Yahoo Sports: Goodell sends letter to players, bypasses NFLPA

[Outlaw Torn]

Now that the NFL Players' Association has decertified, essentially changing its status from union to trade organization in order to facilitate the Brady v. NFL antitrust lawsuit, the NFL itself has taken things a step further. In a letter sent from league commissioner to each current player, and reportedly not to any member of the NFLPA, the league is taking the radical step of pretending that the NFLPA doesn't represent the players in any capacity.

Heres the link for the rest of the article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Goodell-sends-letter-directly-to-players-bypass?urn=nfl-wp310

This is the letter that was sent:

Dear NFL player,

As you know, negotiations between the NFL Players Association and the clubs have not led to an agreement. Last Friday, the NFLPA Walked out of the federal mediator's offices in Washington, told us that it had abandoned its right to represent you as a union, and filed a lawsuit. Some hours later, the clubs instituted a lockout.

The clubs believe that there is only one way to resolve our differences, and that is through good faith collective bargaining in an atmosphere of mutual respect and open communication. We have said publicly, told the federal mediator, and say to you that we are prepared to resume those negotiations at any time.

We want you to understand the offer that we made to the NFLPA. The proposal was made to avoid a work stoppage. Each passing day puts our game and our shared economics further at risk. We believe the offer presented a strong and fair basis for continuing negotiations, allowing the new league year and free agency to begin, and

growing our game in the years to come. Here are the key elements of the proposal:

- A salary cap for 2011 that would avoid a negative financial impact on veteran players. We offered to meet the Union at the mid-point between our previous offer and the Union's demand. Under our offer, 2011 salary and benefits would have been set at $141 million per club, and projected cash spending would have been as high or higher than in either 2009 or 2010. By 2014, salary and benefits would have been set at $161 million per club. In other Words, player compensation would increase by as much as $20 million per club by 2014.

-Free agency for players with four or more accrued seasons and reduced draft choice compensation for restricted free agents.

-Extensive changes in off-season work requirements that would promote player health and safety, encourage players to continue their education, and promote second career opportunities. The off-season program would be reduced by five weeks, OTAs would be reduced from 14, to helmets would be prohibited for the first five weeks of workouts, and rules prohibiting "1ive" on-field contact would be strictly enforced.

-Changes in preseason and regular season practices and schedules that would reduce the number of padded practices, reduce the amount of contact, and increase the number of days off for you and other players.

-Commit to retain the current 16-game regular season format for at least the next two seasons, and further commit not to change to an 18- game regular season without the Union's agreement.

-Expand injury guarantees for players. The clubs offered to guarantee up to $1 million of a second_ ear of your contract if you are injured and cannot return to play.

-For the first time, players and families would be able to purchase continuing coverage in the player medical plan after retirement for life, and could use their health savings account benefit to do so.

-Enhanced retirement benefits for pre-1993 players. More than 2,000 former players would have received an immediate increase in their pensions averaging nearly 60 percent, funded entirely by the owners.

-A new entry-level compensation system that would make more than $300 million per draft class available for veterans' pay and player benefits. The new system would preserve individual negotiations not a wage scale - and would allow players drafted in rounds 2 through 7 to earn as much or more than they earn today.

-Significant changes in disciplinary procedures, including a jointly-appointed neutral arbitrator to hear all drug and steroid appeals.

Working together, players and clubs have made the game great. Our fans want us to find common ground, settle our differences, and come to a fair agreement. I have met with many of you since becoming Commissioner. You know of my respect and admiration for you as men and as players. We need to come together, and soon.

In that spirit, we are prepared to negotiate a full agreement that would incorporate these features and other progressive changes that would benefit players, clubs, and fans. Only through collective bargaining will we reach that kind of agreement. Our goal is to make our league even better than it is today, with the benefits shared by all of us.

I hope you will encourage your Union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement.

Sincerely,

Roger

[#98QBKiller]

So this is good news right?

[DeadExField]

can't say I'm against what he's proposing

[Outlaw Torn]

So this is good news right?

Could be, It really depends on how the players take it. It could be looked at as trying to reach out to them to get a deal done, It could also look like Goodell is trying to divide them and create unrest within the union, I think his intentions were good but I can already see how the NFLPA can spin it.

