Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
Originally posted by TheGoldDiggerrrr:
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Originally posted by valrod33:
AdamSchefter
As @MarkMaske reported, Federal mediator George Cohen invited NFL and NFLPA to meet and to try to help broker deal. First meeting Friday.
Adam Schefter AdamSchefter
NFLPA statement: "We hope that this renewed effort, through mediation, will help the players and owners reach a successful deal."
suggestions, recommendations. But he has no authorithy to impose settlements. Still up to NFL/NFLPA.
http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/nflnewsfeed/2011/02/nfl-union-agree-to-federal-mediation.html
I think it's a good sign . . . we'll see.
Yes, it is a good signed. As an expert in mediation, he might be able to come up way for the league to play season and continue the talks as the season goes forward.
He should also be able to provide a solid background on the past practice in contract talks on the validity of having the league open the books for union inspection.
Union inspection my ass, Thats not good option. Why would the owners ever agree to that. If you want to see someones books look at the packers only make 9 million more and they won the superbowl. I'm sure dallas and that new stadium would be negative 9 million since they floped.. The players just want to see how much money they can take. The owners want to keep as much money as possible and it's better to keep them in the dark to do that!
if this whole dispute hinges on the owners claim that they are losing too much money, i don't see why they can't open their books to the union in a good faith gesture.
Couple of thoughts: the union sees capital improvements as an unrealized profit and want it to be included on the profit side. Owners see it as an expense to both remain competitive with other franchises and to support the joint venture of which they are all a part. Hence, it becomes only another point to fight over. Neither side will agree on what they see.
maybe, but if that happens the onus would be on the owners to explain their position. Both sides are going to have to concede some things, but they're not going to do that unless they're actually talking, and they're not going to be able to have an actual conversation if they're not putting all the information out the on the table. It seems like their unwillingness to open the books is to hide something--which might not be the case, but that's a perception that they are helping to foster.
