Originally Posted by Douglas
Yes, it does sound pretty trivial, if that's the gist of it.
But even the article admits some of the divide is philosophical, and not just money - e.g. the full-time issue and the "bench" issue.
Also bear in mind that many of the NFL's full-time emps don't have pension, so sometimes even small monetary issues have larger monetary issues lurking in the shadows.
But yes, it does appear that at least some of this is down to short-sighted stubbornness. Thankfully, it looks like the debacle on Monday may have woken a few people up. For Christ's sakes, I bet the Ravens spent half of $100 grand on *fireworks* before the game on Sunday night.
yeah, the NFL always takes a hard line in these negotiations and the issue is not just the 100K but rather what lurks in the shadows after they agree to the 100K. The other issue though that they should keep their eye on is, at what point does the NFL suffer monetary damage that is much greater than what they will give up to the refs. A couple of ratings points lower, a few less seats filled etc means a lot more to them than 100K and you hope that the negotiations don't get "personal" where either party decides to cut off its nose to spite its face. I can't remember the last time there was this much disgust with one of the pro leagues, much less the NFL and whether the league is right or not, you'd be hard pressed to find someone to side with the owners on this one. This isn't billionaire owners going up against millionaire players, its owners going against "working class" refs (who make over 100K for part time work, get pensions and are looking for double digit raises