Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=SmootSmack;802307]Let's keep this thread on track[/quote]



........good luck.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=saden1;802293]To quote an idiot..."Intelligent fan I can read, rambling [stupid] fan I can not."

There is no hope.[/quote]

Hey, I resemble that remark. :)

Good job my friend.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=NC_Skins;802295]I would have to say yes, but I firmly believe that players value fans more than the owners do. Had the players been the one that opted out of this CBA, I would be saying the same thing in regards to them.


It's rare you find a owner like JKC that was pretty much a fan favorite because he gave back to the community. In fact, the majority of his inheritance went to his foundation to give scholarships to needy people. You'll be hard-pressed to find another owner in the NFL like that.[/quote]


Now I'm confused. I know the owners probably wanted a whole new CBA and to get it meant going past the deadline without an agreement, but...

I don't think the owners were the ones who backed out first. I don't care how much garbage the offer was by the owners, the players still had 6 hrs on the clock to negotiate when they walked out and decertified. In my opinion they walked out of the CBA. It was my understanding that if the owners didn't lockout the players each individual player could file a law suit against the owner which is why they locked out to protect themselves. Plus the players felt they would have the upper hand by decertifying (which is illegal) so the owners locked out to get that upper hand back.

Am I wrong?

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=SBXVII;802314]Now I'm confused. I know the owners probably wanted a whole new CBA and to get it meant going past the deadline without an agreement, but...

I don't think the owners were the ones who backed out first. I don't care how much garbage the offer was by the owners, the players still had 6 hrs on the clock to negotiate when they walked out and decertified. In my opinion they walked out of the CBA. It was my understanding that if the owners didn't lockout the players each individual player could file a law suit against the owner which is why they locked out to protect themselves. Plus the players felt they would have the upper hand by decertifying (which is illegal) so the owners locked out to get that upper hand back.

Am I wrong?[/quote]
kinda -
1 -the owners opted out 2 years ago. Had they not done that the current CBA would have been in place for 2 more years, and the 2011 season would not be in jeopardy.

(note that the language to opt out was such that either party could opt out. Clearly the players were not going to because they like the CBA as it was written. The owners took their legal option to opt out, now most on the players' side make it sound like that was the sole cause for where we are)

2 - the CBA included provisions for handling labor law at the expiration:
[quote]Section 2. Labor Exemption: In effectuation of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the labor exemption from the antitrust laws applies during the express term of this Agreement and to any conduct of the NFL and the NFLPA taken in accordance with the terms of this Agreement during its express term.

Section 3. CBA Expiration:
(a) Following the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, then, if the NFLPA is in existence as a union, the Parties agree that none of the Class Members (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) nor any player represented by the NFLPA shall be able to commence an action, or assert a claim, under the antitrust laws for conduct occurring, until either: (i) the Management Council and NFLPA have bargained to impasse; or (ii) six (6) months after such expiration, whichever is later; at that time, the Parties reserve any arguments they may make regarding the application of thelabor exemption.

(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.[/quote]

so basically, in Section 2, both sides agree that Antitrust doesn't apply during the CBA.

then Section 3 deals with AFTER the CBA expires

in Section 3a the owners are promised that no antitrust action will be taken until 6 months or a mediation impasse occur

and in Section 3b the players are assured that the NFL will not declare a decertification (again after the CBA expires) a sham.

(It seems clear to me, that the NFLPA didn't honor this in the spirit it was intended. That is, it gave both sides assurances of good faith behaviour, and the NFLPA circumvented those assurances in order to gain a huge strong arm tactic over the NFL.)

3 - whether the decertification is illegal is at the center of the case before the appeals court. That is why the fact that it will be expedited and ruled on before July is an excellent thing. By the spirit of the above CBA, the decertification certainly exhibits some degree of bad faith to honor the 6 month period both had agreed upon.

In my opinion, the owners violated good faith in the TV deals, and the players violated good faith by decertifying before the CBA expired (note section 2 both sides agreed to maintain Anti-trust protection for the term of the CBA. Basically the owners didn't get the right legal-ese to protect themselves from the NFLPA breaking the spirit of the agreement)

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;802329]kinda -
1 -the owners opted out 2 years ago. Had they not done that the current CBA would have been in place for 2 more years, and the 2011 season would not be in jeopardy.

