relaity is that probably two-thirds of the league needs those pay checks and they aren't going to hold firm once summer comes.

Billionaires did not become billionaires by losing labor disputes and not being able to turn things in their favor. My biggest concern is Demaurice Smith. The guy to me is a bigger douche bag than Goodell. Every time he talks all I get the sense of is he is trying to build his rep and will take everything down to do it.

I disagree about the leverage. without the players there IS no NFL. when we had the replacement players in the mid 80's the quality of football was very poor, fans were not happy and it was pretty much a disaster. That however (if memory serves) was also an example of players caving in and heading back to work. I don't think for one second it would happen but if the players held firm and there was no football this year - I think they'd get most of what they want. NFL players are a very rare species and impossible to replace - particularly with 32 teams. Additionally, there are no college players that would cross a line because they all want to be welcomed into the union at some point. If they stood firm - the players do indeed have the leverage. In this game however you need the courage to not blink. Cromartie has 10 kids by 9 wives or so. yep, he needs a paycheck. tragically it's for reasons like that the players will probably fail.

and yes, I'm on the players side. I watch my ticket prices go up every year and to be honest, between the games, the parking, the 9 dollar beer etc - the only thing of value I get is the quality of the performance of the guys on the field. The owners are demanding 60% of the revenue. I wish the NFLPA was strong enough to stand up to them, but I don't think they are.

RuthlessBurgher
02-10-2011, 01:11 PM
I hope you are all right. Because if there isn't football, they will lose a lot of fans.

Good I hope so, get some of the bandwagon fans out of our stadiums and let the real fans back in with affordable prices.

Not much is certain, but I think we can be reasonably sure that prices won't be going down any time soon.

RuthlessBurgher
02-10-2011, 01:13 PM
I have quite a bit of experience with CBA's, unions and negotiations. There is no pressure yet to get a deal done - so it won't be. I suspect there will be a lockout but I think it will be a short one. The players in my opinion have the leverage however I don't believe they are unified to do what it takes to get the best deal. A lockout has been a strong reality since the owners opted out of the CBA - yet very few players have planned for it.

i think there will be a very short pre-season but that we will have football next year.

I don't think the players have a leverage advantage. They can only work one place and that is in the NFL. Many know that their careers are short and while we know all the stars making obscene amounts of money the relaity is that probably two-thirds of the league needs those pay checks and they aren't going to hold firm once summer comes.

Billionaires did not become billionaires by losing labor disputes and not being able to turn things in their favor. My biggest concern is Demaurice Smith. The guy to me is a bigger douche bag than Goodell. Every time he talks all I get the sense of is he is trying to build his rep and will take everything down to do it.

I disagree about the leverage. without the players there IS no NFL. when we had the replacement players in the mid 80's the quality of football was very poor, fans were not happy and it was pretty much a disaster. That however (if memory serves) was also an example of players caving in and heading back to work. I don't think for one second it would happen but if the players held firm and there was no football this year - I think they'd get most of what they want. NFL players are a very rare species and impossible to replace - particularly with 32 teams. Additionally, there are no college players that would cross a line because they all want to be welcomed into the union at some point. If they stood firm - the players do indeed have the leverage. In this game however you need the courage to not blink. Cromartie has 10 kids by 9 wives or so. yep, he needs a paycheck. tragically it's for reasons like that the players will probably fail.

and yes, I'm on the players side. I watch my ticket prices go up every year and to be honest, between the games, the parking, the 9 dollar beer etc - the only thing of value I get is the quality of the performance of the guys on the field. The owners are demanding 60% of the revenue. I wish the NFLPA was strong enough to stand up to them, but I don't think they are.

All the talk about replacement players and players crossing picket lines are only considerations during player strikes. This is not a player strike. The players are being locked out. The owners cannot consider bringing in replacement players when they are the one locking the players out. There are no picket lines to cross here.

