Stoppage and listen, part two
Moving on from the point about keeping thoughts to yourself during negotiations, here’s another lesson we can learn from the NFL and the former NFL players union from their recent failed negotiations: Be watchful for contrived bargaining chips.
How does compromise work? Simple, each side gives up something of value that they want in order to reach an agreement that isn’t ideal for either party, but both can still say is a good deal in the end. But a clever negotiator may try to make it appear that they want something that they really don’t care much about. Once the negotiations reach a point of compromise, the false bargaining chip can be sacrificed and the clever negotiator can reach a deal where he doesn’t really give up anything he truly wants.
In the context of the NFL’s recent disagreement, the league had for months spoken repeatedly that they wanted an 18 game schedule and claimed that it was the will of the fans. Polls, however, showed that the fans didn’t necessarily care about an 18 game regular season. Not to mention, the league is set in to divisions that make a 16 game season ideal and it wouldn’t mean a substantial increase in ticket revenue for many franchises that require a purchase of preseason tickets as part of a season ticket package. Beyond that, any additional revenues would be depleted by the need to provide greater compensation to the players. So what was the value of asking for an 18 game season? Because the league knows that the rank-and-file players would loathe it. Risk of permanent injury increases. More practices. More meetings. Sure enough, the league offered (in the hopes of pushing the players to a compromise) offered to delay having an 18 game season. It didn’t or it didn’t do enough, but it was a solid attempt by the league.
As for the players, they claimed that they wanted full access to the financial records of each team. When the league offered to provide more than previously permitted but less-than-full access, the players (according to accounts) never responded. I can’t say for sure, but my guess is that the players knew the owners would never give up full access but continued to ask for it so the players could a.) Use it as the reason why negotiations broke down and b.) Push the owners on financial disclosure until they were given what they wanted on other issues. Either way, the players’ gained nothing really by access to financial records, but they needed something to ask for that the owners didn’t want to give up to get leverage on getting their share of the revenue pie and other benefits.
For a home buyer or seller, when considering the demands of the other party, be wary of anything the opposing side seems to quickly offer to relinquish. It is possible that they are baiting you to give up what they truly want. Another red flag is when the other side is determined to link two separate issues that aren’t naturally connected. Or if the other party is asking for something that simply doesn’t make sense (for example, the retired couple saying they want the kids’ backyard playset). If you think the other side is trying this, try to isolate the issue, resolve it independent of other items of disagreement first and then move on to resolve the truly material issues.
Part three coming soon!
