Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

[YardRat]

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/052508/jag_282651801.shtml

Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson was ridiculed when he opposed the bargaining agreement the owners passed, 30-2, in March of 2006. He and Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown were the only owners to vote no.

When Wilson said he didn't understand the new deal, the suggestions were that he was old and out of touch.

But Wilson was vindicated last week when the owners voted 32-0 to opt out of the deal, almost six months before the Nov. 8 deadline. And now the other owners are being asked why they voted for it in the first place.

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "I voted for it the last time because we had two years to see how some of this stuff worked, and if we didn't like it, we could start differently."

But if Wilson figured out it was a deal the owners wouldn't like, why couldn't Jones?

[Jan Reimers]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

In other words, Jones was for it before he was against it.

[YardRat]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

Talk about 'spin'.

[Typ0]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

In other words, Jones was for it before he was against it.

that doesn't seem to be what it says. It looks to me like it says Jones was for getting something done and seeing out different components of it worked...and then revisiting the issue again in near future. The only reason RW didn't vote for this in the first place is he wanted to pump up his posturing. He knew it was going to be voted in. The decision had been made. It was experimental. No one involved believed they had enough time or proper information to hammer out a long term deal. So they went with this to build the relationship with the players instead of tear it down. RW, on the other hand, used the situation as a ploy for more posturing that he is in a dying breed of working mans fans buddy buddy I'll support you type of crap.

[jamze132]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

I really think the owners have all the leverage. Seriously, if the players (Upshaw's stupid ass) can't come to a fair compromise, I say lock the ****ers out and play scabs. Regardless, the owners and players are going to lose money if their is a lockout but if players want to play in the NFL, it's a priviledge, not their right. They need to sit down and think long and hard about their longterm plans for the NFL.

If I own the team, I own the team. If you don't want to play because you don't think you are compensated enough, see ya...

[Night Train]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

I really think the owners have all the leverage. Seriously, if the players (Upshaw's stupid ass) can't come to a fair compromise, I say lock the ****ers out and play scabs. Regardless, the owners and players are going to lose money if their is a lockout but if players want to play in the NFL, it's a priviledge, not their right. They need to sit down and think long and hard about their longterm plans for the NFL.

If I own the team, I own the team. If you don't want to play because you don't think you are compensated enough, see ya...

[Jan Reimers]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

RW, on the other hand, used the situation as a ploy for more posturing that he is in a dying breed of working mans fans buddy buddy I'll support you type of crap.

Oh yeah, Jerry Jones is the working man's buddy. How did I not get that. And he is a superior owner in every way compared to Ralph.

I must be just plain stupid.

[Goobylal]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

that doesn't seem to be what it says. It looks to me like it says Jones was for getting something done and seeing out different components of it worked...and then revisiting the issue again in near future. The only reason RW didn't vote for this in the first place is he wanted to pump up his posturing. He knew it was going to be voted in. The decision had been made. It was experimental. No one involved believed they had enough time or proper information to hammer out a long term deal. So they went with this to build the relationship with the players instead of tear it down. RW, on the other hand, used the situation as a ploy for more posturing that he is in a dying breed of working mans fans buddy buddy I'll support you type of crap.

Sorry but your post is full of crap. The current CBA is a POS. Ralph realized this 2 years ago when he voted no. The owners had TWO YEARS to get something done prior to it, but waited until the last second and hastily voted-it-in because they didn't want to have to start cutting loads of players.

I agree that the CBA is an experiment: like Frankenstein was, because it's created a monster. The players won't back-down from 59.5% of total revenues AND accept a salary cap. Jones and his ilk were morons.

[Typ0]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

Oh yeah, Jerry Jones is the working man's buddy. How did I not get that. And he is a superior owner in every way compared to Ralph.

I must be just plain stupid.

sorry, I didn't mean to berate or insult you. I just don't see all the Hip Hip Horah stuff about RW. It's sounds good on paper. Makes you feel good. But the actions don't back up the banter IMO.

[Typ0]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

Sorry but your post is full of crap. The current CBA is a POS. Ralph realized this 2 years ago when he voted no. The owners had TWO YEARS to get something done prior to it, but waited until the last second and hastily voted-it-in because they didn't want to have to start cutting loads of players.

I agree that the CBA is an experiment: like Frankenstein was, because it's created a monster. The players won't back-down from 59.5% of total revenues AND accept a salary cap. Jones and his ilk were morons.

so then your position is they should have voted no like the prophet Ralph Wilson did. Consider what that would have gotten done and where we would be then. Forget about yourself and the fans now. Let's think for a minute about the players union, the league and the ownership. Consider those as the stakeholders. What would voting no to the proposal at the time have gotten accomplished? I think the league and owners pretty much said they could live with the proposal to keep things moving forward so all stakeholders were in a win-win...at least at the time it's the best they could do. There really was no reason, considering the out clause, for anyone to martyr themselves like RW did outside of posturing and spinning public opinion.

[justasportsfan]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

that doesn't seem to be what it says. It looks to me like it says Jones was for getting something done and seeing out different components of it worked...and then revisiting the issue again in near future. The only reason RW didn't vote for this in the first place is he wanted to pump up his posturing. He knew it was going to be voted in. The decision had been made. It was experimental. No one involved believed they had enough time or proper information to hammer out a long term deal. So they went with this to build the relationship with the players instead of tear it down. RW, on the other hand, used the situation as a ploy for more posturing that he is in a dying breed of working mans fans buddy buddy I'll support you type of crap.

you have inside info too? Give us a break.

[Typ0]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

you have inside info too? Give us a break.

