Future Idea to stop NFL Strikes

[ARZCardinals]

NFL stadiums are heavily paid for by the tax payers. (FACT)

Add a HUGE clause into every NEW stadium that is built stating that 10 games per year MUST be played. For every game that is not played the current owner of the team must pay the city X amount for money lost to the city.

My idea would to make the contract state $5,000,000 per game not played - but that number could be negotiated to higher or lower.
(That money is then distributed to local businesses and to city funding)

Tax payers pay for the initial stadium with the idea that it is going to bring people to the area to spend money.

This would force NFL owners to the table as they now know they have to pay a fee for forcing a strike not just on the players, but forcing it on local businesses as well.

IT CAN BE DONE

 

[40yearfan]

Hmmmm, the owners FORCED the players to go on strike? I must have missed that part.

 

[kerouac9]

There's no strike going on. Perhaps this should be used to stop an OWNERSHIP LOCKOUT.

Were it not for owners, players would be showing up and going through offseason training and gathering workout bonuses. We would've had a fan fest last month.

Blame owners.

 

[ARZCardinals]

my god what's with you two!?! Can't you even stick to a topic?

You know what was meant.

dang what's wrong with you two? We have weeks of the same thing going on here and a new idea is posted and this is all you two can say...

it's not a strike....it's an owners lockout....

ok yes you are right...I posted it wrong...you are so right.

 

[DoTheDew]

This would kind of put a strain on the league having teams play overseas or allowing any flexibility with preseason game locations.

I think a better idea would be to calculate the average tax revenue per game in the previous season, and have the owners match that number out of pocket for each game missed. It is only fair. If the tax payers paid upfront expecting it to be paid back over time from tax revenue, then the owner needs to honor that agreement somehow.

 

[TigToad]

It sounds nice in theory, but it would give too much authority back to the players in terms of strike-power.

The reason there is no negotiations going on, is both sides think they can win in court and force the other side to give them everything. It is greed now, if you 'force' the owners to have to play games, the greed of the player's side winning would eventually destroy the game. Same as if the owners "win". We need parity and a fair negotiated settlement that they can live with. Save the winning for the Superbowl.

 

[DutchmanAZ]

stop funding the stadiums with public $$.

 

[40yearfan]

There's no strike going on. Perhaps this should be used to stop an OWNERSHIP LOCKOUT.

Were it not for owners, players would be showing up and going through offseason training and gathering workout bonuses. We would've had a fan fest last month.

Blame owners.

If the players hadn't decertified their union, negotiations would still be underway or maybe even completed by now. The owners were willing to negotiate. The players walked away from the table. Once they did that, the owners had to go to a lockout or explain to a federal judge why they weren't negotiating with each individual player. Without rules in place, the NFL teams with the most money would get all the good players and parity in the NFL would be a distant memory.

I don't know how anyone who doesn't root for one of the NY teams or Dallas could want this to happen.

 

[40yearfan]

stop funding the stadiums with public $$.

I agree.

 

[kerouac9]

If the players hadn't decertified their union, negotiations would still be underway or maybe even completed by now. The owners were willing to negotiate. The players walked away from the table. Once they did that, the owners had to go to a lockout or explain to a federal judge why they weren't negotiating with each individual player. Without rules in place, the NFL teams with the most money would get all the good players and parity in the NFL would be a distant memory.

I don't know how anyone who doesn't root for one of the NY teams or Dallas could want this to happen.

The facts are thus:

1) The OWNERS decided to void out the current CBA before it's scheduled expiration

2) The OWNERS are asking for money back in a new collective bargaining agreement.

3) The OWNERS are preventing contracted employees from coming to their facilities.

I get that you side with ownership and management in every single case, but there's no getting around the fact that the owners sat down at that last meeting and said, "This is the deal. Otherwise we're locking you out."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183342/1/index.htm

There's no question on whom the main responsibility for the lockout falls. You can cavil about the tactics of the players, but clearly decertification was the only move that the players could make to assure some possibility of football in 2011.

 

[40yearfan]

The facts are thus:

1) The OWNERS decided to void out the current CBA before it's scheduled expiration

2) The OWNERS are asking for money back in a new collective bargaining agreement.

3) The OWNERS are preventing contracted employees from coming to their facilities.

I get that you side with ownership and management in every single case, but there's no getting around the fact that the owners sat down at that last meeting and said, "This is the deal. Otherwise we're locking you out."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183342/1/index.htm

There's no question on whom the main responsibility for the lockout falls. You can cavil about the tactics of the players, but clearly decertification was the only move that the players could make to assure some possibility of football in 2011.

