daveakl Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 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. As a person that negotiates for a living, this comment is totally false. The line in Goodell's letter would appear to be a PR move, but saying that it "would raise the suspicion that the NFL began with a ridiculous offer" would lead one to believe that the person saying this is trying to find fault with the NFL owners no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 As a person that negotiates for a living, this comment is totally false. The line in Goodell's letter would appear to be a PR move, but saying that it "would raise the suspicion that the NFL began with a ridiculous offer" would lead one to believe that the person saying this is trying to find fault with the NFL owners no matter what.It's hard to believe that you negotiate for a living and you don't recognize the "let's split the difference" ploy. Goodell's line is just a variation for public consumption. In one of my careers, I negotiated with lawyers on a daily basis for about 15 years. The experienced lawyers knew better, but the less experienced tried the ploy on me at least once a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 It's hard to believe that you negotiate for a living and you don't recognize the "let's split the difference" ploy. Goodell's line is just a variation for public consumption. In one of my careers, I negotiated with lawyers on a daily basis for about 15 years. The experienced lawyers knew better, but the less experienced tried the ploy on me at least once a week. Makes sense then that you had to switch careers. Preconceived notions that something is a ploy can hurt the negotiation. ---------- Post added March-18th-2011 at 03:03 PM ---------- 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. The problem is that you are creating a situation out of thin air and then arguing that the NFLPA is taking the correct approach based off your hypothetical situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Makes sense then that you had to switch careers. Preconceived notions that something is a ploy can hurt the negotiation.If you can't recognize and counter your opponent's negotiating ploys, you won't be negotiating anything for long.The problem is that you are creating a situation out of thin air and then arguing that the NFLPA is taking the correct approach based off your hypothetical situation.I didn't create a hypotethical. I made an argument based on a conditional premise: "If this is true, then this would follow...." You don't recognize a common negotiating ploy and you don't recognize a conditional premise, but other than that you're doing just fine here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 If you can't recognize and counter your opponent's negotiating ploys, you won't be negotiating anything for long. The NFLPA planned to decertify from the beginning, should the NFL have recognized this and not negotiated at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The NFLPA planned to decertify from the beginning, should the NFL have recognized this and not negotiated at all?Since you can't possibly know the truth of your statement, I will put an "if" in front of your question and grant it as a conditional premise:If the NFLPA planned to decertify from the beginning, the NFL would likely go through the motions of appearing to negotiate seriously while not making a serious offer. So, I'm not arguing that the NFL is wrong in not making a serious offer. I'm merely pointing out that readers of Goodell's letter should not deduce from it that the NFL has made a serious attempt to negotiate a fair settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLiverpool Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Maybe I'm not searching hard enough, but have the players or NFLPA come forward with what they believe is fair yet? I have seen them calling the NFL's offer a joke, set the paper on fire, etc, but what are their demands? (Other than, let us see your books...) They should be able to formulate a plan, and let the fans know what they're demanding... or is it just the status quo with the players? Personally, regardless of the percentage of the revenue they take in, my questions to the players would be: How does your union (or former/future union) plan on taking care of retired players, retiring players, player safety tests of your own, injury suits, number of games played, preseason schedule, increase in league minimum so a few players don't receive huge contracts at the expense of the rest of the team, rookie wages, free agency, franchise player, restricted free agency, etc? The list goes on, but I am leaning towards them favoring litigation rather than presenting fair terms. They're sounding like whiny babies to me. The owners are obviously greedy, but they're at least formulating a plan and letting the fans know. I believe owners themselves might be idiots, but they've got well paid spokes men and financial assistants helping them with their cause. I'm steadily growing more and more disgusted with the whole topic and at some point the tipping point will cost both sides growth for the next few years. Will it recover? Possibly, likely, but who knows what level of damage is occurring with this public relations war going on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 lock out the NFLPA formers only higher non-union scabs and play football. My loyalty is to the Redskins, not the NFLPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 to Oldfan's point of "if the players began the