[Redskin4ever]

This is a brilliant PR move. I'm not saying he isn't sincere. But from a PR perspective, this is brilliant. Compare this to two high profile RBs calling the NFL modern slavery and another calling the commish a liar. Goodell is putting it out on the table for everyone to see. He is showing the public they want to work it out. So now the players have to show some interest at working it out as well.

[Rex Tomb]

I thought the NFLPA was disbanded. So he's not bypassing anyone, right?

[CRobi21]

Hopefully the veterans of the league get in touch with the PA after reading this. It seems the league tried to give the players the most that they were asking for.

At least it seems like it to me.

[Destino]

This move was entirely aimed at the media and the fans. The players already knew what the offer was and this is going to really piss them off.

[Hooper]

This move was entirely aimed at the media and the fans. The players already knew what the offer was and this is going to really piss them off.

As usual, Destino nails it.

[Oldfan]

There is no way for us to tell if the NFL has made a fair offer. There is no way for the union to tell if the NFL has made a fair offer -- because collective bargaining is about splitting the pie. Here, only one side knows the size of the pie.

One clue that Roger is blowing smoke is the line where he says that the NFL made an offer at the midpoint between the Union's demand and the NFL's initial offer. That sounds fair, doesn't it? But, for trained negotiators, it's a ploy so old and shopworn, it's a joke. It signals that the NFL's first offer was probably ridiculously low.

If the union's demand was FAIR plus 10% and the league's first offer was FAIR minus 50%, then the midpoint between the demand and the first offer is FAIR minus 20% -- it isn't a fair offer.

It's a PR move. The Commish is blowing smoke.

---------- Post added March-18th-2011 at 01:06 AM ----------

Hopefully the veterans of the league get in touch with the PA after reading this. It seems the league tried to give the players the most that they were asking for.

At least it seems like it to me.

That's what Roger wants you to think.

[PCS]

Interesting. So now we have an escalation in the arms race where PR is concerned. This should help things along.

[MartinC]

This move was entirely aimed at the media and the fans. The players already knew what the offer was and this is going to really piss them off.

We have disagreed on the CBA issue a number of times but I agree with you here, this is clearly a PR move aimed at getting information - the NFLs slant on the information - to fans. It's a great PR move but it does not in my view help in bringing the two sides closer to an agreement.

[Oldfan]

We have disagreed on the CBA issue a number of times but I agree with you here, this is clearly a PR move aimed at getting information - the NFLs slant on the information - to fans. It's a great PR move but it does not in my view help in bringing the two sides closer to an agreement.

The PR is damage control for the NFL's image. It is unlikely to affect the negotiations in any way.

[End2round2sanders]

This is a ploy. Take this SOB to litigation. The owners want a 1billion dollars up front for no reason in the offer they made to the players. They are scared about the frivilous spending they are doing, employing family memebers, allowing friends on charter planes and putting it on the NFL bill. Basically the the owners are like a fraternity who are spending the NFLs money on a big party and instead of paying for the beer and food on their own, they are putting in the NFLs name but writing it off as " Fraternity promotion Paraphernalia" so they can get away with it. In the end the players should take this to court. Let them decide. And the owners will lose in the end..If you saw the NFLPA outside council after the decertification, they were calm and confident in their statement while Jeff Pash sounded scared and confused in his statement.

The truth will set you free. The Owners are scared, and when this gets taken to litigation we'll learn why..

[Hail-to-da-skins-21]

Both sides r dumb....Just get the damn CBA done !!!!! I already hate the players cause 98 percent have either beatin the redskins...sucked for the redskins ....or have played for dallas .....I hate the owners cause of Snyder......so no matter who says wut they wont win over this fan just get the CBA done.....

PS I STILL HATE U MOST OF ALL VINNY !

[iXiBrianiXi]

There is no way for us to tell if the NFL has made a fair offer. There is no way for the union to tell if the NFL has made a fair offer -- because collective bargaining is about splitting the pie. Here, only one side knows the size of the pie.