1. You can't void out an agreement unless the agreement allows you to do so. Being pro-active is a business decision. Face the problem now or later. It's still there. It's only a matter of opinion as to the merits of picking when to make your stand. The owners felt this was the correct way to handle it and there is no use trying to decide how correct they were until we see how this season ends up.

2. Disagree with you about owners asking for money back. None of the current contracts will change. All they are talking about is future revenue and how to best divide it. The current CBA has ended. The players never had any of this future revenue in the first place so to say they are losing something they've never had is very disingenuous.

3. Yes the owners have locked out the players. The players refuse to negotiate so the only leverage the owners have is to not pay the players and create a financial hardship on them. Plus the fact that operating without an agreement in place between the owners and players will completely wreck the parity the NFL has finally achieved.

As far as decertification being the only manuever the players have, you are not correct. They could have negotiated in good faith and resolved the issue instead of taking this thing to court. Now the only people who stand to win are the attorneys involved.

Believe me, I am not saying the owners are without fault. There is plenty of blame to go around. The problem is that people need to look at this as they would any other business deal and use their heads instead of their hearts when trying to decipher the right from the wrong.

 

[kerouac9]

That's a lot of fine tap dancing there, 40. Basically you're saying that it was ownership who started the lockout and agree with me. No problem. The players do bear some responsibility for the labor strife, but the primary responsibility belongs--we agree--with the ownership.

 

[ARZCardinals]

I don't get why they can't agree to split all money 50/50.

Keep teams salary caps
Put a rookie wage scale
drop 2 preseason games make them reg. season

the drum keeps marching on

 

[john h]

It sounds nice in theory, but it would give too much authority back to the players in terms of strike-power.

The reason there is no negotiations going on, is both sides think they can win in court and force the other side to give them everything. It is greed now, if you 'force' the owners to have to play games, the greed of the player's side winning would eventually destroy the game. Same as if the owners "win". We need parity and a fair negotiated settlement that they can live with. Save the winning for the Superbowl.

There are more successful companies in this nation that do not have unions and or strikes than ones with unions and strikes. It can be done by reasonable people. What makes this thing so absurd is that the owners and players are rich-very rich people and are acting like it is 1920 when workers were poorly payed and owners used thugs to break up unions.

Over time the need for unions has become less and less. Many exist only through the tactics of having the government create regulations that make it almost impossible for a worker not to join a union. Some companies workers cannot work unless they are members of the union. Rules often require the company to collect the union dues for the union members. The car industry had rules that were so egregious that the big three have become almost a skeleton of what they once where. People could get paid by just showing up and watching TV in a well equipped day room. A screw might to be tightened on a light switch and that would call for a union qualified electrician when any 10 year old kid could have done it and a nearby worker was not allowed to do it. Workers are intimidated into joining the union. Union membership has been that of a slow and steady decline. The reason being unions have outlived their usefulness and have become an albatross around the economies neck. They exist now largely for political reasons. They deliver votes to the Democratic party and the party delivers the regulations that allow unions to still exist. Millions upon millions of union dues go to getting their supporters re-elected event though all the membership does not support who the union supports.

 

[40yearfan]

That's a lot of fine tap dancing there, 40. Basically you're saying that it was ownership who started the lockout and agree with me. No problem. The players do bear some responsibility for the labor strife, but the primary responsibility belongs--we agree--with the ownership.

K9, how you can read what I posted and come to that conclusion is beyond me.

No problem. You and I are on different sides of this issue as usual. I respect your position even though I disagree with it.

 

[40yearfan]

I don't get why they can't agree to split all money 50/50.

Keep teams salary caps
Put a rookie wage scale
drop 2 preseason games make them reg. season

the drum keeps marching on

If you were negotiating for the players, a deal would probably already be in place.

 

[john h]

K9, how you can read what I posted and come to that conclusion is beyond me.

No problem. You and I are on different sides of this issue as usual. I respect your position even though I disagree with it.

Who started the disagreement or lockout is immaterial. The facts are the contract expired and the parties cannot agree on a new contract. Who started it or not really is immaterial to the problem. Be sure, there is a problem or there would have not been a lockout. There is more than pure greed at work here. Neither side evokes a lot of sympathy but the public does not have all the facts.

To break this down in it's very elementary terms we have two groups of people who have no contract between them. Both want a contract They cannot agree. Neither party is owned by the government or controlled by the government. They should reach an agreement at a bargaining table and not by federal judges edicts. We have way to much government interference in business as it its. The NFL was not created by the government It was created by entrepreneurs and workers who came together to create a great sport for all to watch. Once the government and lawyers get into it then things can only go down hill.

I personally think that if the owners are sticking to this with such vigor they really do have some teams that are not making it financially. We already know the players make a lot of money. An average of 1.7 mil a year in the NFL. They simply want more. Maybe they deserve more. It is all in the eyes of the beholder.