negotiating with a reasonable offer" ... is not too far fetched of a scenario to assume they did (until we are told otherwise). I'm not saying its automatic gospel (hence the "if" part ), but the players have reportedly said that the owners "opted out of the CBA". Therefore I would consider the hypothesis that the players offered > or = to the structure of this most recent CBA is probable/possible. The players have stood behind the mantra that they were willing to continue moving fwd with the current CBA structure as it is. That leads me to believe that the players intent was not to "de-certify" and "go for the home run court ruling in their favor. The players apparently would not accept a 3rd party vendor to show audits ... is that because that group would be chosen specifically by the NFL and the owners? Could the owners have balked at the players selecting the 3rd part auditor? To me its simple, their is an issue of trust ... and while the owners may in fact be losing money in a downward trend, they have to be willing to either show some transparency ... or take their chances in court. I do not believe this is a scheme for Mr. Smith to get "recognition" nor for the players to "stick it to the owners for spending their money in ridiculous ways". Regardless of Goodell's intent (and crafty wording) ... it's only a matter of time before this whole thing gets played out in the national spotlight. IMO Goodell has the right intentions, but is not putting enough pressure on the owners to do this fairly. maybe this was his goal for the letter, to bring the 2 sides back together. Either way, the more that is discussed out in the media/public the better, whether true or not because it puts each group on the spot, and they will have to answer questions to the public iif they are found being deceitful and dishonest. The truth will come out soon enough (hopefully sooner). HAIL. ---------- Post added March-18th-2011 at 01:01 PM ---------- Maybe I'm not searching hard enough, but have the players or NFLPA come forward with what they believe is fair yet? I have seen them calling the NFL's offer a joke, set the paper on fire, etc, but what are their demands? (Other than, let us see your books...) They should be able to formulate a plan, and let the fans know what they're demanding... or is it just the status quo with the players?Personally, regardless of the percentage of the revenue they take in, my questions to the players would be: How does your union (or former/future union) plan on taking care of retired players, retiring players, player safety tests of your own, injury suits, number of games played, preseason schedule, increase in league minimum so a few players don't receive huge contracts at the expense of the rest of the team, rookie wages, free agency, franchise player, restricted free agency, etc? The list goes on, but I am leaning towards them favoring litigation rather than presenting fair terms. They're sounding like whiny babies to me. The owners are obviously greedy, but they're at least formulating a plan and letting the fans know. I believe owners themselves might be idiots, but they've got well paid spokes men and financial assistants helping them with their cause. I'm steadily growing more and more disgusted with the whole topic and at some point the tipping point will cost both sides growth for the next few years. Will it recover? Possibly, likely, but who knows what level of damage is occurring with this public relations war going on... excellent points ... both sides are at risk of losing the fans. Both sides need to be transparent, including the players. This won't get resolved until the dirty laundry and ridiculous financial issues become public. The owners are playing with fire though ... considering the amount of public funding used to build the NFL to what it is today, they could face some serious public backlash if the books paint a more scandalous wall-street type circumstance. HAIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The owners want a 1billion dollars up front for no reason in the offer they made to the players Thought they said it was for new stadium construction, expansion and upkeep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitmandm Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 crush this fake union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 OldFan : you are arguing your guess based on an uproven hypothesis and reading into incuous statements made by Goodell. Basically in your hypothetical you are assuming the worst about the owners and not about the players/agents. You keep mentioning the "if"'s in your statments but surely you know that if in a negotiation or discussion you consistenly argue one side it becomes seen as your hypothesis. Presenting unbiased opnions in a way that is clear and free of confusion require more than the word "if" every so often. I have no reason to think the player or owners approached these negotiations with "pure" intentions. A large part of the issue is the discrepancy in teams. Ralph Wilson might really be hurting and might be willing to open his books to show that, but Jerry Jones might not be in so bad of a condition and is reluctant to open his books. Becasue it's all the owners negotiating though all are not on equal ground that the idea of opening books seems particularly difficult to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I didn't create a hypotethical. I made an argument based on a conditional premise: "If this is true, then this would follow...." You don't recognize a common negotiating ploy and you don't recognize