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

[SBXVII]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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...

[CRedskinsRule]

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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

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.

[Longtimefan]

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?

DeAngelo Hall has the audacity to enjoy himself during lockout - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports

[Alvin Walton]

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

[Son Of Man]

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

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.

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.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

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.

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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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

This.

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[saden1]

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.