One clue that Roger is blowing smoke is the line where he says that the NFL made an offer at the midpoint between the Union's demand and the NFL's initial offer. That sounds fair, doesn't it? But, for trained negotiators, it's a ploy so old and shopworn, it's a joke. It signals that the NFL's first offer was probably ridiculously low.

If the union's demand was FAIR plus 10% and the league's first offer was FAIR minus 50%, then the midpoint between the demand and the first offer is FAIR minus 20% -- it isn't a fair offer.

It's a PR move. The Commish is blowing smoke.

---------- Post added March-18th-2011 at 01:06 AM ----------

That's what Roger wants you to think.

But that's how sides negotiate. You'll rarely/never get your first initial offer so you go SO far right that by the time you're done, it'll have pulled left some. The problem with Smith is he's pulled so far left and refuses to deviate from that point.

[Oversized Toddler]

So let me get this straight, now that more news has come out......The NFL made their offer, and the NFLPA made their offer. They were too far apart, but the NFL didn't want a lockout, so they agreed to move to the middle of what each side wanted, and agreed not to move to the 18 game schedule. The counteroffer of the NFLPA was to not budge or compromise at all. Is this a pretty accurate assessment, based on the information that has been given to the public? If so, **** the players, plain and simple. If everything that has been presented is true, the lockout is 100% the fault of the players.

[Oldfan]

So let me get this straight, now that more news has come out......The NFL made their offer, and the NFLPA made their offer. They were too far apart, but the NFL didn't want a lockout, so they agreed to move to the middle of what each side wanted, and agreed not to move to the 18 game schedule. The counteroffer of the NFLPA was to not budge or compromise at all. Is this a pretty accurate assessment, based on the information that has been given to the public? If so, **** the players, plain and simple. If everything that has been presented is true, the lockout is 100% the fault of the players.

If the owners started with a ridiculous offer, and the union began with a reasonable demand, then the owners moved to the midpoint, which is still only a less ridiculous offer, then they are not bargaining in good faith. When your opponent isn't bargaining in good faith, you stand your ground until he's ready to make a serious offer. To do otherwise is poor bargaining.

I don't know that that is what's going on. I'm only saying that you can't jump to your conclusion from the information we have.

[Burgold]

If the owners started with a ridiculous offer, and the union began with a reasonable demand, then the owners moved to the midpoint, which is still only a less ridiculous offer, then they are not bargaining in good faith. When your opponent isn't bargaining in good faith, you stand your ground until he's ready to get serious.

I don't know that that is what's going on. I'm only saying that you can't jump to your conclusion from the information we have.

Why do you suspect the players began with a reasonable demand. Seems an unlikely assumption. Heck, look at the contract demands of individual players. They always way overvalue themselves. Carlos Rogers wants to be paid like one of the top five cbs.

[bedlamVR]

If the owners started with a ridiculous offer, and the union began with a reasonable demand, then the owners moved to the midpoint, which is still only a less ridiculous offer, then they are not bargaining in good faith. When your opponent isn't bargaining in good faith, you stand your ground until he's ready to get serious.

I don't know that that is what's going on. I'm only saying that you can't jump to your conclusion from the information we have.

But you are jumping to an equally ridiculous assumption based on your pre conceived ideals - You are considering the union came in wirth reasonable demands (because we all know unions are reasonable - pah ) .

Everything I have seen and everything I have read makes me thing DeMaurice Smith entered into the negociations with one plan - that was barring a mirricle they were determined to take this to the courts where he would get massive face time (that doesn't hurt his political aspirations) and then the courts would make a bunch of lawyers ritch as they decide how a sport is played .

The sham defense, in that the NFL are pursing that it was never the intention of NFLPA to come to a deal seems to fit here and things will get a lot worse before getting better .

I also disagree with the idea that all the players know about exactly what was on the table because that is not how unions opperate .

What disapoints me right now is the players - it turns out all of them are willing to let Smith lead them down this road so they can pile more money into their dog fighting, shooting and stabbing people in clubs, making hookers pregnant and buying 70 foot boats and getting drunk to help with their driving - Seriously I would not spit on one if they were on fire right now ....

[Oldfan]

Why do you suspect the players began with a reasonable demand. Seems an unlikely assumption. Heck, look at the contract demands of individual players. They always way overvalue themselves. Carlos Rogers wants to be paid like one of the top five cbs.

