NFL negotiations. Blame the Lawyers

[wdleehi]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6663832

How close it did is a matter of opinion. Fact is, the moment came shortly after lawyers from both sides were brought back into the process at an undisclosed location in the Washington, D.C., area. As tensions rose and anger grew, two sources said NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith instructed his lawyers to "stand down."

With the lawyers removed from the direct negotiations, the process was said to get back on track and to a good spot. The scenario is an example of just how tenuous these talks can be and how quickly they can be derailed.

But it also is the ultimate proof that Smith and his players, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners have taken the process out of the hands of the attorneys and demanded that they control it as the two sides try to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement.

During negotiations in the winter, many around the league worried that the lawyers were controlling the process. But Tuesday's events are the strongest evidence to date that they are not.

See, there is a winner in this thing.  Lawyer fees. 

[Chris]

I just saw this article, and it made me smile.  I really hope the NBA becomes that motivated to get something done...

[wdleehi]

I just saw this article, and it made me smile.  I really hope the NBA becomes that motivated to get something done...

They are just too different.


In the NFL, there is a lot more money being made by the owners.


In the NBA, teams are losing money.

[Chris]

I just saw this article, and it made me smile.  I really hope the NBA becomes that motivated to get something done...

They are just too different.


In the NFL, there is a lot more money being made by the owners.


In the NBA, teams are losing money.

Yeah, I agree.  

There is one similarity though.  I think in the NBA, much like the NFL, the issue isn't between the players and the owners, it is among the owners themselves.

In both situations, you have the owners who are making a ton of money, and the owners who are losing money.  If they want to prevent the owners from losing money, they have to either lower the cap to a level that suits the bottom teams (which the players won't agree to, because the big market teams would just be rolling in the cash), or do more profit sharing, which allows them to keep the cap higher, with no teams losing cash.  

But of course, the owners who are doing well don't want to be giving up their profits, just so other teams (many of whom, might not put the money back into the team the way they do) can make money.  

In the NFL, things are going too well for them to really let them lose revenue over this, but in the NBA, I think this could be enough to really mess things up for a long time.  I just can't see Mark Cuban or Wyc agree to share much more money with guys like Donald Stern.  

(edit: I meant Donald Sterling...)

[wdleehi]

Donald Stern. 

Evil Scientist at work.


All powerful but cheap.   

[Chris]

Donald Stern. 

Evil Scientist at work.


All powerful but cheap.   

Haha, whoops, meant Sterling...

[MBz]

I hope this means the owners and players of the NBA will want to settle things, but I am not sure if it's going to happen.  The changes they want to make just seem too drastic to me for their to NOT be a lock out.

[Evantime34]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6663832

How close it did is a matter of opinion. Fact is, the moment came shortly after lawyers from both sides were brought back into the process at an undisclosed location in the Washington, D.C., area. As tensions rose and anger grew, two sources said NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith instructed his lawyers to "stand down."

With the lawyers removed from the direct negotiations, the process was said to get back on track and to a good spot. The scenario is an example of just how tenuous these talks can be and how quickly they can be derailed.

But it also is the ultimate proof that Smith and his players, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners have taken the process out of the hands of the attorneys and demanded that they control it as the two sides try to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement.

During negotiations in the winter, many around the league worried that the lawyers were controlling the process. But Tuesday's events are the strongest evidence to date that they are not.

See, there is a winner in this thing.  Lawyer fees. 

The problem is the players needed to involve the lawyers. The owners were being greedy and thought that the players had no choice but to negotiate on the owners terms. Involving the lawyers showed the owners that the players do have means to fight them, which evened the playing field to the point that both sides could negotiate in good faith.

[wdleehi]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6663832

How close it did is a matter of opinion. Fact is, the moment came shortly after lawyers from both sides were brought back into the process at an undisclosed location in the Washington, D.C., area. As tensions rose and anger grew, two sources said NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith instructed his lawyers to "stand down."

With the lawyers removed from the direct negotiations, the process was said to get back on track and to a good spot. The scenario is an example of just how tenuous these talks can be and how quickly they can be derailed.

But it also is the ultimate proof that Smith and his players, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners have taken the process out of the hands of the attorneys and demanded that they control it as the two sides try to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement.

During negotiations in the winter, many around the league worried that the lawyers were controlling the process. But Tuesday's events are the strongest evidence to date that they are not.

See, there is a winner in this thing.  Lawyer fees. 

The problem is the players needed to involve the lawyers. The owners were being greedy and thought that the players had no choice but to negotiate on the owners terms. Involving the lawyers showed the owners that the players do have means to fight them, which evened the playing field to the point that both sides could negotiate in good faith.

Lawyers on both side have taken over the process.


Yes, still the owners fault for locking out the players.

[Roy H.]

Attorneys are an easy scapegoat, but honestly, there's something to it.  I always tell my clients in similar situations is that the easiest path to a resolution is for them to sit down in a room together and to try to get an agreement in place.

Now, attorneys are often necessary to articulate positions, to educate the other side (often through court victories), etc.  However, the people who understand the reality of the situation are always the principles; the attorneys are just stand-ins.  It's often best to just cut out the middle man and to talk one-on-one without counsel present.

(I do think a lot of people in the field are conflicted, because a law firm's best interest isn't always the same as a client's.  We're supposed to side with the client in that conflict, but I think a lot of attorneys don't.)

[Chris]

Does anyone else get the impression that the only reason the lockout is not officially over, is because Demaurice Smith wants to get his name in the headlines a few more days, and wants to take one more opportunity to look like a tough guy?

[KCattheStripe]

Does anyone else get the impression that the only reason the lockout is not officially over, is because Demaurice Smith wants to get his name in the headlines a few more days, and wants to take one more opportunity to look like a tough guy?

No, I get the impression that the owners are trying to make a big publicity deal by saying the deal is over before the players have had a chance to look things over.

[Chris]

Does anyone else get the impression that the only reason the lockout is not officially over, is because Demaurice Smith wants to get his name in the headlines a few more days, and wants to take one more opportunity to look like a tough guy?

No, I get the impression that the owners are trying to make a big publicity deal by saying the deal is over before the players have had a chance to look things over.

They didn't say the deal is done though, they said that they agreed to it, and that the players still needed to, and that there are still aspects that need to be worked out, that can't be done until the Union is once again a Union.

And there is no way they would have even had a vote on it, had there not been an agreement on those terms in the negotiations with the players representatives.

[Fafnir]

And there is no way they would have even had a vote on it, had there not been an agreement on those terms in the negotiations with the players representatives.

I'm not sure this is 100% true, I wouldn't be shocked if the owners tried to short circuit some remaining quibbles to the main framework by announcing it as a done deal for them, now just the players need to vote and recertify.

[Roy H.]

And there is no way they would have even had a vote on it, had there not been an agreement on those terms in the negotiations with the players representatives.

I'm not sure this is 100% true, I wouldn't be shocked if the owners tried to short circuit some remaining quibbles to the main framework by announcing it as a done deal for them, now just the players need to vote and recertify.

As I understand it, the main deal *is* a done deal.  Remaining issues -- drug testing, discipline, some benefits -- can't legally be negotiated until the union recertifies, if I understand that correctly.  The CBA itself, however, seems to have been agreed to by the negotiators for both sides, and now the owners.

I tend to agree with Chris:  there's no real negotiating to be done at this point regarding the CBA itself.  Any failure to sign is just posturing for attention.