keggerz Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) lifting lockout but it is expected that the NFL is going to request a stay of ruling http://www.xtra910.com/pages/bickley_mj.html?article=8483452 Edited April 25, 2011 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 NFL's statement: "We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 This whole situation is pissing me off the more I read about it. First off the collective bargaining agreement ended, so until a new one is in place, there will still be no games. Second, the owners locked out the players, only to have the union dissolve, but the idiot wearing the stupid hats is still around. Isnt that just a circumvent to having a union, when this clown is still speaking. If he was the Union chief and the Union dissolved, he should have gone away as well. But he is still wearing those gay hats, running his mouth at every turn. What this boils down to is the owners are not going to agree to a new CBA unless they get a significant chunk of the pot, and quiet frankly I agree with them. This isnt about Millionaires and billionaires, its about business. And business's are in business to make money, not share equally with its employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Since when can the government decide if a business wants to shutdown or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Since when can the government decide if a business wants to shutdown or not? I don't recall the players asking for an even split with the owners, so I don't know why that's getting said. And the NFL isn't your typical business: it's a legally operated monopolistic cartel that's been given special exemption for its business model. Otherwise, the USFL would have collected damages back in the day. It exists as a monopoly because the government allows it to, otherwise it'd have to be shut down for more or less being an illegal monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Someone wake me up when this is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I don't recall the players asking for an even split with the owners, so I don't know why that's getting said. And the NFL isn't your typical business: it's a legally operated monopolistic cartel that's been given special exemption for its business model. Otherwise, the USFL would have collected damages back in the day. It exists as a monopoly because the government allows it to, otherwise it'd have to be shut down for more or less being an illegal monopoly. If the NFL is a monopoly, are other sports also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 http://www.slate.com/id/2068290/ Technically, baseball is the only one given legal exemption status. It really does seem that although there's been no ruling regarding the NFL it's being applied to much of this. Sports is a funky legal concept in this country and that hasn't been given much attention in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 What this boils down to is the owners are not going to agree to a new CBA unless they get a significant chunk of the pot, and quiet frankly I agree with them. This isnt about Millionaires and billionaires, its about business. And business's are in business to make money, not share equally with its employees. The owners are also the ones that backed out of the agreement they signed off on a few years ago. If you're going to back out of an agreement and ask for more, you should be a little transparent as far as why you need the money. We can all talk about how it's a business and it's there to make money and what not. I had that perception a few weeks ago, but I'm at the point where I don't think it's that cut and dry. The players are not only the employees, but the product as well. I think we have to throw out every real world comparison, because the NFL isn't the real world. I also believe that the real problem is the owners fighting amongst themselves and equal revenue sharing. I think they thought it would be easier to squeeze the players than to come to an agreement between the ownerships. The owners are the guys that allowed the contracts to rise each year, and I'm not so sure they should just get a bail out just because they want one. And I agree that DeMaurice Smith is a douchebag and does nothing but hurts any possibility of a new CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 It's the owners jobs to handle their finances. If they are facing trouble, there has to be other ways to fix their problems than to ask for a bigger percentage of the revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I don't recall the players asking for an even split with the owners, so I don't know why that's getting said. And the NFL isn't your typical business: it's a legally operated monopolistic cartel that's been given special exemption for its business model. Otherwise, the USFL would have collected damages back in the day. It exists as a monopoly because the government allows it to, otherwise it'd have to be shut down for more or less being an illegal monopoly. arent players getting bigger share after 1st billion off top, my take that is close to even split, plus the more revenue in future years increase their side higher than owners. So that is why it was said. Players were not hurting at all, and really if owners are willing to fund retirement for them when they retire, should be like the rest of the world and help fund that along the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 It's the owners jobs to handle their finances. If they are