8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Please note that this has to be the shortest post ever from JR. I want to thank everybody involved in helping him learn how to use a minimum of words effectively!

It's Tuesday "drink with the neighbors and all their frends" Night. So you need to also thiank the two bottles of wine, 4 magaritas and 2 shots of bourbon I have drank in the last two hours.

f' em all. Football forever. Fight for all DC!!

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I'm curious about why you'd side with the players honestly. I think you'd agree both sides are being greedy (which is perfectly acceptable in this case to me.) Given only that I'd be hard pressed to take any side at all. But add in that the players have consistently positioned themselves to pursue litigation and have now pursued said litigation by pretty dubious means I can't see how anyone can side with them. The balance of good faith spent lies firmly with the owners in my opinion and that is the only thing that tilts me towards the owners.

Edit: I think it is telling that we have a group of 32 business owners making BILLIONS of dollars a year crying poor and slowly but surely public opinion seems to be shifting firmly to their side. If there was ever a less sympathetic entity than the NFL owners crying poor I cannot think of it. Yet the players are consistently positioning themselves on the wrong side of "right".

I wrote a whole post about it, don't feel like rehashing it. But in summary, I don't believe the state of the league is as poor as the owners claim it is, and the NFLPA made several concessions which were rejected by the NFL before March

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

and we disagree on "dubious means" and the players side was prepared to negotiate multiple times back in the spring, but the owners either wouldn't show up for meetings, would show up but sit in a separate room and not meet face to face, or would show up and leave after a couple of hours.

And from my own discussions with the league, I just don't buy that they're in the dire position they claim to be. And I know how they can bully, totally different circumstances I know.

Yes, both sides are to blame. But I think the owners are being made to look too much like the good guys. Which, I understand, they usually are because people generally have a hard time siding with "millionaires playing a kid's game"

I also don't think I'm as emotionally charged up about this as others appear to be. And heck, it would probably affect me more than most others here. But the only reason I want the issue resolved is for my own selfish reasons as a fan. But realistically, I know that what matters is getting to a long-term agreement that will benefit the players and keep the league moving forward for decades to come, not a quick fix band-aid solution to appease fans.

I'm not so aggravated about the NFLPA preparing for litigation. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have been preparing themselves for worst-case scenarios for a couple of years. That's par for the course.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Gotcha. That you know of, has D Smith, or any player given a proposal or negotiating points since they walked away from the mediation?

Not that I know of. I doubt any player would anyway

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It's Tuesday "drink with the neighbors and all their frends" Night. So you need to also thiank the two bottles of wine, 4 magaritas and 2 shots of bourbon I have drank in the last two hours.

f' em all. Football forever. Fight for all DC!!

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.

Ya know I coulda found a way over there!

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

#3- Monopoly? I don't think so. Prior to the UFL, yes, but the players do have more then one option now. They may not get as good a pay but they have options.

It isn't about being a monopoly. It is about monopolizing the market. Collusion would fit under the act of monopolizing, but they have an exemption to that, so some OTHER act that would consistitute monopolizing the market. The UFL's existence is irrelevant to the matter unless the NFL is trying actively wipe it out.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It's Tuesday "drink with the neighbors and all their frends" Night. So you need to also thiank the two bottles of wine, 4 magaritas and 2 shots of bourbon I have drank in the last two hours.

f' em all. Football forever. Fight for all DC!!

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.

Now waiting on the Lockout Continues-Drunk Thread super-merge.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.

You must be drunk, saying something as foolish as that.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

That one needs to happen. I can live with an NBA lockout mainly because the NBA needs fundamental changes to player movement and acquisition. The NFL system on the other hand works from a competition perspective all it needs is a few tweaks. And unlike the NFL I can in fact believe that the NBA owners are loosing money.

NBA also needs to revamp how their draft works. I just don't get how the worst team doesn't get the #1 pick because they drew ping pong balls to determine who gets the #1 pick.

[Ruhskins]

I know this sounds like a stupid question, but I don't understand why can't there be negotiations while the league it is still running. I just feel that the teams are shooting themselves in the foot by not having free agency and offseason workouts/practices/training camps.

[SBXVII]

Why is there so much debate over the 59% or 53%? The owners say 59% the players say 53%.

Could I possibly be right in thinking the owners keep talking about the expired CBA and after the 1 billion was taken off the top the players received 59% of the income.

But under the new CBA offered by the NFL 2 billion would be taken off the top and the players would only get 53%?

Is that even remotely close? "if" I am then split the difference. If the players refuse to give up their 59% then let the owners take 2 billion off the top and of the remaining give the players 59%. or... only give the owners 1 billion off the top and only give the players 53% of the income. Fair?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I know this sounds like a stupid question, but I don't understand why can't there be negotiations while the league it is still running. I just feel that the teams are shooting themselves in the foot by not having free agency and offseason workouts/practices/training camps.

I think in the perfect world they could, but....

I, for some reason, believe or have heard that when the players decertified or filed their decertification the owners had to lockout to protect themselves. from what I don't know? each player possibly filing a suit against them? or because the union did it to get the upper hand the owners locked out to keep the upper hand. I don't know.

As others have said, does it really matter who has the upper hand? if either side is not happy with the offer just don't agree to it until both sides are happy. The owners can't put football games on if the players don't agree and sit out ie; strike. The players can't play unless the owners bus them to their location to play. Let them work out all they want.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Why is there so much debate over the 59% or 53%? The owners say 59% the players say 53%.

Could I possibly be right in thinking the owners keep talking about the expired CBA and after the 1 billion was taken off the top the players received 59% of the income.

But under the new CBA offered by the NFL 2 billion would be taken off the top and the players would only get 53%?

Is that even remotely close? "if" I am then split the difference. If the players refuse to give up their 59% then let the owners take 2 billion off the top and of the remaining give the players 59%. or... only give the owners 1 billion off the top and only give the players 53% of the income. Fair?

59% is of the 8billion (including 1billion exemption)
53% is of the total 9 billion.

either way it equates to approx 4.7 billion.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I wrote a whole post about it, don't feel like rehashing it. But in summary, I don't believe the state of the league is as poor as the owners claim it is, and the NFLPA made several concessions which were rejected by the NFL before March

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

and we disagree on "dubious means" and the players side was prepared to negotiate multiple times back in the spring, but the owners either wouldn't show up for meetings, would show up but sit in a separate room and not meet face to face, or would show up and leave after a couple of hours.

And from my own discussions with the league, I just don't buy that they're in the dire position they claim to be. And I know how they can bully, totally different circumstances I know.

Yes, both sides are to blame. But I think the owners are being made to look too much like the good guys. Which, I understand, they usually are because people generally have a hard time siding with "millionaires playing a kid's game"

I also don't think I'm as emotionally charged up about this as others appear to be. And heck, it would probably affect me more than most others here. But the only reason I want the issue resolved is for my own selfish reasons as a fan. But realistically, I know that what matters is getting to a long-term agreement that will benefit the players and keep the league moving forward for decades to come, not a quick fix band-aid solution to appease fans.

I'm not so aggravated about the NFLPA preparing for litigation. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have been preparing themselves for worst-case scenarios for a couple of years. That's par for the course.

Excellent post.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

59% is of the 8billion (including 1billion exemption)
53% is of the total 9 billion.

either way it equates to approx 4.7 billion.

What happens when the pot gets bigger?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

Excellent post.

Check's in the mail


Thanks