Oviedo
02-10-2011, 01:23 PM
I have quite a bit of experience with CBA's, unions and negotiations. There is no pressure yet to get a deal done - so it won't be. I suspect there will be a lockout but I think it will be a short one. The players in my opinion have the leverage however I don't believe they are unified to do what it takes to get the best deal. A lockout has been a strong reality since the owners opted out of the CBA - yet very few players have planned for it.

i think there will be a very short pre-season but that we will have football next year.

I don't think the players have a leverage advantage. They can only work one place and that is in the NFL. Many know that their careers are short and while we know all the stars making obscene amounts of money the relaity is that probably two-thirds of the league needs those pay checks and they aren't going to hold firm once summer comes.

Billionaires did not become billionaires by losing labor disputes and not being able to turn things in their favor. My biggest concern is Demaurice Smith. The guy to me is a bigger douche bag than Goodell. Every time he talks all I get the sense of is he is trying to build his rep and will take everything down to do it.

I disagree about the leverage. without the players there IS no NFL. when we had the replacement players in the mid 80's the quality of football was very poor, fans were not happy and it was pretty much a disaster. That however (if memory serves) was also an example of players caving in and heading back to work. I don't think for one second it would happen but if the players held firm and there was no football this year - I think they'd get most of what they want. NFL players are a very rare species and impossible to replace - particularly with 32 teams. Additionally, there are no college players that would cross a line because they all want to be welcomed into the union at some point. If they stood firm - the players do indeed have the leverage. In this game however you need the courage to not blink. Cromartie has 10 kids by 9 wives or so. yep, he needs a paycheck. tragically it's for reasons like that the players will probably fail.

and yes, I'm on the players side. I watch my ticket prices go up every year and to be honest, between the games, the parking, the 9 dollar beer etc - the only thing of value I get is the quality of the performance of the guys on the field. The owners are demanding 60% of the revenue. I wish the NFLPA was strong enough to stand up to them, but I don't think they are.

You could just as easily say that without the owners there is NO NFL. Do you think the players union is going to try to set up a league? Take the monetary risk for stadioums and overhead costs for running teams. Never. The players think that the NFL is like a public works program that is obligated to give them an opportunity to earn money.

It is a business and the people who own the business are the ones who took risks by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to buy teams, build stadiums, etc. If a team starts to lose money because sponsors go away because of the economy will the players take a pay cut "to help their teams and owners?" Hell no.

Obviously I lean towards the owners side on this because without them taking the risks to set up and run the NFL you would have a who bunch of ex-college football players who never got their degress working at Wal Mart of in the military in Afghanistan instead of being millionaires.

Mister Pittsburgh
02-10-2011, 02:13 PM
Goodell and Smith should just shoot dice for the CBA.

Crash
02-10-2011, 02:18 PM
This season will not start on time. This isn't good.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737

Starlifter
02-10-2011, 07:08 PM
You could just as easily say that without the owners there is NO NFL. Do you think the players union is going to try to set up a league? Take the monetary risk for stadioums and overhead costs for running teams. Never. The players think that the NFL is like a public works program that is obligated to give them an opportunity to earn money.

It is a business and the people who own the business are the ones who took risks by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to buy teams, build stadiums, etc. If a team starts to lose money because sponsors go away because of the economy will the players take a pay cut "to help their teams and owners?" Hell no.

Obviously I lean towards the owners side on this because without them taking the risks to set up and run the NFL you would have a who bunch of ex-college football players who never got their degress working at Wal Mart of in the military in Afghanistan instead of being millionaires.

those are fair points and I do agree the owners are a necessary part of the equation. I also think there has to be the potential for reward when an owner takes risk. We can all make fun of Jerry Jones but he has everything tied up in his new stadium. Just because I favor the players side, does not me I'm opposed to owners having the ability to make a profit. It does give me great suspicion however when we're talking about 9 BILLION dollars and the clubs won't open the books to show the NFLPA where the money goes. Also since the average career of a player is 5 years and the average length of ownership is pretty much lifetime - I think the players should get more of the pie. As to the subject of risk - I've mentioned JJ. I'm really trying to figure out which other owners have assumed a large risk. It seems to me, most of them hold their cities hostage to get as much public funding as possible to mitigate the risk. I'd say currently the only ones with risk are the players who haven't prepared and the TV networks who will pay for football this year even if they have nothing to put on the tube.