facing trouble, there has to be other ways to fix their problems than to ask for a bigger percentage of the revenue. Forgive me for saying this, but I run a business, and Im not opening my books up to my employees and sharing revenue. Im out the initial investment to start the business, and i take the risk if a player gets hurt, as I still have to pay his salary. And I take risk at gate if team collapses. You dont see the owners going to players and asking for money back if they dont make what was projected, yet owners are suppose to pay on those projections regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 The owners are also the ones that backed out of the agreement they signed off on a few years ago. If you're going to back out of an agreement and ask for more, you should be a little transparent as far as why you need the money. We can all talk about how it's a business and it's there to make money and what not. I had that perception a few weeks ago, but I'm at the point where I don't think it's that cut and dry. The players are not only the employees, but the product as well. I think we have to throw out every real world comparison, because the NFL isn't the real world. I also believe that the real problem is the owners fighting amongst themselves and equal revenue sharing. I think they thought it would be easier to squeeze the players than to come to an agreement between the ownerships. The owners are the guys that allowed the contracts to rise each year, and I'm not so sure they should just get a bail out just because they want one. And I agree that DeMaurice Smith is a douchebag and does nothing but hurts any possibility of a new CBA. These players can be replaced, it happens every year, and quite frankly if the NFL started over from scratch with college players and started a CBA stating the highest salary in the league is a million a year, do you think a single college kid would turn that down vs the alternative of getting a real job. Hell no they wouldnt. For the players to act as if they are the product, I simply say, lets replace the product with a younger cheaper product and start over. If players want to continue to play football, they can go to canada, or sign a new contract for 1 million a year. Their choice. This happens in business every day, people who make the most get laid off the fastest in most cases, when companies are trying to reduce expenses The Owners are trying to do the same thing. Can out of work employees sue their former employer for out sourcing their job. And why are we not spending tax payer dollars going after these corporations who send our jobs overseas, instead of worrying about making these millionaire players richer. IM not saying the owners are blameless, they raise ticket prices and the cost of beer and parking is out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) These players can be replaced, it happens every year, and quite frankly if the NFL started over from scratch with college players and started a CBA stating the highest salary in the league is a million a year, do you think a single college kid would turn that down vs the alternative of getting a real job. Hell no they wouldnt. For the players to act as if they are the product, I simply say, lets replace the product with a younger cheaper product and start over. If players want to continue to play football, they can go to canada, or sign a new contract for 1 million a year. Their choice. This happens in business every day, people who make the most get laid off the fastest in most cases, when companies are trying to reduce expenses The Owners are trying to do the same thing. Can out of work employees sue their former employer for out sourcing their job. And why are we not spending tax payer dollars going after these corporations who send our jobs overseas, instead of worrying about making these millionaire players richer. IM not saying the owners are blameless, they raise ticket prices and the cost of beer and parking is out of control. If they replaced the players, the players would start their own league. The good college players would go play in said league, leaving the NFL with a second rate scrapheap. Isn't that how business works in this world you speak of? The NFL would fold within five years. Players are employees and this is just business. Yeah, sure. Their choice?? Hahahaah. Bread needs an owner to produce it and sell it. People with Peyton Manning's talent do not. Great theory. If it were anywhere near reality it would be worth the screen you wrote it on. Edited April 26, 2011 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Forgive me for saying this, but I run a business, and Im not opening my books up to my employees and sharing revenue. Im out the initial investment to start the business, and i take the risk if a player gets hurt, as I still have to pay his salary. And I take risk at gate if team collapses. You dont see the owners going to players and asking for money back if they dont make what was projected, yet owners are suppose to pay on those projections regardless. It would be good to for the NFL teams to share their financial info, but I am saying that they need to find others ways to make up for their shortfalls than wanting more of the pie. A few teams have all ready fired people from their staffs, so why do they need more money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 If they replaced the players, the players would start their own league. The good college players would go play in said league, leaving the NFL with a second