8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by 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

lol. I can hear it know

MS- "Ok so you have to go up and back 4 times in oder to pass."
DS- "This is BS, I'm a millionair."
MS- "So is Haynesworth."
DS- "Ok, I finished 2 I gotta go to the bathroom."
MS- "Well you took too long in the bathroom so you have to start over."
DS- "I finished the test. I think I'm going to sue you for defamation of character."

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

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.

Yeah I really didn't pay attention to the whole TV deal and out of the blue people were calling foul. As long as it's counted in as NFL income and it's part of what the players will get, then I don't see the problem because in the long run the players are going to see part of that money also. But if it's exclusively money for the owners but should be for the players also then I can see the arguement.

Which I'm guessing is the issue. I think it's funny how it's business as usual for the NFL all except for when it comes to players. and even then some of us would be idiots to think the teams are not having some kind of contact with their players. Yet the NFL just recently looked into it and ... what do you know... no violations. lol.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

lol. I can hear it know

MS- "Ok so you have to go up and back 4 times in oder to pass."
DS- "This is BS, I'm a millionair."
MS- "So is Haynesworth."
DS- "Ok, I finished 2 I gotta go to the bathroom."
MS- "Well you took too long in the bathroom so you have to start over."
DS- "I finished the test. I think I'm going to sue you for defamation of character."

I think I could figure out the itnerary.

Drill 1 - Signing checks then resting
Drill 2 - Read a critical article without suing
Drill 3 - Charging less then $200 for beverages.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I think I could figure out the itnerary.

Drill 1 - Signing checks then resting
Drill 2 - Read a critical article without suing
Drill 3 - Charging less then $200 for beverages.

lol. What happens if DS refuses to do a drill? lol. What happens if DS is seen laying on the field reading the critical article?

Drill 4- putting a credit card into a cheerleaders top with out touching boobage.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

lol. What happens if DS refuses to do a drill? lol. What happens if DS is seen laying on the field reading the critical article?

Drill 4- putting a credit card into a cheerleaders top with out touching boobage.

That's actually part of the NFL sex offender OTAs led by Big Ben and Fal Al. LOL.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

People who point to the opt out moment are generally trying to deflect criticism away from the players. .

The opt out was brought up because somebody actually thinks the players started the "first event" in all this with the decertification. He's talking about the owners suing the players for something "they've" done. It's ****ing retarded when you think about what started this whole fiasco and it sure wasn't the players.


I'll make this simple so even a cave man can understand.


If the owners didn't opt out of the 2006 CBA, would we even be having this discussion? Any answer other than NO is a clear sign of a person's intelligence level and I refuse to go any further with this. The owners event started this whole thing. End of story. Now, if you want to argue the merits of the players impact on this ordeal, that's one thing. If you want to argue the players haven't cooperated, that's one thing. What isn't up for debate is the players starting it. At that point, you are simply trolling.

[SBXVII]

^ So to help out my ignorant butt some more your saying the Owners and Players have been working together with out a CBA for 4 yrs? Because the Owners opted out in 2006.

Yet apparently I'm not the only individual to "not get it." Because the media doesn't either.....

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.

In case your wondering the story was written Feb 26, 2011. Please enlighten me ole smart one as to how the Owners (who should be at fault) opted out of the CBA in 2006, which would mean there is no CBA, and be able to opt out yet again in 2011? Better yet how could the Players decertify now 4yrs after the owners opted out and yet still be filing prior to the expiration of the CBA.

Last I knew if either party opted out then the CBA was no longer in effect. Yet both sides have been working under a CBA? Yes they have been working under the 2006 CBA which was agreed upon and extended by both parties agreeing to have it extended until they both could agree on a new one.

The owners may have opted out as you put it but they have been working under the very CBA they opted out of. and .... it expired on March 3rd at midnight.

What I don't think some other non informed individuals get is the 2006 CBA that the owners and players were working under all the way up until March 3rd ..... COULD HAVE BEEN EXTENDED. Except the players chose to decertify prior to the deadline of the expiration.

[SBXVII]

OMG, if you read the article it says that very thing.....

At this point there are four likely scenarios that would take place March 4: a new deal is struck, the sides opt to extend the negotiating period, the union decertifies or the owners vote for a lockout.

[SmootSmack]

Talk about totally misreading what NC wrote. He didn't say the owners opted out in 2006. He said they opted out of the 2006 deal. The 2006 deal gave either the option to opt out a year or two before the deal expired, an option the owners exercised in 2008

NFL owners opt out of CBA

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Talk about totally misreading what NC wrote. He didn't say the owners opted out in 2006. He said they opted out of the 2006 deal. The 2006 deal gave either the option to opt out a year or two before the deal expired, an option the owners exercised in 2008

NFL owners opt out of CBA

Ok totally wrong sorry. Misread. But although they opted out did they not extend the 2006 CBA each year in order to reach an agreement? or were they simply playing under the 2006 CBA but did not actually have a CBA in place due to the owners opting out.

In any event the owners might have "opted out" in 2006 but they have been trying to get a new one in place. In other words if both sides had the option to "opt out" then either side could have done it. Legally. Now if the side who opted out ... also chose not to work out an agreement I'd be pointing fingers, except thats not whats happened. The owners have been showing up at all meetings, they have offered 2 CBA offers, Both the players walked away from with out even a counter offer, players decertify (possibly illegally which is where the finger pointing should start), owners lockedout, mediation, and 8th Circuit upholding the lockout but asking the owners to, yet again, send the players, yet again, another CBA offer, which was, yet again not counter offered.