(note that the language to opt out was such that either party could opt out. Clearly the players were not going to because they like the CBA as it was written. The owners took their legal option to opt out, now most on the players' side make it sound like that was the sole cause for where we are)

2 - the CBA included provisions for handling labor law at the expiration:


so basically, in Section 2, both sides agree that Antitrust doesn't apply during the CBA.

then Section 3 deals with [B]AFTER the CBA expires[/B]

[B]in Section 3a the owners are promised that no antitrust action will be taken until 6 months or a mediation impasse occur[/B]

and in Section 3b the players are assured that the NFL will not declare a decertification (again after the CBA expires) a sham.

(It seems clear to me, that the NFLPA didn't honor this in the spirit it was intended. That is, it gave both sides assurances of good faith behaviour, and the NFLPA circumvented those assurances in order to gain a huge strong arm tactic over the NFL.)

3 - whether the decertification is illegal is at the center of the case before the appeals court. That is why the fact that it will be expedited and ruled on before July is an excellent thing. By the spirit of the above CBA, the decertification certainly exhibits some degree of bad faith to honor the 6 month period both had agreed upon.

In my opinion, the owners violated good faith in the TV deals, and the players violated good faith by decertifying before the CBA expired (note section 2 both sides agreed to maintain Anti-trust protection for the term of the CBA. Basically the owners didn't get the right legal-ese to protect themselves from the NFLPA breaking the spirit of the agreement)[/quote]

It was my understanding that as you said there would be no suit AFTER the CBA expired.. as long as the NFLPA (union) was still in place. and as you pointed out nothing can occurr legally until after 6 months which is the mediation process. Then the Union could file suit.

But because the Union/players didn't want to wait the 6 months to file their law suits and wanted to have the upper hand they decertified early prior to the CBA so they could file their law suits. The only thing the owners could do to protect themselves was lock out. Again this is what I'm to understand. I could be wrong. I'm just trying to clarify.

basically the owners were trying to force something the players didn't want, the players decertified in attempts to force the owners to do something they didn't want, then the owners locked out to again force the players to do something they don't want. Now it's in the courts hands. The owners are hoping the courts will be fair and say they can keep the extra billion or atleast split it 50/50. The players are hoping the courts look at it and say no the owners can not take away from what you already have.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

closer (and again, when I say that I mean to my understanding, which is not legally certified)

By decertifying, the players put the owners in a no win situation. If they lockout, that is legally illegal (meaning it violates anti trust). If they play with any set of agreed rules, it is legally illegal. The only legally legal option would be to remove all barriers to player movement (draft, FA, Franchise tags, salary cap/floor, etc) and allow all movement. The owners will not do that because they then have no position to bargain.

Your last sentence:
[QUOTE]Now it's in the courts hands. The owners are hoping the courts will be fair and say they can keep the extra billion or atleast split it 50/50. The players are hoping the courts look at it and say no the owners can not take away from what you already have.[/QUOTE] is where you get way off track. The courts cannot, and will not mandate any type of pay, or what is appropriate compensation and/or split of revenue.

Instead, the court will rule on the legality of a) the de-certification, and b) the ensuing lockout. If the courts say the decertification is invalid, or that it is the NLRB's place to make that decision, then the owners get a significant win, and hopefully the players come back more willing to find agreement. If the courts say that the decertification stands, then they will have to say the lockout is invalid, and the owners can follow three options:
1) put temp rules in place and get a deal done to avoid anti trust lawsuits (most likely imo)
2) put no rules in place and allow all movement, no restrictions, and then fight for CBA without as much threat of anti-trust lawsuits(not really likely because of the precedents and weak bargaining position)
3) shut down NFL offices, and void the league, allowing teams to create new and competing leagues (nuclear option if everything goes against the owners, mostly scare tactic with no real chance of happening)

Hopefully, once the Jun 3rd hearing takes place and a decision is made both sides will finally negotiate properly.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

^ understood. Yeah, I figured both sides are stretching the truth and somewhere in between the truth lies.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

In a nut shell it still sounds to me like the players should be at fault for the majority of all this.