rate scrapheap. Isn't that how business works in this world you speak of? The NFL would fold within five years. Players are employees and this is just business. Yeah, sure. Their choice?? Hahahaah. Bread needs an owner to produce it and sell it. People with Peyton Manning's talent do not. Great theory. If it were anywhere near reality it would be worth the screen you wrote it on. LMAO, players start their own league, with what. Most of them blew their cash already. And how are they going to finance stadiums, pay expenses like players salaries, Insurance, refs, vendors, travel, hotel, the list goes on and on. Without TV revenue, the NFL wouldnt be in the black right now. And this new league would never get the kind of cash the NFL does, because people dont invest in anarchy this would be, If this was a viable option it would have been done before. Even the USFL with trumps money in the game failed. This is probably the most ignorant post Ive ever read here, and Ive had my fair share of stupid ones. These players would be bankrupt before this got off the ground and when it folded, they would be past their prime and have nothing to show for this experiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 LMAO, players start their own league, with what. Most of them blew their cash already. And how are they going to finance stadiums, pay expenses like players salaries, Insurance, refs, vendors, travel, hotel, the list goes on and on. Without TV revenue, the NFL wouldnt be in the black right now. And this new league would never get the kind of cash the NFL does, because people dont invest in anarchy this would be, If this was a viable option it would have been done before. Even the USFL with trumps money in the game failed. This is probably the most ignorant post Ive ever read here, and Ive had my fair share of stupid ones. These players would be bankrupt before this got off the ground and when it folded, they would be past their prime and have nothing to show for this experiment. If Peyton Manning and Tom Brady rented a field and brought 46 of their teammates with them, and somebody wanted to put it on the air, would you watch? With the amount of money that Americans give to fulfill their football experience, the only two things that the players would need are a tv contract and viewers. If they get those, they get rich. The USFL may have had many things, but there was a league out there with much better talent. As sports fans, we love to be watch incredible athletes and say "wow". We're not going to watch subpar athletes when better athletes are on a different channel, regardless of what uniforms they are wearing or what the name of their league is. Do you really think all the Adrian Peterson fans and admirers out there wouldn't watch him play if he was on tv, regardless of how or why it happened? Okay, businessman, what happens to a business when it's top product is no longer attractive to it's consumers, or perhaps you lose it's ownership to somebody else? Doesn't your business then go the way of the dinosaur rather quickly? What I'm trying to say is that you vastly underrate the value of the players. The athletes are the reason football is so popular. The athletes are why all the owners are becoming ridiculously wealthy. Without the players, you've got nothing. You've got the USFL. So ginsu 'em. Screw the players. Treat them like the worthless garbage they are, and throw them out. Screw our heroes. People love Joe Montana because there was literallly not another person on the planet that could have made some of the plays he made. You're telling me we should just let Joe Montana walk, because we can get Jason White to play for a lot cheaper? Joe Montana has zero in common with your company's shipping manager whom you had to fire because he was starting to earn too much money. Did you really try to make that comparison? Come on. And you were serious!! WIthout the players, we have nothing. Without the owners, we still have great football and the financial future of the NFL players is in their own hands, rather than having to give 2 billion and then splitting the rest of the pot with 32 old rich guys and ladies. I don't think the power balance is skewed nearly as much in the owners direction as you seem to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) If Peyton Manning and Tom Brady rented a field and brought 46 of their teammates with them, and somebody wanted to put it on the air, would you watch? With the amount of money that Americans give to fulfill their football experience, the only two things that the players would need are a tv contract and viewers. If they get those, they get rich. The USFL may have had many things, but there was a league out there with much better talent. As sports fans, we love to be watch incredible athletes and say "wow". We're not going to watch subpar athletes when better athletes are on a different channel, regardless of what uniforms they are wearing or what the name of their league is. Do you really think all the Adrian Peterson fans and admirers out there wouldn't watch him play if he was on tv, regardless of how or why it happened? Okay, businessman, what happens to a business when it's top product is no longer attractive to it's consumers, or perhaps you lose it's ownership to somebody else? Doesn't your business then go the way of the dinosaur rather quickly? What I'm trying to say is that you vastly underrate the value of the players. The athletes are the reason football is so popular. The athletes are why all the owners are