Savage Beatings 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. Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean here, but this is about the most ridiculous sports-related thing I've ever read here at the Huddle (that wasn't purposely trying to be ridiculous). There is 0% chance that players would or could start a league by themselves. I'm sure you just didn't really think through this one very well. And that's ok. Sometimes we just throw stuff out there and then you realize later that it doesn't make much sense. I'm sure this will be one of those times for you. Just give it some thought, then give a quick admission "yeah ok, you guys are right" kind of thing. And we'll all move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean here, but this is about the most ridiculous sports-related thing I've ever read here at the Huddle (that wasn't purposely trying to be ridiculous). There is 0% chance that players would or could start a league by themselves. I'm sure you just didn't really think through this one very well. And that's ok. Sometimes we just throw stuff out there and then you realize later that it doesn't make much sense. I'm sure this will be one of those times for you. Just give it some thought, then give a quick admission "yeah ok, you guys are right" kind of thing. And we'll all move on. He's been throwing this nonsense out for a while now. Any hope that he'd think his position through has long passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 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. What evidence? According to the law, the union decertified and went 3 steps beyond doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 What evidence? According to the law, the union decertified and went 3 steps beyond doing that. link “We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” the league says in a statement. “We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) link “We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” the league says in a statement. “We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. You should go to NFLLockout.com and read the transcript as to why the judge made the decision. Everyone appeals in court, even Lindsay Lohan. Edited April 26, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 You should go to NFLLockout.com If that is where you are getting your information, it explains a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I tried NFL.com first for the court transcript, but they didn't post it for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzkek Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Since when can the government decide if a business wants to shutdown or not? When it's a monopoly the government must step in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzkek Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 If the NFL is a monopoly, are other sports also? Yes. That's why congress steps in to handle the huge issues. i.e. Balco, and steroid use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean here, but this is about the most ridiculous sports-related thing I've ever read here at the Huddle (that wasn't purposely trying to be ridiculous). There is 0% chance that players would or could start a league by themselves. I'm sure you just didn't really think through this one very well. And that's ok. Sometimes we just throw stuff out there and then you realize later that it doesn't make much sense. I'm sure this will be one of those times for you. Just give it some thought, then give a quick admission "yeah ok, you guys are right" kind of thing. And we'll all move on. I agree with you about this, but the prior post about letting all of the current players walk and have the NFL be only about fresh out of college players for the next couple of years was just as ignorant. No way revenue remains the same with that line of thought. The NFL would shut it's doors before the level of player quality was achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selly Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I've got a question about this whole mess. Let's say that the current ruling is not overturned on appeal and the judge and players force the NFL to run the 2011-2012 season under last seasons rules. What's to keep us from going through this whole thing again next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) What's to keep us from going through this whole thing again next year? Given the players on both sides? Nothing. These guys make Tagliabue & Upshaw candidates for cannonization. Edited April 26, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I agree with you about this, but the prior post about letting all of the current players walk and have the NFL be only about fresh out of college players for the next couple of years was just as ignorant. No way revenue remains the same with that line of thought. The NFL would shut it's doors before the level of player quality was achieved. This. While I think that most of the people who poo-poo the idea of a player run league fail to realize that a collective of players could hire the same sorts of people who manage the day to day operations that the owners do, it's just not like they could pull it off overnight. Seriously, I think people imagine Ray Lewis sitting behind a desk writing payroll checks or something and that is obviously not going to be the case any more than it is with half the owners. That's why there are GMs and all the other back-office staff. Ultimately the same logic that says a league collectively owned by a group of players would fail would mean that every publicly traded corporation would fail. Those aren't "owned" by a single person or even a small group of people. How do they manage to navigate the shark-infested waters of business? By hiring someone to steer the ship, that's how. And that's exactly what the players could do. For every visionary owner who is making the league great, there's a dumb-ass who would be so much better off getting the