I know the owners gave a crappy deal. I don't dispute that. But right now no one can say if the negotiations kept going that at the 12 o'clock hour both sides might have agreed to another extention since progress was being made. Just like we really don't know if no progress would have been made and no extention, CBA expires, and the players forced to wait 6 months to do anything. But thats my point, 6 hours might have been a completely different story but the players chose not to sit and even try to work out a deal, they chose to walk out.

In almost any negotiation even though one side says this is the final offer, it can be negotiated and in this case it sounds or looks like it was never attempted.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=SBXVII;802367]In a nut shell it still sounds to me like the players should be at fault for the majority of all this.

I know the owners gave a crappy deal. I don't dispute that. But right now no one can say if the negotiations kept going that at the 12 o'clock hour both sides might have agreed to another extention since progress was being made. Just like we really don't know if no progress would have been made and no extention, CBA expires, and the players forced to wait 6 months to do anything. But thats my point, 6 hours might have been a completely different story but the players chose not to sit and even try to work out a deal, they chose to walk out.

In almost any negotiation even though one side says this is the final offer, it can be negotiated and in this case it sounds or looks like it was never attempted.[/quote]

I agree with this.

The problem from the players perspective is that for 6 months they would have had near zero leverage, while the owners still could have, and likely would have locked them out. So the question for the union was will their membership withstand a 6 month lockout and still be in the mood for a lengthy legal battle. The leadership figured no.

Both sides had 2+ years to sit and truly negotiate, and instead spent most of that time posturing, and angering the other side's leadership. That animosity isn't just going to disappear...

(I will add a jab at the out of whack judiciary that has basically emboldened the players union to try tactics that have never been used before (that I could find), and that will only continue when Doty rules in the next week that the players are due some humongous damage settlement which the NFL will then put back in the 8th district court of appeals. I would not be shocked for Doty to rule that the players are due the whole 4Billion, 1.5 Billion as split of revenue, and 2.5B as damages) with the whole amount put in escrow pending resolution.)

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

I don't know why I feel totally different. I have no connections so I more than anything else will most likely be wrong, but personally I feel the owners have a case. Given the players even announced they were decertifying in order to have the upper hand, plus the failure to stay the whole time to try to work out an agreement. I just have a feeling that had the Union stayed the rest of the time, let the CBA expire, waited the 6 months (no matter how inconvenient), and filed to decertify, the owners would have little to stand on.

I'm just guessing but I could see the 8th Circuit telling the players they illegally decertified and force them back as a Union, then tell the owners to lift the lockout, and force mediation. No one pays a fine, no one gets blamed, all parties forced back to the bargening table. Maybe even force both parties to work under a court modified CBA (that neither party likes) until a permenant one is agreed upon

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

I feel the same way you do SBXVII. I am just trying to explain what I understand the process to be. IMO the players, led by D Smith, are in the wrong, but more to my feeling, is that D Smith is trying to make his mark, and that most players bought into his line, and now are not constructively engaged in the process. Philip Rivers last Saturday (and I don't have a link) said as much, that he and his team mates don't have an idea of what's going on, and that they are just getting ready for football. If the 8th District Court of appeals upholds the stay, then a lot more players will be asking why they went this route.

Just want to point out also, that the 8th District Court of appeals will not force the players to be a Union, most likely what they would do is uphold the stay, and send the case back to Judge Nelson with instructions on how to deal with the NLRB and Decertification issue, for example they could tell her that she has to re-consider her ruling with the view that decertification was not legally valid. Or something like that. I couldn't afford the Holiday Inn last night...

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

One other thing, I think if Troy Vincent had been elected instead of D Smith, negotiations would have continued, and we would be very close to a good deal for all involved. I can't prove it, but I believe it

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Is [in your opinion] the disposition DeAngelo Hall is taking in regards to the lockout and what he's doing with his down time setting an adverse precedent to what the players are trying to accomplish as a whole?....or, by Hall proclaiming himself a team leader should he project an image that's more team oriented?

