8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No. The NFL mantra has been this.


Buffalo Bills suspend pension and 401K payments to employees - ESPN

NFL Shop raises jersey prices $5 amid lockout - CBSSports.com

Get ready to pay: 18 NFL teams raising ticket prices for 2010 - USATODAY.com

****ing over the fans, screwing over their employees, so they can make yet more money so that they can misuse under the guise of their "operating expenses" and then turn around and claim their are having "profit losses".

Lets not stop to think that maybe the owners might, just might be experiencing a reduction in income due to this whole mess that the owners need to find a way to keep the right amount of money flow coming in to the business to pay said employees, or reduce employees pay by a % to enable them to keep their jobs.

Yep it's all the owners fault. Damn owners. If they would just lift the lockout then fans would be happy and throw the money they don't have due to the bad economy at season tickets, the owners wouldn't have to raise jeresy costs, and employees wouldn't have to worry about their jobs or a reduction in their pay.

Stick it to the owners players and stand your ground. Hold out and wait to hear what the 8th Circuit decides.

When you need a job you go out and apply to 15 to 20 different places in hopes a few respond. You don't go out and apply to one place and wait and when you don't get it you go out and apply to another place and wait, so on and so on. See while the players are so called waiting.... they could be sitting at a table with the owners trying to work something out. What I'd like to see is the owners pick a date and time. The players don't show up its on them, because I'm almost certain the players don't want to negotiate. They want to hear what the 8th Circuit says first or atleast win having the lockout lifted then they will be all over "lets get together."

[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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The players decertified 6 hrs prior to the deadline. So the first event was the players fault not the owners

How you can't comprehend this is beyond me. Really, I'm dumbfounded how you are still saying the first event was the players fault when clearly the first event happened 2 years ago with the opting out of the CBA.


At this point, you aren't even being remotely logical or sticking to the facts. You are just using portions of the events to fill in your stance supporting the owners.


Courts close at 5pm bro. I know there was a show called "Night Court", but none exist that i know of.

[SBXVII]

^Perhaps I'm not getting it. Because both parties could not come to an agreement I was under the impression for atleast the last few yrs both sides have been working under an agreed upon earlier CBA, ie; the 2006 CBA. The reason the owners would have let the CBA expire a couple of months ago was because they felt it was a more player friendly CBA and they want a more even keel CBA. The players don't want to give that up.

In any event it was my understanding that both sides agreed to work under the 2006 CBA in order to keep football going and give them more time to negotiate. So although I'm not "getting it" I was pretty sure there was a CBA for which the players decertified 6 hrs prior to the deadline of an agreed upon deadline.

Again I could be wrong but I was pretty sure there was a CBA that both sides were playing under that both sides agreed to use up until about a couple of months ago when the players chose to decertify.

So your second excuse for the players is they had to file prior to 5pm? When technically they could have waited until the next day after the deadline? Good arguement. Although had they waited there probably would not be any issue's about whether they decertified illegally. I'm soo glad I'm just not getting "it".

[CRedskinsRule]

People who point to the opt out moment are generally trying to deflect criticism away from the players. They tend to disregard that the opt out was a valid option for either side and agreed upon by both sides. If you call them on that, they will go to the unethical tv contracts, this is completely valid, except that the owners have been found guilty, and will face a triple damage punishment, tha brings us to the nflpa disclaimer, which has yet to have a final judgement of intent but doesn't pass a simple smell test. If the 8th district and NLRB both say it was valid, then I will not point to it, but at this point in time, that act of disclaiming with the purpose of subverting the 6month time period written into the CBA is, to me, the point where fault lays.

But rather than lay fault at this point both sides know what it takes to reach a deal, the NFL has put offers out there, somebody on the players side ought to get a response back to the owners, so that everyone can get moving forward to a final solution.

[SBXVII]

Holy crap! I was right...