what side any of us is on though is not the issue. What we want is an agreement so we can enjoy the NFL next year. As I said in the beginning - I DO think there will be a lockout and I think by August a deal will be done.

hawaiiansteel
02-10-2011, 08:13 PM
February 10 2011

NFL Labor Talks Canceled as Lockout Looms Larger Than Ever

By Dan Graziano
Senior NFL Writer

http://www.blogcdn.com/nfl.fanhouse.com/media/2011/02/nflownersmeetingfootball.88613ddea6ea487f947a7c9c5 e7aff2e.jpg

The likelihood that the NFL will lock out its players on March 4 now stands at an all-time high after Thursday's scheduled negotiating session between the league and the players' union was canceled. Multiple sources familiar with the talks said the owners' side walked out of Wednesday's meeting due to a disagreement over the talks' most fundamental issue -- the manner in which the players and owners will split the NFL's approximately $9 billion revenue pie.

The union has been demanding that the owners open their books to demonstrate the financial hardship they've been citing in an effort to get the players to accept a smaller share of revenue. But according to two of the sources, the players said Wednesday that they would drop that demand in exchange for a 50 percent cut of "all revenue," meaning the total $9 billion pot.

The reason this is a non-starter for the NFL is that it doesn't currently share "all revenue" with the players but rather a smaller pool it calls "total revenue." The league and the owners take $1 billion off the top for operating costs before splitting any revenue with the players.When they say the players get roughly 60 percent of revenue under the current deal, they're talking about 60 percent of "total revenue," meaning after that first $1 billion comes off the top.

The owners, seeking in this deal to increase their share of the revenue, would like to take an additional $1 billion off the top, meaning the portion of revenue they'd share with the players would drop to roughly $7 billion. The players have said they'd like to see audited financial statements to justify such a hit, but the sources said Wednesday that they'd stop asking for that if the owners would agree simply to split the whole (roughly $9 billion) pot evenly. The owners apparently walked out after hearing that proposal.

Issues such as the 18-game season and rookie wage scale can't be dealt with until the sides agree on the framework of the revenue split. And as long as there's such dramatic disagreement on that issue, it's practically impossible to imagine a deal getting done before the current one expires March 4. The owners' insistence on increasing the amount of revenue they don't have to share with the players serves as more evidence for the union's claim that their intent all along has been to lock out the players and squeeze them in an effort to secure a deal very favorable to the owners' side.

Players are concerned about losing their health coverage in the event of a lockout, and it's possible that could cause fissures in their ranks as the March 4 deadline approaches. But so far it hasn't happened, and the rank-and-file membership of the union has so far given its leadership no reason to soften its stance.

The league also has no reason to soften its stance, as it's still months away from a lockout threatening regular-season games and has TV contracts that pay off even if those games aren't played. So all in all, unless something dramatic changes in the next three weeks, the NFL appears headed for a work stoppage on March 4.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/02/10/nfl- ... than-ever/ (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/02/10/nfl-labor-talks-canceled-as-lockout-looms-larger-than-ever/)

Chadman
02-10-2011, 10:42 PM
Not going to pretend like Chadman knows who is right & who is wrong, but there have been a few head-shaking moments reported this week-

1. the Union is playing the 'we're hard done by' card to the media, but it comes off as unrealistic when discussing the split of $9 BILLION.