becoming ridiculously wealthy. Without the players, you've got nothing. You've got the USFL. So ginsu 'em. Screw the players. Treat them like the worthless garbage they are, and throw them out. Screw our heroes. People love Joe Montana because there was literallly not another person on the planet that could have made some of the plays he made. You're telling me we should just let Joe Montana walk, because we can get Jason White to play for a lot cheaper? Joe Montana has zero in common with your company's shipping manager whom you had to fire because he was starting to earn too much money. Did you really try to make that comparison? Come on. And you were serious!! WIthout the players, we have nothing. Without the owners, we still have great football and the financial future of the NFL players is in their own hands, rather than having to give 2 billion and then splitting the rest of the pot with 32 old rich guys and ladies. I don't think the power balance is skewed nearly as much in the owners direction as you seem to believe. LMAO, you have no idea how business works. Its a nice idea, but so far fetched it could never happen. And who is going to determine who runs the team, who coaches the team. What about what players go where, and do you have any idea how long this will take to put everything together. The players are a temporary product, with a short shelf life. Who is going to pay for all the coaches, trainers, pay for MRIs and surgeries needed after injurys, pads, shoes, jersey, jocks and socks. What about practice fields, buses to games, flights. Equipment to watch film, cameras to make film, a place to rent for meetings, this list goes on and on. This could cost billions to get off the ground, and 2 years minimum. Seriously during expansion, teams were putting things together years before they began playing football, and you are talking about a full league of teams. You think Manning and Brady who are 34 and 35 now are going to give up 2 years of their prime to play in some clusterf*ck league for their last yr or so. And talent is replaced in every business, every year. The avg NFL career is less than 3 years. Who is going to pay these rookies, and make decisions on vets, when the vets are putting up the money to start the league. yea that is going to work. LMAO, financial future of players when only a handful have enough to make it through a lock out, which is why they are so desperate to get 60K in union savings. I mean the owners locked out the players, and the players disolved their union and took the owners to court, because of how desperate they were to get back to work, and ultimately get paid. These players are so in debt, their creditors are just going to relieve them of payments on all the crap they bought for 2 years to get paid. The players would go bankrupt in 6 months if they tried to leave the NFL, as in debt as most of them are. The owners have fat pockets, control TV money, merchandise sales, and if the owners together decided on a cap, who cares if the players agreed or not. If the owners could stick to it, and not pay more, are the players really going to start their own league. hell no. Edited April 26, 2011 by Brent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 In this production of "The Tired Old Owners/Players Argument" the role of Bronco Billy will be played by understudy Brent. The role of detlef will be played by Seahawks21. Review: While Brent brought the intensity and did a good job of ignorantly simplifying the situation to his employer/employee relationship, I just didn't feel the genuine animosity for those "overpaid thugs" like I do with BB. Seahawks21, while showing flashes in sticking up for the players side, went too far in his detlef rendition by relying too much on emotional appeals, rather than sticking to the rationalizations the character is known for. Overall I give it a C-, with much room for improvement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 In this production of "The Tired Old Owners/Players Argument" the role of Bronco Billy will be played by understudy Brent. The role of detlef will be played by Seahawks21.Review: While Brent brought the intensity and did a good job of ignorantly simplifying the situation to his employer/employee relationship, I just didn't feel the genuine animosity for those "overpaid thugs" like I do with BB. Seahawks21, while showing flashes in sticking up for the players side, went too far in his detlef rendition by relying too much on emotional appeals, rather than sticking to the rationalizations the character is known for. Overall I give it a C-, with much room for improvement Its not just my employer/employee relationship. How many millions of people are on welfare/unemployment or UM ran out, and have no income at all today, because business took their jobs for cheaper labor overseas. For every company losing top talent to their competition, millions more are losing their jobs for cheaper labor. Unions make things more complicated for sure, but the owners have the money to sit this out, and wait for their demands to be met, while most of these millionaire players will go bankrupt if this lasted a full season. The exact opposite of a strike where companies lose millions everyday, when employees picket. To say this is ignorant is what many many employees thought when companies were privately setting up cheaper labor in other countries. Why dont these unemployed workers just start their own company and challenge said company with cheaper rates. lets see it only cost multi billions