NFL.com news: Lockout block? Union seeks to decertify before CBA expires

If the union does decertify, the plan in place is to do so prior to the expiration of the CBA at 11:59 p.m. ET on March 3, absent any breakthrough in talks. The union would then seek an injunction to block a potential lockout.

But here's the problem with them waiting....

The NFLPA would take this course of action to ensure the injunction goes before Judge David Doty, who's jurisdiction over this case ends on March 3. If the NFLPA waited until after the expiration of the CBA, the union would have to wait six months to decertify.

The Union didn't want to have to wait 6 months. OFW.

[Dirtbag59]

Leverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverage

TNT I'M DYNAMITE!

League Loses Leverage From Within? Coaches Revolting? « Phin Phanatic | A Miami Dolphins blog

[SBXVII]

I see this as a stalemate. Did not a second contingient of players file a suit also? A break in the ranks of the players? So all that has happened is a break in the ranks of the owners. To me... screams of tie. Just because this is the latest news does not make the opposite side a winner in the leverage game.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I see this as a stalemate. Did not a second contingient of players file a suit also? A break in the ranks of the players? So all that has happened is a break in the ranks of the owners. To me... screams of tie. Just because this is the latest news does not make the opposite side a winner in the leverage game.

I wasn't saying either way rather I'm simply tired of the players (and some of the owners) obsession with obtaining leverage.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

People who point to the opt out moment are generally trying to deflect criticism away from the players. They tend to disregard that the opt out was a valid option for either side and agreed upon by both sides. If you call them on that, they will go to the unethical tv contracts, this is completely valid, except that the owners have been found guilty, and will face a triple damage punishment, tha brings us to the nflpa disclaimer, which has yet to have a final judgement of intent but doesn't pass a simple smell test. If the 8th district and NLRB both say it was valid, then I will not point to it, but at this point in time, that act of disclaiming with the purpose of subverting the 6month time period written into the CBA is, to me, the point where fault lays.

But rather than lay fault at this point both sides know what it takes to reach a deal, the NFL has put offers out there, somebody on the players side ought to get a response back to the owners, so that everyone can get moving forward to a final solution.

In regards to the 1st para, it doesn't matter who has "leverage", if the players are found to have decertified illegally (which I think will happen) then the owners hold the leverage.

but in regards to the 2nd para, no matter who holds leverage both sides need to get an agreement which means sitting at a table and agreeing on a new CBA and signing it. You can't work on anything if only one party is throwing out offers and the other side does not respond or does not throw out counter offers. As you said both sides can have fingers pointed at them, but they need to negotiate and that can't be done by just one side.

[Dirtbag59]

Don't know if this has been posted yet but I think it would be hilarious to see Shanahan put Snyder through an OTA.
The next frontier in lockout boredom: Rams hold “Mock OTA” | ProFootballTalk

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I wasn't saying either way rather I'm simply tired of the players (and some of the owners) obsession with obtaining leverage.

Misunderstood sorry. I too am tired of the whole "leverage" issue. Who the "F" cares? the players thought they would get leverage by decertifying. Did it work? no, the owners lockedout. Did the owners gain any leverage by locking out? no.

How will getting leverage from the courts help in the specifics of a new CBA? I keep hearing that the courts can't instruct what gets put in or taken out of the CBA. They can only determine if either party broke the law. So basically the whole court issues are a smoke screen to take attention away from the sitting down and hashing out an agreement.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Misunderstood sorry. I too am tired of the whole "leverage" issue. Who the "F" cares? the players thought they would get leverage by decertifying. Did it work? no, the owners lockedout. Did the owners gain any leverage by locking out? no.

How will getting leverage from the courts help in the specifics of a new CBA? I keep hearing that the courts can't instruct what gets put in or taken out of the CBA. They can only determine if either party broke the law. So basically the whole court issues are a smoke screen to take attention away from the sitting down and hashing out an agreement.

Funny thing about leverage is you loose some when it becomes obvious that you're desperately chasing after it. In retrospect the only thing leverage wise that I have no problem with is the NFLPA going after the Owners rainy day fund with the TV Contracts.