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/DeAngelo-Hall-has-the-audacity-to-enjoy-himself-?urn=nfl-wp1948]DeAngelo Hall has the audacity to enjoy himself during lockout - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

Yep, he'll prolly weight 270 when he reports.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=SBXVII;802367]In a nut shell it still sounds to me like the players should be at fault for the majority of all this. .[/quote]

Absolutely and totally 100% false. No idea where you are coming up with that crap, but the federal mediator that was overseeing this bargaining even stated that there obviously no use in continuing the discussions because they were both at sticking points that neither were budging on. I posted this a while back when it was said. So this whole notion that the players didn't try to negotiate till the final hour is a bit misguided.


Again, they would still be under the same CBA and rules had the owners not opted out 2 years ago. This squarely is on the shoulders of the owners, not the players.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

I have a hard time viewing either side in this lawsuit as an injured party. As a business owner myself, I can see where the owners are coming from. As a businessman, I can see where the players are coming from. Botom line, I do not have a dog in this fight. I just want it over with so my Skins can fill out our roster and move some players off of our team. Period.

BTW- Funny how millionaire players (those named in the lawsuit) and billionaire owners have the rest of us arguing over whose right and taking sides. Rather ironic seeing as though the NFL viewer/consumer is the driving force behind their revenue generation. Why waste time arguing the validity of their arguements when we stand to gain nothing. We buy tickets, merchandise, drive web traffic to their sites and tune into the tv to drive th ratings for their games. I don't see us being represented in this lawsuit, so why care.

If you want something to debate, there's plenty to argue over in politics! At least there you get to vote.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Son Of Man;802410]I have a hard time viewing either side in this lawsuit as an injured party. As a business owner myself, I can see where the owners are coming from. As a businessman, I can see where the players are coming from. Botom line, I do not have a dog in this fight. I just want it over with so my Skins can fill out our roster and move some players off of our team. Period.

BTW- Funny how millionaire players (those named in the lawsuit) and billionaire owners have the rest of us arguing over whose right and taking sides. Rather ironic seeing as though the NFL viewer/consumer is the driving force behind their revenue generation. Why waste time arguing the validity of their arguements when we stand to gain nothing. We buy tickets, merchandise, drive web traffic to their sites and tune into the tv to drive th ratings for their games. I don't see us being represented in this lawsuit, so why care.

If you want something to debate, there's plenty to argue over in politics! At least there you get to vote.[/quote]


See my post I made earlier. You do have a vote in this, most people don't chose to use their power.

My thing is, if the owners can show that they are indeed losing profits (not related to misuse of funds or poor management), then they have ground to stand on. However, if the some owners are running their franchise like the McCourts did the Dodgers, don't expect the players to take a salary cut all because you want to use your professional franchise as means to fund your personal life. That's the whole other issue, they aren't willing to open their books, and my guess is it's for a good reason and that whole argument of "oh, i don't want people knowing what i pay my accountant or secretary" crap isn't flying either.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;802384]One other thing, I think if Troy Vincent had been elected instead of D Smith, negotiations would have continued, and we would be very close to a good deal for all involved. I can't prove it, but I believe it[/quote]Agree 100%. But the players opted for Smith rather than Vincent. Most of these guys are college educated so they knew what they were getting.

NC_Skins: Did the owners have the right to opt out 2 years ago?

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;802414]Agree 100%. But the players opted for Smith rather than Vincent. Most of these guys are college educated so they knew what they were getting.[/QUOTE]

That is true, they also had a chance to dissent when they took votes on de-certification and they didn't. I just find it easier to believe that they believed the Owners would divide (as they had several times before) than to believe they intend for this to get to this stage.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

I don't understand all this demobilization of Smith. Smith is doing what the players want, not what he wants. Consensus will be reached so there is no point in arguing about what's going to happen.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=NC_Skins;802411]See my post I made earlier. You do have a vote in this, most people don't chose to use their power.