I understand the owners and players are most likely talking about the issue's but... it should not stop the players from taking whatever offer the owners hand to them and making the adjustments they would like to see happen and sending the offer (on paper) back to the owners.

[SmootSmack]

They played under the 2006 CBA with the knowledge, since 2008, that if no new agreement was reached prior to this March the CBA they had agreed to would be void since the owners chose to opt out.

And the owners have rejected proposals from the players since last spring

N.F.L. Owners Reject Players’ Bid to Extend Current Agreement - NYTimes.com

NFLPA Made Proposals To NFL On How To Split Revenues - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

NFLPA's Proven Performance Plan Would Shorten Rookie Contracts, Distribute Savings - SBNation.com

And as far as the owners showing up at all meetings

Business matter became personal for union - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

Yet from the players’ perspective, control is very much at the heart of this fight, and it has been since the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the CBA in 2008, a mere two years after they’d agreed to an extension.

From that point on, owners embarked upon a not-so-subtle strategy to “take back our league,” as enunciated by the Carolina Panthers’ Jerry Richardson to his peers last March. They were fully prepared to lock out the players until a decision by U.S. District Court Judge David Doty imperiled the uninterrupted television payments on which they’d been counting derailed their plans.

That was last Tuesday, two days before the CBA was set to expire. And while Doty’s ruling motivated the owners to try to cut a deal – and the union twice agreed to short-term extensions in an effort to come to terms – Smith and his fellow negotiators continued to chafe over what they believed was a pattern of disrespect from the other side.

First, there was Richardson’s condescending treatment of Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning(notes), former NFL player Sean Morey(notes) and other union negotiators during a Feb. 5 bargaining session. Shortly thereafter, owners abruptly canceled a planned five-hour bargaining session, apparently because they were angry over the union’s characterization of a hypothetical economic model.

Even after federal mediator George Cohen began presiding over the sessions, union negotiators thought they were being shined on by the league, as most or all of the owners were absent from the bulk of the meetings. Finally, last Wednesday – the day after Doty’s decision – 10 executives from the league’s labor management committee showed up for the talks at the FMCS building. They left to join the rest of the league’s owners at a meeting 25 miles away in Chantilly, Va., and Smith and other union negotiators were under the impression that those owners would return for the next round of discussions.

Instead, the union leaders learned that those owners, including the Dallas Cowboys’ Jerry Jones and the New England Patriots’ Robert Kraft, had flown home on private planes, leaving only two members of the league’s labor committee (New York Giants owner John Mara and Green Bay Packers president Mark Murphy) to attend Thursday’s crucial session.

Even after negotiating a pair of extensions, the league’s negotiating team showed up this past Monday without displaying a sense of urgency. On Thursday afternoon – with Friday’s deadline looming – Smith and other union negotiators left the FMCS building and walked back to NFLPA headquarters. They were told by Cohen to expect a call before 4:30 p.m., at which point they’d be summoned to return for another session of talks.

The union officials waited as 4:30 arrived, then 5, but the call never came. Finally, Atallah learned via a reporter’s post on Twitter that the owners who’d been in attendance were on a conference call with the rest of the league’s owners.

Said Atallah: “I turned to De and said, ‘Oh, that’s funny – we were supposed to be over there right now. “He said, ‘Are you serious?’ At 6:15 we called the mediator’s office, and he told us, ‘Well, they’re packing up to go, so we’re not doing anything tonight.’ And then we heard they all went to dinner.”

[SBXVII]

Let me ask this and perhaps NC will be happy after....

Both side have a contract. In 2006 both sides could opt out if they didn't like the contract. The owners opted out because they didn't like a specific part or perhaps a couple specific parts of the contract. BUT.... both sides agreed to keep working under the very contract until a new one could be agreed upon.

So if I've supposedly seen the light, what should the owners have done if they didn't like parts of the contract? over look it and sign the deal and keep working under a contract they don't like? This would have made the owners saints? Instead they chose to opt out of the contract in order to work out a new deal which would be more to their liking (which by the way is not illegal) and now it's all their fault? I presume had the players done this in 06 we would be pointing fingers at the players right?

The owners opted out but agreed to keep working under the very agreement they didn't like in order to facilitate a new agreement. Shame on the owners. Yet the players who are finally frustrated that they are getting money taken away decided to not sit at the table for the final 6 hrs, decided to not extend the 06 agreement in order to keep business as usual, and chose to decertify early in order to "have leverage" (as D.Smith put it) illegally.

Had the players not decertified and agreed to an extention there might not have been raised tickets prices, raised jersey prices, employees having pay cuts, etc. etc.

Forget it. Whatever. Still goes back to there's not counter offers and the players keep talking about June 3rd or June 6th. Not about sitting down this week and trying to hammer something out.

[MTK]

Wow, I miss football more than ever right about now.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Wow, I miss football more than ever right about now.

You and me both

[CRedskinsRule]

NC_Skins, without getting into it too far, since 2 big guys here are sick of it :cheeky-sm

if the owners hadn't opted out, we would be at this same place just 2 years later. Opting out was legal and in the spirit of the CBA. Leaving bargaining 6 hours early to disclaim interest and avoid the constructs written into the CBA in case it expires. I see a difference if you don't nothing I say will change it.

One other point, and I think this is fair, but also certainly speculative. Shortly after the owners opted out, Gene Upshaw died, and the whole system got thrown into a bit of a chaotic state for a while, and by the time it resolved both sides were set in their strategies. Had he not been taken away as he was, even if he retired, perhaps the transitions and plans may have been more steadied. The owners couldn't un-opt out to give more time to DSmith et al to get some ground under their feet and get a feel for NFL labor relations.

Oh well, we are where we are, and all sides are pretty unyielding (IMO)