2. The Union using a beer vendor & the director of American Rights at Work to defend their stance. Quote coming out of it- the work stoppage could be something that could potentially have DEVASTATING effects on our QUALITY OF LIFE & MENTAL HEALTH. For many fans, football is JUST THAT DEEP for us. "Could"? "Potentially"? Two wishy washy comments badied about with strong definates- DEVASTATING, QUALITY OF LIFE, MENTAL HEALTH. Nice way to play the media, but it comes off as looking desperate to get a point that 'might, potentially, maybe' not be a point at all.

3. The owners refusing to open the books doesn't give the fans a lot of faith in their stance either. That said, if one of Chadman's EMPLOYEE'S came to him & demanded to see how much he was earning off of their work, Chadman would likely tell them to blow it out their ear because it's none of their business. If the Union wants to play the "Rights at Work" card, they need to understand that the players are employed, not co-owners, partners or share holders. The OWNERS do not answer to the PLAYERS.

hawaiiansteel
02-11-2011, 12:29 AM
League, union sharply disagree on rookie wage scale, too

Posted by Mike Florio on February 10, 2011

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/desmithatallahfeb3-e1297382365408.jpg?w=250

The discrepancy between the league’s and the union’s view of the size of the slice of the pie that the players collectively receive isn’t the only issue on which the NFL and the NFLPA disagree. The two sides also disagree on the rookie wage scale.

Or, as the union now calls it, the “veteran wage scale.”

Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reported earlier today that NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith explained in a memo to certain players that the rookie wage scale proposed by management would affect players with three to five years of experience, or as Smith put it “the core of our membership.”

The league proposed a system including five-year deals for first-round picks and four-year contracts for players drafted in all other rounds; the union wants maximum deals of four years in rounds one through three and three years in rounds four through seven.

“This wage scale would have a very dramatic effect on league salaries when you consider the number of players that would be subject to its terms,” Smith explained in a memo to the members of the Executive Committee and the various player representatives, claiming that 60 percent of the league would fall under the terms of the league’s proposal.

But here’s the reality. Roughly 60 percent of the league already falls under an unofficial rookie wage scale, which after round one pays players reasonable amounts about which the NFL rarely complains — especially when a mid-round pick becomes a star. The issue here is the amount of money paid at the top of the draft, and that’s where the focus should be.

It’s not just about eliminating the windfall for unproven rookies, but also about redirecting that money to rookies who outperform their salaries and finding ways to funnel money that is wasted on busts like JaMarcus Russell to the retired players who made the game what it is.

There can be no doubt that it’s in the best interests of the league, the teams, and the current members of the union to ensure that unproven players don’t continue to get inflated contracts, the growth of which continues to outpace the increase in pay for veteran players. The union, in our view, is resisting much-needed change simply in the hopes of scoring a concessions from the league, and possibly because powerful agencies that pocket three percent of the first-round rookie contracts don’t want to lose their cut of the windfall.

Employed at one of those firms as an agent is the son of NFLPA chief outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler. (Just sayin’.)

This should be the easiest problem for the two sides to fix. In a cap-driven system, a rookie wage scale does not undermine in any way the total money available to players. Indeed, every dollar taken away from unproven rookies is one more dollar available to proven players. By ensuring that tens of millions won’t go to players who never contribute to the betterment of the game and by also ensuring that rookies who achieve greatness immediately get compensated for their efforts now, the pie can be carved up fairly for everyone.

But first the union has to ignore any and all self-interests clouding the process and commit to taking actions aimed for the good of the game, and for the good of the current members of the union.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/10/league-union-sharply-disagree-on-rookie-wage-scale-too/

steeler_george
02-11-2011, 08:04 AM
Come on man, they just want a 4 day weeked.

Oviedo
02-11-2011, 09:33 AM
Getting paid millions, or even hundreds of thousands of dolars, to play a game is a privilege not a right. If the players don't like their working conditions they do have the constitutionally protected right to go and find other jobs that they are qualified for.