My thing is, if the owners can show that they are indeed losing profits (not related to misuse of funds or poor management), then they have ground to stand on. However, if the some owners are running their franchise like the McCourts did the Dodgers, don't expect the players to take a salary cut all because you want to use your professional franchise as means to fund your personal life. That's the whole other issue, [B]they aren't willing to open their books, and my guess is it's for a good reason and that whole argument of "oh, i don't want people knowing what i pay my accountant or secretary" crap isn't flying either[/B].[/quote]

Speaking purely as the owner/operator of a business myself (no where near NFL team revenue), I would never open my books to employees let alone in a matter that would make them public record. Not that there is anything shady going on, but allowing my local competition to see where I allocate my marketing resources, for instance, could hinder one of my competitive advantages by allowing them to counter my strategy and attempt to infiltrate that market. Allowing people to see how I structure my networking/joit work ventures with other firms could allow them to try to one-up my strategy with prospective new partnerships. Although I do not really which side presumably "wins" when this labor issue is resolved, I do feel it would not be prudent for the teams to open their books to their employees or the general public.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Son Of Man;802474]Speaking purely as the owner/operator of a business myself (no where near NFL team revenue), I would never open my books to employees let alone in a matter that would make them public record. Not that there is anything shady going on, but allowing my local competition to see where I allocate my marketing resources, for instance, could hinder one of my competitive advantages by allowing them to counter my strategy and attempt to infiltrate that market. Allowing people to see how I structure my networking/joit work ventures with other firms could allow them to try to one-up my strategy with prospective new partnerships. Although I do not really which side presumably "wins" when this labor issue is resolved, I do feel it would not be prudent for the teams to open their books to their employees or the general public.[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but I don't think you can compare the NFL with any regular business.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Ruhskins;802480]I see what you are saying, but I don't think you can compare the NFL with any regular business.[/quote]Why not. I agree with SoM. The only difference between the NFL and any other business is that the employees at the highest level are more difficult to replace in the short term.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=firstdown;802508]For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.[/quote]

Let the people say Amen!

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=firstdown;802508]For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.[/quote]

It's not that straightforward, I am on the owners side, but fact of the matter is that the owners pay a % of football revenues to the players. I don't think I am paying the guy fixing my roof a negotiated % of my income.

The players make to much of it, basically because they want to play rich owners against poor owners, and they knew the owners wouldn't, thus they have a rallying cry for their side. But it's not your typical business model, and so comparisons breakdown quickly.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=firstdown;802508]For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.[/quote]

I think the third party offer was fair. For starters most of the players can't read complicated financial statements and more then likely the people that they would bring in to translate would be told to look for leverage.

However as a general principle I still think the owners have the best deal in sports. Sure the players are assigned 53% of total revenue and that might hit the owners right in the ego but consider that the NHL gave players 54% the year after the lockout and 57% this past year. Also I'm pretty sure that in the NBA players are getting as much as 60% but that needs to change for other reasons.

This lockout should have never happened in the first place and the fact that it's allowed to continue is absurd. Seriously all you needed to figure out was a rookie pay scale and how to take care of retired players and the money saved on rookies could have been used to help pay for veterans. THAT'S IT.

For God's sake the NFL has proven that they can make money in a recession. What more do they need?

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

PS FirstDown. We know where you spend your money. Instead of paying your employees what they're worth you buy overpriced ugly bikes :D

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;802515]I think the third party offer was fair. For starters most of the players can't read complicated financial statements and more then likely the people that they would bring in to translate would be told to look for leverage.

However as a general principle I still think the owners have the best deal in sports. Sure the players are assigned 53% of total revenue and that might hit the owners right in the ego but consider that the NHL gave players 54% the year after the lockout and 57% this past year. Also I'm pretty sure that in the NBA players are getting as much as 60% but that needs to change for other reasons.

This lockout should have never happened in the first place and the fact that it's allowed to continue is absurd. Seriously all you needed to figure out was a rookie pay scale and how to take care of retired players and the money saved on rookies could have been used to help pay for veterans. THAT'S IT.

For God's sake the NFL has proven that they can make money in a recession. What more do they need?[/quote]

Excellent point, NFL owners have it much better than owners of other sports. And they don't have to pay out guaranteed contracts in the NFL, unlike MLB or the NBA.

I don't get this hard on everyone has for the owners side. All sides are at fault one way or another, but the lockout should be lifted while they continue to negotiate. Right now, it is the owners that are preventing that lock out from being lifted at the expense of their own team's performance next season.

