8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The NFLPA disclaimed interest, the media keeps saying decertified. A disclaimer of interest can be undone in a heart beat of a vote. A true de-certification vote has procedures, and then the union is barred from recertifying for a year.

I don't think that is right about the lockout, because the owners contention is that they are in their rights to lockout BECAUSE the decertification was a sham. But if the union follows the CBA clause of 6 months then the NFL can't claim it's a sham, and the whole process starts over, without a lockout in place. The main thing it would mean is we just wasted this time in getting a deal done.

The only question I would have is would the Owners have a claim of damage? Loss of revenue, Attorney's costs due to what the players have done?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The only question I would have is would the Owners have a claim of damage? Loss of revenue, Attorney's costs due to what the players have done?

No way no how. They in fact locked their own income out by their own doing. There is no way in hell they could make a claim like that. Their revenue loss is squarely on their own accord.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No way no how. They in fact locked their own income out by their own doing. There is no way in hell they could make a claim like that. Their revenue loss is squarely on their own accord.

Ok, I'm not totally up on all the leagaleeze. lol. But I was just wondering could the Owners point out that had the Players not done what they did the Lockout would not have happened and because of that could the Owners request damage?

I can for some reason see the owners pointing this out talking about how some fans failed to renew their tickets because of not knowing what was going to happen with the lockout... basically causing damage.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I can for some reason see the owners pointing this out talking about how some fans failed to renew their tickets because of not knowing what was going to happen with the lockout... basically causing damage.

It's about as retarded as a robber suing a home owner for a faulty window that broke and cut him while he was trying to break into the house.

Doesn't make sense does it? Didn't think so.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's about as retarded as a robber suing a home owner for a faulty window that broke and cut him while he was trying to break into the house.

Doesn't make sense does it? Didn't think so.

But... stupid itshay like this does happen. I hear all the time about husbands filing suit against the wife because by doing so they can get paid by the home owners insurance. How about a robber who files suit against the home owner after the home owner shoots the robber? Better yet the home owner getting arrested because the robber was shot in the back leaving the residence and killed?

But I still think you gave a bad example. A better example would be had you not been drinking and driving then you might have had control of your vehicle and not ran the oncoming vehicle off the road injuring one passenger or both. It's all about the first event. Had the players not filed their intent then the owners would not have locked out. All the revenue lost could be attributed to the players filing their intent.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Had the players not filed their intent then the owners would not have locked out. All the revenue lost could be attributed to the players filing their intent.

DOT DOT DOT


The first incident in this is the Owners opting out of the CBA. You conveniently forgot the most important detail. They are the cause, not the players bro.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

DOT DOT DOT


The first incident in this is the Owners opting out of the CBA. You conveniently forgot the most important detail. They are the cause, not the players bro.

I think your forgetting that although most of us know the owners were opting out, the CBA didn't expire prior to the intent? Last I remember there was agreed upon extensions in order to work out a deal, 6 hrs prior to the CBA expiring the Union filed their intent or decertified. It doesn't matter what we think would have happened it's a matter of what actually happened. The players decertified 6 hrs prior to the deadline. So the first event was the players fault not the owners, even though we all can guess had the CBA expired with out an agreement we all could blame both sides for not getting it done. Then had the owners locked out we could point the finger at the owners as being the first event.