Bottomline is that with out the NFL and the owners, these players have no jobs. There are more players looking to play than jobs so advantage owners.

aggiebones
02-11-2011, 10:58 PM
They may lose some fans, but as long as they don't ruin the game by doing something stupid like dropping a salary cap or something, they'll come back for the most part. They WOULD lose some money along the way though.

Which again tells me it ain't going down. Stop listening to every but of planted dribble. They throw those seeds out there to work up fans to force one side to sway.

Neither side gains by killing a season. Owners lose and the players get CRUSHED. They lose houses, careers end prematurely, etc. Players are screwed here.

hawaiiansteel
02-12-2011, 01:52 AM
http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2009/12/21/adamSchein_20091221010902_0_0.JPG

Updated Feb 12, 2011

Oh my goodness!! It’s over!! Talks broke down between the owners and players!! Reports say the two sides are miles apart. Are you reading these statements? There will never be a deal!! No football in 2011!!

Let’s al just slow down and take a deep breath. Actually, make that multiple deep breaths.
It is going to be a long, emotional, zany, frustrating couple of weeks.

Lucky for you, I have great editors at FOXsports.com, who suggested that I write a fans’ guide to the labor situation heading up until March 4. We will attack it with a “Joe Six Pack” approach. We will tell you what to look for and when to look for it; when to ignore the madness and when to go absolutely bonkers.

NFL LOCKOUT WATCH

Alex Marvez says the NFL's annual game in London may be in jeopardy.

Grab a cold one. Take a seat. I’ll walk you through the next four weeks.


FRIDAY, FEB. 11
It sounds ugly. You see talks this past Wednesday and you rightly get encouraged. The football fan is still feeling the good vibes from a great season and an excellent Super Bowl. The league’s popularity (did you see the astronomical Super Bowl ratings on FOX?) has never been higher. You start to believe that the owners and players know they have a responsibility to get a deal done.

And then the bomb drops.

Both sides walk away from a scheduled sit-down on Thursday. The pow-wow for next Tuesday is canceled. The owners were reportedly disgusted with the players’ original stance on how to split the $9 billion in revenue. The owners flatly refused the players' association concept to take half of all revenue, 50 cents on the dollar.

Panic sets in. Arrows and barbs are being thrown. But don’t worry – yet. We have three weeks. I know you are disappointed, but walking out of a negotiation is a great way to drive focus and a sense of urgency. It gets the antennas up.

Meanwhile, Liz Mullen of the Sports Business Journal reported on Thursday that DeMaurice Smith said in a memo to the NFL players that the league’s solution to the rookie wage scale problem would affect players with 3-5 years experience. According to Mullen, the league wants a system where first-round picks get five-year deals, with four-year contracts for the other rounds.

The players association wants max deals of four years for players picked in rounds 1-3 and three-year deals for those selected in rounds 4-7. Roger Goodell told me this winter that he feels strongly about eliminating the current out-of-control salary structure for players who haven’t played a down. But off of this proposal, the union is unhappy with the later date for top young players getting paid in free agency.

DOLLARS AND SENSE
There are 9 billion reasons to get real and avoid a lockout, Mark Kriegel says.
I actually think this issue will work itself out at the negotiation table. From talking to key figures like Goodell, NFLPA president Kevin Mawae and Colts president Bill Polian, I’m not surprised the players and owners took these early stands. All sides, including general managers, coaches and current players, with the lone exception being the high-powered agents, want it to change. This will get worked out.

FRIDAY, FEB. 18
So I am not worried on the 11th about the breakdown in talks. OK, by this point next week we better have more conversations, some lengthy negotiation sessions. The conversations need to be kept as private as possible. But when the inevitable leaks come out, keep an eye on the percentage of the pie. DeMaurice Smith says he won’t go lower than the current value of the players getting 60 percent of all revenues. Roger Goodell wants it lowered to about 41percent. That’s a heck of a gap.