a conditional premise, but other than that you're doing just fine here. Sigh. "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." You state that the line is in the offer to deceive the public into thinking the NFL offer was a fair one. Why do you say this is deception? You have no knowledge as to if the offer is fair or not. You then create a hypothetical negotiation and say that the route of splitting the difference is a ploy based off the first offer being sub par. How can you say that you are "sure" that the line from Goodell is in there as deception when you also say "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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Dick Edds -- The players apparently would not accept a 3rd party vendor to show audits ... is that because that group would be chosen specifically by the NFL and the owners? Could the owners have balked at the players selecting the 3rd part auditor?To me its simple, their is an issue of trust ... and while the owners may in fact be losing money in a downward trend, they have to be willing to either show some transparency ... or take their chances in court. I'd guess you are right. The two sides are probably still stuck on square one: the NFL's willingness to satisfactorily answer the union's question "Just exactly how big is the pie?" ---------- Post added March-18th-2011 at 01:56 PM ---------- OldFan : you are arguing your guess based on an uproven hypothesis and reading into incuous statements made by Goodell. Basically in your hypothetical you are assuming the worst about the owners and not about the players/agents. You keep mentioning the "if"'s in your statments but surely you know that if in a negotiation or discussion you consistenly argue one side it becomes seen as your hypothesis. Presenting unbiased opnions in a way that is clear and free of confusion require more than the word "if" every so often. I have no reason to think the player or owners approached these negotiations with "pure" intentions. A large part of the issue is the discrepancy in teams. Ralph Wilson might really be hurting and might be willing to open his books to show that, but Jerry Jones might not be in so bad of a condition and is reluctant to open his books. Becasue it's all the owners negotiating though all are not on equal ground that the idea of opening books seems particularly difficult to me. Rick, I have already explained this twice, but I'll go over it once more.From my 15 years of negotiating experience, I spotted a line in Goodell's letter that is a variation of a "let's split the difference" negotiating ploy. It's an "old chestnut" in negotiations. I explained how the "midpoint" in negotiations might seem fair to readers and yet be completely unfair in a negotiation. In order to do that I had to make an argument based on a conditional premise. I did not create a hypothetical. Maybe the NFL negotiators did exactly the right thing in not making a serious offer. I don't know enough to form an opinion on that. The one and only point I'm making is that readers of Goodell's letter will be misled if they see it as evidence that the NFL made a serious offer to reach a fair settlement. It's PR bull for public consumption. I know that because the deception in that "midpoint" line is obvious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 OLD FAN: let me explain one more time since you are having trouble here. You ARE making assumtions. wanna see one?"Maybe the NFL negotiators did exactly the right thing in not making a serious offer" how do you know the offer wasn't serious? just because the NFLPA didn't accept it? that seems like a serious assumption that only one side argues in good faith. Wanna see another? "The one and only point I'm making is that readers of Goodell's letter will be misled if they see it as evidence that the NFL made a serious offer to reach a fair settlement. It's PR bull for public consumption" Why will they be missled, oh yes becasue you assume that it wasn't a serious offer, becasue of course if it was a serious off the public would be. . informed. one last one? "I know that because the deception in that "midpoint" line is obvious to me" no you don't know that.what you know is that that phrase CAN be used as a PR ploy just as it CAN be used in fair negotiating. You chose to assume it is being used as the former rather than the latter. I am sorry man but if you can't tell your own specualtions from fact then you are not a good negotiator. There is nothing wrong with saying that the midpoint phrase (not ploy, since that does carry an implication) can be decieving, but you have gone well beyond that in several posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 ...You state that the line is in the offer to deceive the public into thinking the NFL offer was a fair one. Why do you say this is deception? ... Just ask yourself what was Goodell's intent with the "midpoint" line? He knew or should have known that typical readers would infer fairness. Did he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 or he meant we split the difference and made an offer in between the two camps hoping to reach a compromise. