1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Dean Spanos laments lockout, blames union

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by CoronaDoug, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. CoronaDoug

    CoronaDoug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,539
    Ratings:
    +814
    Dean Spanos laments lockout, blames union

    Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011, 7:25 PM EDT

    Plenty of NFL teams have had plenty to say about the events of the Friday, and we’ve been sharing all of them with you, right here.

    What the hell else are we going to talk about?

    The latest to arrive in our “in” box comes from Chargers president Dean Spanos, one of the ten men who tried to negotiate a new labor deal.

    “I’m extremely disappointed in the Union’s decision to decertify, which led to the League’s difficult but necessary step to lock out, something we tried hard to avoid,” Spanos said. “The most efficient way to get a new deal done is through mediation and negotiation; not through litigation. The lawyers are the only winners in litigation. The fans, players and teams all lose. Unfortunately this action by the Union only delays the process.”

    We disagree with a couple of things Spanos said in that initial paragraph. Though the decision to decertify chronologically led to the decision to lock the players out, it didn’t causally lead to the lockout. With or without decertification and litigation, the league most likely would have implemented the lockout at midnight on March 12. The union’s actions merely give the league someone to blame other than the league itself.

    “I’m disappointed for the fans who care about the Chargers and this game we all love. I feel badly for our players. They’re good men that just want to play football and win a championship, but they’re caught in the middle,” Spanos added.

    We wonder whether Spanos will say the same thing after he moves the team to Los Angeles.

    “I’m most disappointed in the actions of the Union’s leadership that is supposed to be representing all of our players. They clearly were not negotiating in good faith right from the beginning. I believe their intention all along was to decertify and bring us to litigation,” Spanos said.

    Yes, but the union leadership believes that decertification and litigation will help the players get the best possible deal. This isn’t about DeMaurice Smith trying to max out his profile; not decertifying and taking a lockout would have done that. The players pursued the course of action that they thought would deliver the best outcome, and the league will do the same.

    “The Chargers will continue to do everything within the League rules to prepare to win a championship,” Spanos said, implying a level of aggressiveness that no team can really employ, since there’s no envelope to really push when the players are locked out. “Currently we’re preparing for a very important draft and will be ready to take advantage of all opportunities to improve our team.” (During a lockout, the draft is the only opportunity to improve the team.)

    “We will get through this,” Spanos said. “There will be a new agreement and we’re looking forward to playing football this season. In the end, the final result will be an agreement that is good for the fans, fair for the players and teams, and will allow this game to grow and prosper in San Diego.”

    It’s way too early for Spanos to suggest that football will be played this season. “If the NFL manages to shoot down the decertification in court, the lockout will remain in force until the union caves in to the league’s demands. And if it means missing games, then games will be missed.

    And then all the teams will issue statements expressing regret, and blaming the union for forcing the league’s hand.

    Dean Spanos laments lockout, blames union | ProFootballTalk
     
  2. wrbanwal

    wrbanwal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    9,707
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    :mad2:
     
  3. BoltsFanUK

    BoltsFanUK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,111
    Ratings:
    +848
    my thoughts exactly
     
  4. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,992
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    I fail to see where the dig that Florio took, just to stir up fans bitter that Spanos might (there is no conclusive evidence that he will) move the team, has an relevance to the particular quote. There are Charger fans all over the world; should Dean be more disappointed for those that live specifically in San Diego? Are they more so aggrieved by a lockout than Leo in hellifIcanremember what part of the Midwest he lives in or our own BoltsFanUK whose on the complete other side of the pond?

    This is just Florio resorting to sensationalism because, to put it bluntly, he's not all that talented of a journalist - there just happened to previously been enough substance to actually report that it masked that quality in his actual reporting. No one thinks you're cool and edgy because you can stick it to the man, Mike.
     
  5. foober

    foober BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,980
    Ratings:
    +200
    and whats wrong with that. Show us the books old fart owners. Show us all the financial books for the last couple of years. HOw else is anyone to come to a good fair agreement without the truth of whats really going on.

    Seriously. All this time I thought the players union was given the books to figure out what they think is fair. NOw I find out the owners have kept the financial books a secret all this time. HOw are you to make a fair judgement of royalties if the owners hide what is going on financially in the nfl.

    The nfl is more than just a few old fart owners. ITs the players and fans. MOstly the players and fans. Wake up old fart fat owners.
     
  6. Bolt Attack

    Bolt Attack BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Ratings:
    +15
    Personally I agree with Spanos. After watching this unfold it appears to be more of a dog and pony show for the NFLPA.
     
  7. Fouts

    Fouts I heart Deano!

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,783
    Ratings:
    +349
    So, if you had a business, you would open your books to your employees, so they can dictate their pay? Not stirring up stuff, just curious, on peoples opinion on this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,203
    Ratings:
    +2,415
    I live in Arkansas.
     
  9. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,981
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    That's your problem! :p
     
  10. CoronaDoug

    CoronaDoug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,539
    Ratings:
    +814
    This is a totally different look on things but... Lets say the team owners were McDonald's store owners and the NFL is the corporate franchise (McDonald's). Do the employees of McDonald's have the right to see what the franchise is taking in? Does the franchise know what the store owners are making?
    Most companies have a end of the year revenue total that is public. I do not see why the NFL can not provide this information.
     
  11. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    That is only publicly owned companies. Privately owned companies do not have to disclose their financials, which is why no one knows what Facebook is worth. It is privately owned, and they do not have to disclose their financials.

    But on the same case, they are not trying to lock out all their workers and demanding the employees take less money to be allowed to go back to work.

    I don't like either side in this issue. The only reason I tend to favor the players is because the owners are the ones who created this mess by opting out of the previous deal which was making everyone a$$ loads of money and increased the value of every franchise in the league even during a global recession
     
  12. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,992
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    In all fairness, the previous collective bargaining agreements have gone back and forth as to who was favored at a particular time. The previous extension (the one pushed through in the 11th hour in 2003) was heavily player-favored but this was also at a time when the economy was absolutely thriving. The economy runs in cycles and will always attempt to even itself out - thus why most times when high inflation is being experienced you can expect an impending trough down the line and recessionary times to reestablish long-term equilibrium. That's why the mutual opt out clause has always been tied to it of late.

    Owners know this, union leadership knew this (I'm not saying I expect the common player to know this, but the heads of the union would certainly have been privy to this kind of intel); thus the past deal was pushed through heavily weighted in the players' favor because it was considerably more affordable. Were Upshaw and Tagliabue the ones heading this current CBA discussion, we'd have already had resolution or would be in the midst of being one more extension away. We'd have a more owner-friendly deal being put in place with the mutual opt out clause continuing on, and likely to be utilized by the players after the economy climbed out of recession (likely 3-4 years) at which time the players would opt out... and the cycle continues - rinse, repeat, wear.

    Instead, that's not the case and we've got DeMaurice Smith who has none of the allegiances or prior ties that Gene Upshaw did. And, to boot, we've got Roger Goodell who is easily painted as a much more coarse, dictatorial, and 'bucking the system' figure in the position formerly held by Tagliabue.

    There really is no right or wrong in this, unless the rep for one side really has been spoon-feeding propaganda to his own people in an effort to push through a personal agenda - which would leave him open to MASSIVE litigation and suits if proved. This is people looking out for their own interests who were previously used to letting the positive relationship between their previous heads set the standard for the rest of them; i.e. Paul says "I trust Gene, so you guys can trust Gene," and vice versa. Smith and Goodell don't, and likely will never have that relationship, because they are both polarizing figures.
     

Share This Page