And also follow these two issues from the owners; if they are pressed will they open their books and do you sense a divide between the “haves” (think Washington, Philadelphia and Dallas) and the “have nots” (think Cincinnati, Carolina and Buffalo). Now is also the time to focus on the controversial 18-game regular season, which Goodell is pushing to increase revenue. The players are rightly leery because of injury. Will the players accept an 18-game regular season if they get a bigger piece of the proverbial pie?

Don’t be surprised when you hear things like “OK, the players are cool with the owners’ plan for contracts for draft picks” if something like restricted free agency goes away forever and there are adjustments to the always-controversial franchise tag. And pay attention to how the franchise tag is being used.

If you start to hear about a temporary extension of the CBA, this is a good thing, although I don’t think that will happen.

FRIDAY, FEB. 25
It’s the annual scouting combine in Indy. The agents better be there. The incoming players better be there. There needs to be a resolution, or close to it, on the ultimate sticking point of the 18-game regular season. Pay close attention to the commentary from the very powerful Tom Condon., the super agent who will be most affected by a change in the rookie payment structure.

Listen closely to what the players are saying about insurance and rehabbing injuries. These are underrated buzz words.

This is the time where football fans will start to panic. Do you pay for season tickets? Could the NFL and the players actually do this to the paying customer? You really become skeptical. You will be checking FOXsports.com non-stop for Jay Glazer’s breaking news and nuggets from Alex Marvez. You will think football won’t be played this year. You will really start focusing on Ken Rosenthal and Jon Morosi from spring training, Jeff “Scoop” Goodman breaking down potential tournament teams, and our award-winning NASCAR coverage. Can any team in baseball beat the Phillies? Is it Duke’s year? Here we go ...

THURSDAY, MARCH 3
If we still don’t have a deal, now is the time to go to church, go to temple, go somewhere and pray. Gather your boys for some tailgating. It might be the last you are doing for quite some time. If we get to March 4 without a new deal, there is no sense of urgency to get one done. Forget about the draft, mini-camp and training camp as key dates. I only believe in one key date and that is March 4. You sound the alarms here. For the record, I think the powers on both sides understand that the American public in these economic times will not tolerate billionaires fighting millionaires to the extent that it ruins the NFL. Football fans live for their offseason and then the season. But if the owners are walking away from the table on March 3 ... PANIC!

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl- ... nic-021111 (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-labor-negotiations-when-to-panic-021111)

SteelAbility
02-12-2011, 04:45 PM
It's way too early in the talks for anyone to concede anything. This is the feel-your-opponent-out/posing phase. There's way too much $$$$ to be lost for a CBA not to be reached. When it comes to the financial, basically, it behooves you to hedge to the last possible moment to get the most you can out of the deal. Both sides are going to be doing this for quite some time.

Oviedo
02-13-2011, 11:38 AM
It's way too early in the talks for anyone to concede anything. This is the feel-your-opponent-out/posing phase. There's way too much $$$$ to be lost for a CBA not to be reached. When it comes to the financial, basically, it behooves you to hedge to the last possible moment to get the most you can out of the deal. Both sides are going to be doing this for quite some time.

It's all posturing right now. If this is still going on in June then there is a problem because you have essentially flushed your OTA period.

SteelCrazy
02-14-2011, 07:02 PM
NFL files charge against NFLPA

WASHINGTON -- The NFL has filed an unfair labor practice charge against its players' union.

In Monday's filing with the National Labor Relations Board, the league is asking that the union be ordered to bargain in good faith. The NFL says the union wants to avoid reaching a new collective bargaining agreement by the early March expiration of the old deal.

The league says the union wants to decertify so it can file an antitrust lawsuit.

The filing with the NLRB says the "union's strategy amounts to an unlawful anticipatory refusal to bargain."

A statement e-mailed by union spokesman George Atallah says the NFL's "claim has absolutely no merit."

The NFL also said that it will hold its owner meetings on March 3 -- the final day of the current collective bargaining agreement.

All 32 owners are expected to be at the meeting in Fort Lauderdale that follows two days of committee meetings that were previously scheduled.

espn.com