I said "IF the union began with a reasonable demand..." in order to explain a possible negotiating scenario. That "if" doesn't denote a suspicion.

However, the line in Goodell's letter about moving to the midpoint would raise the suspicion that the NFL began with a ridiculous first offer for anyone with experience in any kind of negotiations. That line is in the letter to deceive the public into thinking that the offer the NFL put on the table is a fair one. I'm sure of it. And, I showed you in a previous post how the midpoint can still be just a somewhat less ridiculous offer.

[Oversized Toddler]

If the owners started with a ridiculous offer, and the union began with a reasonable demand, then the owners moved to the midpoint, which is still only a less ridiculous offer, then they are not bargaining in good faith. When your opponent isn't bargaining in good faith, you stand your ground until he's ready to make a serious offer. To do otherwise is poor bargaining.

I don't know that that is what's going on. I'm only saying that you can't jump to your conclusion from the information we have.

As others below you have stated, we don't know enough about the inner workings to know if either side was being reasonable or unreasonable. What we do know is that both sides made an offer. They didn't agree, so the owners made a significant cut in their demands and submitted a counteroffer. The NFLPA responded by not countering, and saying these are our demands, meet them.

That my friend, is not bargaining in good faith. That is being completely unreasonable, unwilling to compromise, and acting like most other unions in the country. They deserve to be locked out until they realize that the whole point of bargaining is to actually sit down and come to a compromise, not just give a demand and refuse to do anything until it's met.

I said "IF the union began with a reasonable demand..." in order to explain a possible negotiating scenario. That "if" doesn't denote a suspicion.

However, the line in Goodell's letter about moving to the midpoint would raise the suspicion that the NFL began with a ridiculous first offer for anyone with experience in any kind of negotiations. That line is in the letter to deceive the public into thinking that the offer the NFL put on the table is a fair one. I'm sure of it. And, I showed you in a previous post how the midpoint can still be an unfair offer.

Even if the midpoint is an unfair offer, the NFLPA still hasn't budged. They want the exact same thing they've asked for from day one. That isn't how you negotiate.

If you had a $10 million house you decided to put on the market, and after several showings someone offered you $9 million for it, what would you do? Would you counter-offer? Or say no, I want $10 million? In this hypothetical situation, the players are the unreasonable homeowner.

[Oldfan]

But you are jumping to an equally ridiculous assumption based on your pre conceived ideals - You are considering the union came in wirth reasonable demands (because we all know unions are reasonable - pah )

When the premise begins with an "if" it's called a conditional premise. That's a far cry from a "ridiculous assumption."

[sideshow24]

This move was entirely aimed at the media and the fans. The players already knew what the offer was and this is going to really piss them off.

So long as it is true, I don't give a crap who it is aimed at. Now I know what they were offering and it seems like the league reached out a little, but the players union never intended to deal unless they could get EVERYTHING. I'm done siding with the players.

[Oldfan]

Toddler -- If you had a $10 million house you decided to put on the market, and after several showings someone offered you $9 million for it, what would you do? Would you counter-offer? Or say no, I want $10 million? In this hypothetical situation, the players are the unreasonable homeowner.

The 9 million is a reasonable first offer, so your hypothetical doesn't describe the situation I laid out. This is more like it:

You are the seller of this house. It has a fair market value of 9.5 mil. You have added a half mil to the asking price to allow for some bargaining. If you ask much more, your home won't be competitive with others in the same price range.

You get an offer at six mil. What should you do? If you counter it at 9.5, you have given away your margin for negotiating in the face of a ridiculously low offer. This is poor negotiating. It's called "bargaining against yourself." What you should do is return the offer with the message that you don't regard it as a serious offer from a serious buyer. You are anxious to sell, but you think your home is worth $10 mil or more.

You get another offer from the same buyer. He wants you to be reasonable and "split the difference." I'm at six, you're at ten, he offers a contract at 8 mil. Should you now counter at 9.5? No. If you do, he's going to counter again at 8.5 and you have no moves left. You want to hold at 10 mil until you get an offer of 9 mil. Then you counter at 9.5 and act like you are bleeding profusely in making this concession.