I don't have any more information than you do...I just read it differently because I am a better reader apparently. You don't have to go much further than 30 people voted it in and 2 were opposed...and one of the opposed I have seen in press conferences admit he doesn't know what day it is or tell partial and rediculous stories...at times I've even seen press conferences called for absolutely nothing. You go ahead and assume this person in the serious minority is right. I'll stick with the other 30. And we'll see how many times I end up being right in the long run and how many times you do.

[Goobylal]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

so then your position is they should have voted no like the prophet Ralph Wilson did. Consider what that would have gotten done and where we would be then. Forget about yourself and the fans now. Let's think for a minute about the players union, the league and the ownership. Consider those as the stakeholders. What would voting no to the proposal at the time have gotten accomplished? I think the league and owners pretty much said they could live with the proposal to keep things moving forward so all stakeholders were in a win-win...at least at the time it's the best they could do. There really was no reason, considering the out clause, for anyone to martyr themselves like RW did outside of posturing and spinning public opinion.

It's apparent you know little about the situation. Let me lay it out for you.

The owners had until just before the end of the 2006 season to devise a new CBA and prevent an uncapped 2007 season. They did nothing until close to the start of free agency before the 2006 season, and used that start of FA as their deadline. They couldn't agree on a new deal and the NFLPA pushed the deadline back 3 times hoping the owners would come back with a new CBA that would pay them more. If the owners didn't do that, many of them would have had to cut a lot of players to get under the cap, which they obviously didn't want to do.

Suffice it to say that the NFLPA got what they wanted, and how! The owners previously had paid the players 54.5% of total revenue, which was ~2/3 of shared revenue (TV, merchandise, ticket sales, etc.). The NFLPA wanted 60% of total revenue. Ultimately the NFLPA got 59.5%. That's a 5% increase over what the owners were paying before, just a 0.5% decrease from what the players wanted, and the large market owners would in addition have to subsidize the smaller market owners (blood money). Yes for the paltry time spent on the CBA, it was the best they could do and "preserved labor peace." It still doesn't mean it wasn't a crap deal. Ralph saw this, as did Mike Brown, and they both voted no. Ralph made a joke about not understanding it, as a slap in the face to the other owners for voting-in such an important contract in just 45 minutes (most people take as long for their house mortgage). The simpletons in the media however ran with it, essentially calling Ralph "senile" and "out of touch." It was hilarious in highsight.

Now had all the owners voted no, in essence telling the NFLPA to shove it, they could have threated them with a lockout in 2007 or played without a cap. Now while neither seems ideal for the owners, it would have been better than the CBA they signed and ultimately chucked after 2 years, because now the players have had a taste of 59.5% of total revenue and won't accept less PLUS a salary cap. And while an uncapped year sounded great for players, it wasn't. Players would have only been able to become UFA's after 6 years, not 4 years, pensions would have been wiped-out, and the top teams wouldn't have been able to sign FA's unless they lost comparable FA's.

In short, anyone who thinks that the CBA was anything other than an embarrassment for a group of supposedly "great businessman," you've got some seriously and irrational issues against Ralph. Worse still is lauding Jones.

[Typ0]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

Had they voted no like the genius RW did right now there would either be a lockout and no football or the entire league would be held hostage by rapidly increasing salaries. You are knocking the business sense of these guys who, to me, it looks clear they had the foresight to avoid the consequences of voting down the CBA.

It's apparent you know little about the situation. Let me lay it out for you.

The owners had until just before the end of the 2006 season to devise a new CBA and prevent an uncapped 2007 season. They did nothing until close to the start of free agency before the 2006 season, and used that start of FA as their deadline. They couldn't agree on a new deal and the NFLPA pushed the deadline back 3 times hoping the owners would come back with a new CBA that would pay them more. If the owners didn't do that, many of them would have had to cut a lot of players to get under the cap, which they obviously didn't want to do.

Suffice it to say that the NFLPA got what they wanted, and how! The owners previously had paid the players 54.5% of total revenue, which was ~2/3 of shared revenue (TV, merchandise, ticket sales, etc.). The NFLPA wanted 60% of total revenue. Ultimately the NFLPA got 59.5%. That's a 5% increase over what the owners were paying before, just a 0.5% decrease from what the players wanted, and the large market owners would in addition have to subsidize the smaller market owners (blood money). Yes for the paltry time spent on the CBA, it was the best they could do and "preserved labor peace." It still doesn't mean it wasn't a crap deal. Ralph saw this, as did Mike Brown, and they both voted no. Ralph made a joke about not understanding it, as a slap in the face to the other owners for voting-in such an important contract in just 45 minutes (most people take as long for their house mortgage). The simpletons in the media however ran with it, essentially calling Ralph "senile" and "out of touch." It was hilarious in highsight.

Now had all the owners voted no, in essence telling the NFLPA to shove it, they could have threated them with a lockout in 2007 or played without a cap. Now while neither seems ideal for the owners, it would have been better than the CBA they signed and ultimately chucked after 2 years, because now the players have had a taste of 59.5% of total revenue and won't accept less PLUS a salary cap. And while an uncapped year sounded great for players, it wasn't. Players would have only been able to become UFA's after 6 years, not 4 years, pensions would have been wiped-out, and the top teams wouldn't have been able to sign FA's unless they lost comparable FA's.

In short, anyone who thinks that the CBA was anything other than an embarrassment for a group of supposedly "great businessman," you've got some seriously and irrational issues against Ralph. Worse still is lauding Jones.

[Typ0]

Re: Minority rules (Ralph's smarter than Jerry)

There was a great American leader once who learned the importance of retreating and living to fight another day instead of getting whipped out while the chips are down.