Personally, I feel that both parties should've settled this before the season ended. During last season, there should've been hard negotiations going on. Instead both sides went on with business as usual.

Honestly, unless you're a millionaire or a billionaire, I don't understand how people can be so dead set on supporting a side on this argument. Both sides are at fault, and they need to get this sh*t fixed. Right now if the lockout continues, we're not going to have football next season.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Ruhskins;802520]Honestly, unless you're a millionaire or a billionaire, [B]I don't understand how people can be so dead set on supporting a side on this argument. Both sides are at fault, and they need to get this sh*t fixed[/B]. Right now if the lockout continues, we're not going to have football next season.[/quote]

I lean this way.
I also find it amusing how some are defending the players like they are teachers in Wisconsin.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Ruhskins;802480]I see what you are saying, but I don't think you can compare the NFL with any regular business.[/quote]

This.

I'm so tired of hearing that sort of take on the issue.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Ruhskins;802520]Excellent point, NFL owners have it much better than owners of other sports. And they don't have to pay out guaranteed contracts in the NFL, unlike MLB or the NBA.[/quote]

Maybe there's a reason for this, for instance not giving away more than they should to players.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;802519]PS FirstDown. We know where you spend your money. Instead of paying your employees what they're worth you buy overpriced ugly bikes :D[/quote]

If you read that thread you would have seen the money went to help children with terminal illnesses. [IMG]http://www.thewarpath.net/images/icons/icon9.gif[/IMG]

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=firstdown;802566]If you read that thread you would have seen the money went to help children with terminal illnesses. [IMG]http://www.thewarpath.net/images/icons/icon9.gif[/IMG][/quote]

Damnit think think think think. Oh wait I got it.

Umm, yeah well if you read my post you would realize I'm dyslexic and not so lazy as to skim over threads before making judgements.

Did he buy it? Am I typing my thoughts? No stop that no wait damnit no don't click submit.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;802417]NC_Skins: Did the owners have the right to opt out 2 years ago?[/quote]

Obviously they had that "right" to opt out. Were they "right" in doing so? No. If you want to claim you are losing profits, be prepared to show the numbers.



[quote=Son Of Man;802474]Speaking purely as the owner/operator of a business myself (no where near NFL team revenue), I would never open my books to employees let alone in a matter that would make them public record. Not that there is anything shady going on, but allowing my local competition to see where I allocate my marketing resources, for instance, could hinder one of my competitive advantages by allowing them to counter my strategy and attempt to infiltrate that market. Allowing people to see how I structure my networking/joit work ventures with other firms could allow them to try to one-up my strategy with prospective new partnerships. Although I do not really which side presumably "wins" when this labor issue is resolved, I do feel it would not be prudent for the teams to open their books to their employees or the general public.[/quote]

/facepalm

Why people keep relating their job/business to that of the NFL is beyond me. It's not even remotely comparable in the least. You know why you can tell your employees that? Because you can replace them on a whim. Now, let your business and your wealth depended on people that you could not replace, then chances are you wouldn't be dictating much of anything. Not unless you were absolutely stupid and wanted to lose your income. Don't think of the NFL players as employees, think of them as the actual product because that's exactly what they are. Who holds more power? The record label or the famous recording artist? The recording artist can find another label that will be willing to take less and sponsor them, the recording label would be out of luck.

Same thing here bro. There are other billionaires out that that would put together a plan to form another league and take less just so they could profit.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

[quote=firstdown;802508]For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.[/quote]

In your scenario, if that person performing that work was the only person in the world that could do it like him and I couldn't get another, then chances are he would be in his rights to pretty much demand anything he wanted if I needed his work performed.

I find that most people that favor the owners are in fact business owners themselves. How they can't see the difference is beyond me. It's dumbfounding that they keep relating their everyday employee to a person who's talent brings in billions of dollars.

Here are the cliffnotes:

[U]Your employee:[/U] Replaceable
[U]NFL PLayer : [/U] Not replaceable


[U]Your income lost if employee leaves:[/U]Nothing because you replace them.
[U]Income lost by owners if NFL Players left:[/U] Billions and Billions.