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 or he meant we split the difference and made an offer in between the two camps hoping to reach a compromise. . . .Which to you implies a sincere attempt at fairness does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 no i legitly think it could mean either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 no i legitly think it could mean either.I don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 What i am saying is i am taking the information literlally and not reading any bias into it. what that letter said is that the NFL gave in on a lot of the ancillary issues and made an offer on the main issue. The NLFPA refused that offer and ended negotiations. That is what happened and that is what i know. I do not THINNK the letter was written in a particulary aggressive manner and it is not manipulative for one side to believe its offer was fair. However i concede that their starting point might have been unrealistic so i can't really speak to that. Saying that goodell was using a ploy and that he is being dishonest or manipulative by saying they split the difference is reading a LOT into the comments without proof. My opinion is this: I think the owners made a decent offer. I think the owners have some shady crap on the books. I think the players union knows that, and are trying to use it to get a better deal by essentialy blackmailing the owners. I think the players union feels they can ask for whatever they want by publicly dangling this "open your books" nonsense in front of the public until it reaches litigation. I also think this is a personal power play for maurice smith as he does stand to gain the most from this. These are my opnions based on what i see. I also think this powerp lay is rediculously bad for the NFL either way it plays out. Owners get dragged through the mud and players get what they want. . very bad. Players get denied and loose faith in their union. . very bad. NFL in general getting mired in litigation and people forgetting that this is a freaking game. . bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 ... Rick, your Post #46 didn't answer my question. To review, you first wrote about Goodell's "midpoint" sentence: ...or he meant we split the difference and made an offer in between the two camps hoping to reach a compromise. . . I then asked: Which to you implies a sincere attempt at fairness does it not? Your response was unintelligible: no i legitly think it could mean either. I replied with " I don't understand," hoping for an explanation which never came. Goodell's "midpoint" sentence is the only thing you and I have to discuss, so please stick to the topic. Although you are now reluctant to admit it, you were misled by that line to believe that the NFL had made a sincere attempt to negotiate a fair settlement. That's the inference most readers would take from it. That's why Roger Goodell used the line. He knew the inference most readers would draw from it. And, as a lawyer, and someone trained in the art of negotiations, he also knew that making an offer at the midpoint of the demand and the initial offer does not, on its own, imply a sincere attempt to negotiate a fair settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 my god man. i did answer you just don't like the answer. "What i am saying is i am taking the information literlally and not reading any bias into it. what that letter said is that the NFL gave in on a lot of the ancillary issues and made an offer on the main issue. The NLFPA refused that offer and ended negotiations. That is what happened and that is what i know. I do not THINNK the letter was written in a particulary aggressive manner and it is not manipulative for one side to believe its offer was fair. However i concede that their starting point might have been unrealistic so i can't really speak to that. Saying that goodell was using a ploy and that he is being dishonest or manipulative by saying they split the difference is reading a LOT into the comments without proof." His sentence could imply fairness, but it should be taken literally. I agree that most would be more likely to see that as implying fairness rather than your assumption that is evidence of an unfair propsal, but both would be assumtions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 OK guys I'm awake now and wasn't last night when I gave my first impression I've read that offer again and I see a major problem. There is no "percentage of total revenue" in there anywhere. I'm not sure if the league left that out because they don't want their propaganda letter to reveal portion of their offer that doesn't cast the owners in a good light or if they are legitimately offering to make players a fixed cost and cutting them out as partners completely. If they are making them a fixed cost (as it would appear being that they already are announcing what the cap will be YEARS in advance) that deal is ENTIRELY one sided in the long term. If the NFLPA needs better leadership. Their current buffoon is as good at politics and PR as Dan Snyder. They need to replace that clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 ...I agree that most would be more likely to see that as implying fairness...And, as such the sentence would deceive most readers... and furthermore, given that Goodell is a lawyer trained in negotiations, he knew or should have known that this sentence was deceptive.rather than your assumption that is evidence of an unfair propsal, but both would be assumtions.I didn't assume anything, I made logical deductions based on the evidence that Goodell was intentionally deceptive. Here's exactly what I wrote: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. I then explained why. Based on my experience, and on the evidence, I drew a probable conclusion. If you want to argue the point, then you need to attack the argument. Just labeling my conclusion an "assumption" is not a counter-argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.