hell out of the way and letting his football people take care of business. The thing is, the players would need to be able to snap their fingers and make this happen fast enough to get a viable league in place before the shelf-life of the top stars expired. And that would be the issue. So, as a viewer, you'd have the choice of seeing top stars that you know in 2nd rate stadiums suffering through the growing pains of an up-start league or watching 2nd rate talent in the new Cowboy's stadium. Both versions would be worse than the current version of watching the best players playing in a well run league and both leagues would make less money. All three sides (players, owners, and fans) lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 This. While I think that most of the people who poo-poo the idea of a player run league fail to realize that a collective of players could hire the same sorts of people who manage the day to day operations that the owners do, it's just not like they could pull it off overnight. Seriously, I think people imagine Ray Lewis sitting behind a desk writing payroll checks or something and that is obviously not going to be the case any more than it is with half the owners. That's why there are GMs and all the other back-office staff. Ultimately the same logic that says a league collectively owned by a group of players would fail would mean that every publicly traded corporation would fail. Those aren't "owned" by a single person or even a small group of people. How do they manage to navigate the shark-infested waters of business? By hiring someone to steer the ship, that's how. And that's exactly what the players could do. For every visionary owner who is making the league great, there's a dumb-ass who would be so much better off getting the hell out of the way and letting his football people take care of business. The thing is, the players would need to be able to snap their fingers and make this happen fast enough to get a viable league in place before the shelf-life of the top stars expired. And that would be the issue. So, as a viewer, you'd have the choice of seeing top stars that you know in 2nd rate stadiums suffering through the growing pains of an up-start league or watching 2nd rate talent in the new Cowboy's stadium. Both versions would be worse than the current version of watching the best players playing in a well run league and both leagues would make less money. All three sides (players, owners, and fans) lose. You think that many people could decide on who should right the ship? I mean this wouldn't be the same as the union head who represents them all. There will be 30 teams, so all players won't be on the same side. Good luck getting that organized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 On another point, now that commie judge #1 crapped all over the league's BS TV insurance policy and commie judge #2 crapped all over their plans to lock the players out, can we start pretending that the owners aren't all about everything that is good and just if the next batch of judges, pretty much all of whom were either appointed by a Reagan or one of the Bushes, denies the appeal? I mean, say what you want about the motives of each side, but the players certainly get to call "Scoreboard" so far in terms of what the people who truly matter seem to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) This. While I think that most of the people who poo-poo the idea of a player run league fail to realize that a collective of players could hire the same sorts of people who manage the day to day operations that the owners do, it's just not like they could pull it off overnight. Seriously, I think people imagine Ray Lewis sitting behind a desk writing payroll checks or something and that is obviously not going to be the case any more than it is with half the owners. That's why there are GMs and all the other back-office staff. Ultimately the same logic that says a league collectively owned by a group of players would fail would mean that every publicly traded corporation would fail. Those aren't "owned" by a single person or even a small group of people. How do they manage to navigate the shark-infested waters of business? By hiring someone to steer the ship, that's how. And that's exactly what the players could do. For every visionary owner who is making the league great, there's a dumb-ass who would be so much better off getting the hell out of the way and letting his football people take care of business. The thing is, the players would need to be able to snap their fingers and make this happen fast enough to get a viable league in place before the shelf-life of the top stars expired. And that would be the issue. So, as a viewer, you'd have the choice of seeing top stars that you know in 2nd rate stadiums suffering through the growing pains of an up-start league or watching 2nd rate talent in the new Cowboy's stadium. Both versions would be worse than the current version of watching the best players playing in a well run league and both leagues would make less money. All three sides (players, owners, and fans) lose. almost 80% of these guys piss away literally millions within 2 years after retiring. You honestly expect them to be capable of pooling enough resources and having enough business savvy to run a pro sports league? Man, I'd love to hear some of those contract negotiations... 