If you were making millions upon millions of dollars off the talents of individuals, why in the hell would you risk that cash cow to squeeze out more money? You do realize that their other people in this world that would form another league, get these sponsors, and TV deals and build it into something just as big as the NFL. And they could. Why? Because they would then have all the world class talent leaving the NFL to become the new Arena Football/AFL that most people would stop watching.

I think most business owners have a hard time siding with the players because they are pissed that these "employees" (as they refer to them) can hold such leverage over the people who "own" the business.

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

You seem to think the owners of the franchises and the individual franchises themselves, their history and traditions, are valueless.

Sure, a certain portion of each roster is made up of irreplaceable players (and I am not talking the Mannings, Brady's etc.), it is also true that a large portion of every roster is made up of very replaceable players. The bottom third of most rosters churn year to year. Sometimes stars emerge from this bottom tier (Keenan McCardell jumps to mind), sometimes stars emerge by accident (Kurt Warner). Ultimately, even if all the current players went and formed a new league, if the NFL stayed in operation, the NFL would "replace" all the immediately irreplaceable players. Not immediately, of course, but, in time, the NFL owners through their marketing savvy, greater capitol resources and the inherent value of their trade names which have accrued value over decades, the players might succeed in the short term but probably... as so many competitors have done in the past ... fail.

Could the players come up with enough capital to fund the PR and acquisition of new talent to drive the NFL out of business? Do the players have the systemic and organizational skills to create a league out of whole clothe that would take fans away from their traditional loyalties? (If the current "ultimate Redskin" Cooley gets traded to Denver - are you going to stop being a Redskin fan?) Then there is the coaching aspect ... would players be able to provide the stability and authority (to coaches) that it would take to attract the top coaches? Do you think Belicheck is leaving New England to coach a team in a start up league? Even if that start up league is made of top players. Or will he, perhaps, take the guarranteed stability of the NFL and its deep pcocket owners? Sure, he has to coach less than top talent for a few years but do you really think that is going to stop him or any of the other top coaches from staying with the NFL?

The bottom line is that it is a symbiotic relationship. Each side brings something valuable to the table. Your complete dismissal of the owners value is either naive, stupid or just plain obtuse due to your inherent socialist tendencies. ;)

Re: Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated
 

The longer this lockout continues the worse it gets for both side, If it last into the season I could see the owners telling the players to start celebrating TD's again to bring the fans back.

Which would remind me of a scene from Blazing Saddles a GREAT movie.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gj9uEeuDtQ]YouTube - Blazing Saddles - Camp Town Ladies[/url]

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;802581]Obviously they had that "right" to opt out. Were they "right" in doing so? No. If you want to claim you are losing profits, be prepared to show the numbers.
[/quote]

Ok. Ignoring the second part for the moment. You agree they had the right to do it. Nowhere did the CBA say the side opting out had to show any type of proof or level of support in order for the opt out to become effective. At least we agree on that.

Now the 2nd part is more fuzzy. But let's say that the owners didn't help their case by not immediately giving the books to a neutral party, redact the names and identities and say to the players here are the numbers and projected path. Further let's say that the owners royally stepped in it with the tv deal. It still comes to a point that there was a federal mediator working with the group that could have (if both sides wanted to) put a deal together. You misquoted the mediator before, he did not say both sides were at a stopping point, he said it was clear no more was going to be done, and that (imo) is because the players knew that they were going to litigate, and they weren't going to let mediation get in the way of decertifying. The owners had every desire to stay within the labor framework because that would give them leverage over your "irreplaceable" players.

Finally, paraphrasing JR, the players are precious, but not irreplaceable. (As an entertainment analogy, CBS is not going to end because Sheen is off 2 1/2 men, another eager actor is stepping into that role) Peyton Manning may be indianapolis' all in all but I wouldn't shed a tear if he was out of the league - maybe he would go into commercials full time, that would be awesome. As all Redskins fans know the next Peyton is due out in 2012/2013 well after this fiasco is over. Heck maybe if the season gets cancelled the NFL will do a lottery (with the agreement of some group of players) and get the number 1 pick .