Bronco Billy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 No surprise to anyone except Judge Nelson and her allegedly unimpeachable opinion. So get the deal done and finish this silly thing. Lockout is legal But the clock finally has run out. The Eighth Circuit has posted at its website a 34-page decision that strikes down Judge Nelson’s decision and allows the lockout to continue. Specifically, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents courts from issuing orders that end strikes or lockouts. Judge Bye, to no surprise, disagreed with the ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Tweet just received from Darrelle Revis: Revis24 Darrelle Revis i know everybody on edge about the lockout but it will be done soon. sometimes it just come down to the last minute. We're getting there people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Tweet just received from Darrelle Revis: Revis24 Darrelle Revis i know everybody on edge about the lockout but it will be done soon. sometimes it just come down to the last minute. We're getting there people... I think this ruling probably greased the skids. Get 'er done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Nothing ever happens until it absolutely has to happen. We as a species still have never learned our lesson from High School science projects and term papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Nothing ever happens until it absolutely has to happen. We as a species still have never learned our lesson from High School science projects and term papers. They're copying the agreement off the internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sounds like they're just stuck on the right of first refusal deal and, if that kills it, shame on the players. I realize that it removes one bidder from the process, but that would only seem to matter if they're not really that coveted to begin with. If they're truly a hot commodity, they'll be enough suitors to drive their price high enough to make matching an expensive proposal. Given the fact that someone other than the player's current team inevitably opens up their checkbook for anyone remotely good, I can't see why this will stop anyone from getting paid. If the right of first refusal means that the current team needs only match, as opposed to beat the one decent offer a player got, well, screw him. Sounds like he isn't all that great. So, while I don't agree with the likes of Colin Cowherd who claims "they lose nothing", because they do, technically lose something. I don't think it's enough to wreck the deal. Assuming, of course, that, thus far, both sides have been playing ball and offering concessions and that this is not, yet another thing the owners are asking for after not giving in on much if anything. Which is something I seriously doubt or things wouldn't be this close, this soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sounds like they're just stuck on the right of first refusal deal and, if that kills it, shame on the players. I realize that it removes one bidder from the process, but that would only seem to matter if they're not really that coveted to begin with. If they're truly a hot commodity, they'll be enough suitors to drive their price high enough to make matching an expensive proposal. Given the fact that someone other than the player's current team inevitably opens up their checkbook for anyone remotely good, I can't see why this will stop anyone from getting paid. If the right of first refusal means that the current team needs only match, as opposed to beat the one decent offer a player got, well, screw him. Sounds like he isn't all that great. So, while I don't agree with the likes of Colin Cowherd who claims "they lose nothing", because they do, technically lose something. I don't think it's enough to wreck the deal. Assuming, of course, that, thus far, both sides have been playing ball and offering concessions and that this is not, yet another thing the owners are asking for after not giving in on much if anything. Which is something I seriously doubt or things wouldn't be this close, this soon. I agree. Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sounds like they're just stuck on the right of first refusal deal and, if that kills it, shame on the players. I realize that it removes one bidder from the process, but that would only seem to matter if they're not really that coveted to begin with. If they're truly a hot commodity, they'll be enough suitors to drive their price high enough to make matching an expensive proposal. Given the fact that someone other than the player's current team inevitably opens up their checkbook for anyone remotely good, I can't see why this will stop anyone from getting paid. If the right of first refusal means that the current team needs only match, as opposed to beat the one decent offer a player got, well, screw him. Sounds like he isn't all that great. So, while I don't agree with the likes of Colin Cowherd who claims "they lose nothing", because they do, technically lose something. I don't think it's enough to wreck the deal. Assuming, of course, that, thus far, both sides have been playing ball and offering concessions and that this is not, yet another thing the owners are asking for after not giving in on much if anything. Which is something I seriously doubt or things wouldn't be this close, this soon. You may be right, but where are you hearing that the right of first refusal may be the last thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 You may be right, but where are you hearing that the right of first refusal may be the last thing? Various radio shows. Take it for what it's worth. Cowherd was going on and on about it this am. And, while I think he's often off-base opinion-wise, like today when he kept on repeating over and over that this was giving up nothing, I'm guessing his place at ESPN makes him privy to good info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) Off-topic, but man I can't stand Cowherd. I can just picture him now going into that squeaky whiny voice, repeating himself ad nauseum before ending with "(raises voice) The owners may want to think they're giving concessions, (lowers voice), but they aren't giving up anything... Again (raises voice) the owners may want to THINK it's a concession, (lowers voice) but they aren't giving up anything".... After reading that other thread about "right to first refusal", I couldn't understand either why this was that important to them, since it might only drive the bidding up higher if they know they that the team can match the offer... Stands to reason you'd have to shell out more bucks to get them not to match it, or however that works... But I was just thinking, especially with the cap-floor expected to be raised, seems like this is alot more of a matter of "dibs" than it has to do with money. That's the only reason I can figure that the owners would care that much about this part of the deal. Edited July 8, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Off-topic, but man I can't stand Cowherd. I can just picture him now going into that squeaky whiny voice, repeating himself ad nauseum before ending with "(raises voice) The owners may want to think they're giving concessions, (lowers voice), but they aren't giving up anything... Again (raises voice) the owners may want to THINK it's a concession, (lowers voice) but they aren't giving up anything".... After reading that other thread about "right to first refusal", I couldn't understand either why this was that important to them, since it might only drive the bidding up higher if they know they that the team can match the offer... Stands to reason you'd have to shell out more bucks to get them not to match it, or however that works... But I was just thinking, especially with the cap-floor expected to be raised, seems like this is alot more of a matter of "dibs" than it has to do with money. That's the only reason I can figure that the owners would care that much about this part of the deal. They care about it from a football standpoint. They had an idea how their team was going to be put together and drafted accordingly. They want to be able to stay relatively close to what they were expecting. And from a business standpoint, when free agency does come about, it's gonna be fast and hard hitting. Teams are wanting the ability to match (I've heard maybe up to three) on some players so a team doesn't get absolutely depleted and they can also concentrate a little more on who they would be seekign in free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 They care about it from a football standpoint. They had an idea how their team was going to be put together and drafted accordingly. They want to be able to stay relatively close to what they were expecting. And from a business standpoint, when free agency does come about, it's gonna be fast and hard hitting. Teams are wanting the ability to match (I've heard maybe up to three) on some players so a team doesn't get absolutely depleted and they can also concentrate a little more on who they would be seekign in free agency. +1 I guess that's where I'm struggling to see why players would be against this... Unless you're Eli or Elway, you should be plenty happy to have the chance to make more money if you're coveted, regardless of which team it is, or have the team retain you if you aren't as coveted and/or it's reasonable for the team to match the offer... I really don't see how it hurts them from a negotiating standpoint, whereas the converse definitely can hurt team's competitive advantage if they have no ability to say "yes, I'll pay you that jack they're offering to keep you"... Although I don't see the need to have 3 per team, but surely there's some middle ground (IMO, just 1 right to refuse per team), which would seem to be a comprimise that should work for most everyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Tweet just received from Darrelle Revis: Revis24 Darrelle Revis i know everybody on edge about the lockout but it will be done soon. sometimes it just come down to the last minute. otay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Sounds like they're just stuck on the right of first refusal deal and, if that kills it, shame on the players. I agree to an extent. While I agree that right of first refusal is a major point in the talks, the rookie pay scale is one that will be the last major hurdle to cross. Owners want a 5yr contract deal while players argue that it makes the rook wait until year 6 to get a lucrative FA contract. Personally, I hope losing the right of first refusal is a compromise to the rookie contract year of 5 yrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.