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 On another point, now that commie judge #1 crapped all over the league's BS TV insurance policy and commie judge #2 crapped all over their plans to lock the players out, can we start pretending that the owners aren't all about everything that is good and just if the next batch of judges, pretty much all of whom were either appointed by a Reagan or one of the Bushes, denies the appeal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 You think that many people could decide on who should right the ship? I mean this wouldn't be the same as the union head who represents them all. There will be 30 teams, so all players won't be on the same side. Good luck getting that organized. I own stock in companies and, ultimately, have no freaking say at all in what they do. I get some stupid ballot each year that says I get to vote on things. Big deal. Right now, you've got 32 owners. They all send a rep to annual meetings that decide what is good for the league. You've got guys in Buffalo who need some things and guys like Jerry Jones who want others. In fact, many argue that this whole labor dispute is about the owners realizing that they can't come to a common ground about how the teams should divide the spoils so they're just trying to increase the overall owner's share so that everyone is happy. Let's not pretend that the current situation is one big happy family. Regardless, instead of 32 owners sending a guy to the table, player reps are chosen, just like they are now. Either that, or the GMs hired to run the franchises meet just like they do now. Again, you need to think of it like a publicly traded company that hires executives to run the day to day. How do these places manage to make it without a sole proprietor? The only difference is that it's not publicly traded, it's collectively owned by the players. But, in terms of making policy, the average player has as much say in what goes on as the average share holder, basically none. Dumbass meatheads would have exactly as much say in what goes on as they do now. None. Again, I want to make it clear that I don't think this would be remotely easy to pull off and that the players would be much better off just trying to secure the best deal they can within the current situation. But that so would the owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA 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. I've never agreed with this dude before... but he's spot on with regard to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 almost 80% of these guys piss away literally millions within 2 years after retiring. You honestly expect them to be capable of pooling enough resources and having enough business savvy to run a pro sports league? Man, I'd love to hear some of those contract negotiations... Franchises don't cost $1 billion dollars because that's what it costs to put together a franchise. They cost that because that's the going rate to buy an investment vehicle that spits out the returns they do. Other than that, you are so effing predictable. You really just do read what you want. Because it's any easy mark to pretend that gang-bangers are going to be wearing suits and making business decisions, that's the one you go with. And another thing, did you read the part where I mentioned that I ultimately don't think they'd be able to pull it off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 This is great fantasy. You've got a bunch of players who don't give a damn about who comes after them or what invoking anti-trust legislation could possibly do to the league as long as they can maximize lining their pockets to the utmost before they retire and piss it all away. The owners may be jackholes, but at least they have a vested interest in the longterm health of the game and they have seen that by keeping the league ultra-competitive that they have created a money machine. Great. Let the players win in this deal - but if they get the predominance of what they want, be prepared for the NFL to turn into MLB. Players as owners. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 The owners may be jackholes, but at least they have a vested interest in the longterm health of the game and they have seen that by keeping the league ultra-competitive that they have created a money machine. Great. Let the players win in this deal - but if they get the predominance of what they want, be prepared for the NFL to turn into MLB. Get past the somewhat inflammatory wording and read this a few times. It's probably the smartest summary that's been written here of the pro's and cons of the Owners getting what they want versus the players getting what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Get past the somewhat inflammatory wording Somewhat? I'm slipping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Yea, I can imagine Ray Lewis making out the payroll checks. If the players ran a league, I can also imagine Ray Lewis calling up some dude and saying, "Yea...I noticed that you weren't at the game last weekend. Was there any reason for that? I'm sure that that won't happen again.....right?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) Get past the somewhat inflammatory wording and read this a few times. It's probably the smartest summary that's been written here of the pro's and cons of the Owners getting what they want versus the players getting what they want. What the players want, as in, changing nothing from the last CBA? Or what the players want, as in, the legal posturing they've done since the owners moved to blow up the CBA and lock them out? Because those aren't the same thing. Let us not forget that the players would have been completely happy playing under the CBA that was agreed upon in 2006, and that had nothing to do with abolishing the draft or any of the things that that the league wants to pretend the players are all about. As far as the all-mighty draft is concerned. Why does everyone assume that everyone would all go to the best or richest teams when Free Agents, time and again, prove that does not happen? History is littered with guys eschewing offers from winning teams to "be the man" for a lesser team. Why would rookies be any different? People credit the draft for being why the league is so competitive but the data shows that is simply not the case. Will it be a great equalizer if they can get a rookie wage scale in place? It sure will. Then again, the NBA has had one for some time and yet you still see the same guys at the top, year in and year out. Edited April 26, 2011 by detlef 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.