Replacement Players

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

I hear the NFL will be trying out replacement owners...

Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I hear the NFL will be trying out replacement owners...

Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network

haha...that was brilliant. I like this portion of the article.

"Our replacement owners might not be as flashy as someone like Al Davis, but they will be just as effective at running a football franchise, handling difficult management decisions, and collecting profits." Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones criticized the possible move, claiming the scab owners wouldn't know anything about the nuances of price-gouging and ****ing over fans.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.

If there is no CBA, why will it matter if this is a strike or a lockout? No CBA means that the NFL players who are loyal to their decertified union will not play. If the league then chooses to try to put on games, they would have to use other players and those would be "replacement players". The source of the work-stoppage does not preclude that possibility.

The odds that this situation would devolve to a place where no agreement is in place so late in the year that "replacements" would become a real possibility are very long. But it is not impossible.

Consider this a hypothetical situation to be discussed - - sort of like the hypothetical discussions we have around things like what would have happened if Jack Kent Cooke's will had not forced his son to sell the team or what would have happened if Gregg Williams had become head coach instead of Jim Zorn.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

If there is no CBA, why will it matter if this is a strike or a lockout? No CBA means that the NFL players who are loyal to their decertified union will not play. If the league then chooses to try to put on games, they would have to use other players and those would be "replacement players". The source of the work-stoppage does not preclude that possibility.

The odds that this situation would devolve to a place where no agreement is in place so late in the year that "replacements" would become a real possibility are very long. But it is not impossible.

If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Thanks for the tip. I've been to India several times and always drink bottled water. I never drink the tap water or anything which might contain tap water and this was true before the advent of this "superbug."

India is a terrific place anyway.

I wouldn't mind seeing India, heck I'd like to see a lot of countries that are in no way shape and form American friendly. I must be the moron who wonders why those countries don't wise up. Most of the middle east would make a ton of money if they would just be more friendly towards foriegners, Americans, and Christians. Instead their gov would prefer to lose the millions they cold be making in order to keep the outsiders out.

Like Cuba, supposedly has the nicest beaches but would prefer to stay communist instead of reforming their gov and opening their island to vacationers which would bolster their economy.

[MTK]

Crazy I know but not every country is interested in being westernized.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.

Is this true? Because with the NFL union dissolved, I feel like they can't hold a player to the contract and the player can't hold an owner to a contract. With the union gone, aren't the contracts null and void?

[CRedskinsRule]

As I understand it, the contracts are null till a new CBA grandfathers them in, HOWEVER, if the owners chose to bring in scabs, and all the owners refused to allow any current players to play on their teams(because as we all know - the players want to play:vomit, THEN the owners would be guilty of collusion and even more anti trust violations, thus subjecting them to treble (triple) damages, so the 100 million dollar per team number would jump to $300million and probably over $400 million per team. There will be no replacement players this go around.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Is this true? Because with the NFL union dissolved, I feel like they can't hold a player to the contract and the player can't hold an owner to a contract. With the union gone, aren't the contracts null and void?

The contracts are between the player and the team, not the team and the union. The union just represents these guys like any other union does it's workers. The disbanding of the union doesn't nullify the contracts still current. If disbanding the Union nullified contracts, imagine how many free agents would be available. Peyton Manning anyone?...lol We really could assemble a dream team.

With the Union gone, the only thing that changes is the representation from the players. They will now have to represent themselves (along with their legal council) in the matter instead of DeMaurice Smith.

They very well can come to a CBA agreement with the NFL, and then re-certify the Union to represent the players again in matters going forward.


*see Credskins post above for further explanation.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Crazy I know but not every country is interested in being westernized.

Yeah I know, there's a lot to the word "westernized." But your right, for a group of countries that have done nothing but fight over a religious beliefs or land would not begin to open their doors to society with welcome arms with the idea that tourism would create more income for both the country and its citizens.

It's a shame though because I'm sure there are some beautiful places, and historical sites. I just don't want to be kidnapped, killed or thrown in prison.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Is this true? Because with the NFL union dissolved, I feel like they can't hold a player to the contract and the player can't hold an owner to a contract. With the union gone, aren't the contracts null and void?

I think whatever agreements the Union agreed to are disolved. As an example would be teams not making contact with players under contract, or agents speaking with other teams. But individual contracts that the player and team sign fall under contract law. Those contracts are still in place. Which is why someone mentioned that the players will still be getting paid. I thought I read somewhere though that part of the issue to be concerned about was if the players disolved the Union then the owners would "lockout" which they did and due to that players would not get paid. Most players were well aware of the situation and put money aside or were told to for this very occassion. I could be wrong but I thought that was the case which is why some players are worried about the rulings.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

As I understand it, the contracts are null till a new CBA grandfathers them in, HOWEVER, if the owners chose to bring in scabs, and all the owners refused to allow any current players to play on their teams(because as we all know - the players want to play:vomit, THEN the owners would be guilty of collusion and even more anti trust violations, thus subjecting them to treble (triple) damages, so the 100 million dollar per team number would jump to $300million and probably over $400 million per team. There will be no replacement players this go around.

and.... although you bring up a good point, could not the owners incorporate into their agreement with a new CBA that the players will not seek "collusion" or that whatever penalty in regards to that be dismissed in order to reach an agreement?

In any event the the NFL has said "All games will be played." So no worry, if the first 4 games are not played as expected I'm sure the season will simply be extended at the end to finish these games or the whole season will be backed up so the first games played will be the first opponants on week 4. We'll just have to sweat it out the first few weeks.


But knowing all this why would all the teams already announce "Replacement Tryouts" if each owner knows he's breaking the law and could be forced to pay a huge penalty? Somethings not adding up.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But knowing all this why would all the teams already announce "Replacement Tryouts" if each owner knows he's breaking the law and could be forced to pay a huge penalty? Somethings not adding up.

dot dot dot dot

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I wouldn't mind seeing India, heck I'd like to see a lot of countries that are in no way shape and form American friendly. I must be the moron who wonders why those countries don't wise up. Most of the middle east would make a ton of money if they would just be more friendly towards foriegners, Americans, and Christians. Instead their gov would prefer to lose the millions they cold be making in order to keep the outsiders out.

Like Cuba, supposedly has the nicest beaches but would prefer to stay communist instead of reforming their gov and opening their island to vacationers which would bolster their economy.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

It's a shame though because I'm sure there are some beautiful places, and historical sites. I just don't want to be kidnapped, killed or thrown in prison.

Actually India is quite USA-friendly compared to its neighbor Pakistan. We are a major trading partner with them, a major military supplier of them, and should they go to war with China again, they hope that we will come to their aid.

More on-the-ground, I've run into almost zero hostility towards Americans from average Indian citizens. Some Indians sincerely admire us while others are more neutral. There are some Indians who do not like our foreign policies but they don't hold that against average Americans.

Also, don't forget that just as we are fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, so is India.

When I am there I have almost no fear of being kidnapped, killed, or thrown in prison. I do fear thieves but I fear them in the USA, too.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and.... although you bring up a good point, could not the owners incorporate into their agreement with a new CBA that the players will not seek "collusion" or that whatever penalty in regards to that be dismissed in order to reach an agreement?

In any event the the NFL has said "All games will be played." So no worry, if the first 4 games are not played as expected I'm sure the season will simply be extended at the end to finish these games or the whole season will be backed up so the first games played will be the first opponants on week 4. We'll just have to sweat it out the first few weeks.


But knowing all this why would all the teams already announce "Replacement Tryouts" if each owner knows he's breaking the law and could be forced to pay a huge penalty? Somethings not adding up.

the 4/1 joke that just keeps giving