of dollars to run fiber optics to compete with the bells in the telephone industry. Or even more billions to buy planes, trucks, warehouse space to compete with Fed Ex. Sure there are people like me that start their own business every year, but 80% never make it 3 years, and they go bankrupt. It generally takes 5 years to breath and see a light at the end of the tunnel, and that is if you havent spent your life savings just trying to survive those difficult years. Its not easy, but yea its doable for sure. But how many of these athletes who live in the now, and have every pleasure on the planet, are going to start over from scratch for pennies of what they make now to start their own league, only to see how many leagues have failed before us. \\\ The crime is how many people get washed under the rug every year with business taking our jobs overseas, where millionaires are arguing over billions of dollars and we have tax paying dollars paying millions for court judges to decide cases like this. Why not invest in keeping jobs for millions of people here and make this country as a whole stronger, rather than watch our entertainment get more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Forgive me for saying this, but I run a business, and Im not opening my books up to my employees and sharing revenue. Im out the initial investment to start the business, and i take the risk if a player gets hurt, as I still have to pay his salary. And I take risk at gate if team collapses. You dont see the owners going to players and asking for money back if they dont make what was projected, yet owners are suppose to pay on those projections regardless. Wait, you're saying that if a player incurs a career ending injury, but has, let's say 4 years left on his contract, the owners consistently honor that contract and don't cut the player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Wait, you're saying that if a player incurs a career ending injury, but has, let's say 4 years left on his contract, the owners consistently honor that contract and don't cut the player? No, both sides come to an injury settlement. Happens all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Dallas Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Does anyone know, with the Judge Nelson ruling, would teams be allowed to drop or trade players before or during the draft this weekend, or does a new collective bargaining agreement need to be in place before any of that could happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) LOL @ some of the insanity in this thread. I'm no lawyer, but here's what I foresee happening: This decision was completely expected. MIN is a very union-friendly state which is why the case was opened there in the first place. It would have been a massive blow to the players (re:union) if it had not happened. The league is going to file an appeal immediately if not sooner. Their basis of appeal is going to likely be that the judge had no jurisdiction because the union did not really decertify as it claimed - and we've seen a lot of evidence to support that - and that the whole thing should have gone before the NLRB. They are also probably going to attempt to have the lockout reinstated while the appeal is heard. That could go either way. Because of an appeal, each team will likely open its doors to comply with the ruling but will not allow players to use its athletic facilities - weight rooms, fields, etc - due to liability issues because there is no CBA in place. The judge could order the teams to open the athletic facilities, but that would incur problems with liability that might give the league ammunition in the appeal that the judge is over-reaching. I would also suspect that because of an appeal in place, the teams will not allow contact between coaching staffs and players. The appeal will be heard in one of two places because the original venue was in MIN: STL or DEN. STL gives the owners an edge in having the appeal upheld because its appeals court is heavily conservative and pro-business. DEN gives the owners and edge in that DEN is a right-to-work state and that appeals court has also been seen as more pro-business. The NFL also does not have to start its current league year until it decides to so - unless Judge Nelson orders them to do so. That would mean no player movement, no FA, and no offseason workout/reporting bonuses paid. That keeps some of the pressure on the players. If Nelson intervenes and orders the league to start its calender year, that can also be construed by the NFL as her over-reaching in an appeals court. So what we probably have in the next step - no player movement or FA until rulings are made on the appeals process. That's probably another 2 to 3 weeks. No start to the league calender. And neither side wanting to give anything more than they have already on what is now clearly a stalemate. The appeal is going to be the real turning point. The owners lose that, and they'll be forced to the table with the players having very solid leverage. The owners win the appeal? They'll wait the players out and hope that dwindling resources of a lot of these guys will fracture the resolve of the union. The wild card - the appeals court overturns the decision and forces the issue to the NLRB. Edited April 26, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I just didn't feel the genuine animosity for those "overpaid thugs" like I do with BB. Wow. You really don't have a clue. Not one iota of one. 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.