All Encompassing Lockout Thread

[CloakNNNdagger]

Just an interesting FYI.

The 1982 NFL strike began on September 21, 1982 and lasted 57 days until November 16, 1982. The 2011 lockout is now 58 days. It can be said that the 1982 season was directly affected, but it would be folly to think that this lockout will not have significant negative effect on the 2011 season........taking for granted that there will be a season.

 

[GP]

Right now I have seen nothing to say either side is right or wrong. To me it just looks like a negotiation with some maneuvering.

Two experts disagree with you. They say the landscape favors the players.

They say the players have easily won 2 out of 3 "major" arguments. Granted, the two experts said that the 3rd argument (the one the owners have an edge on) COULD prove to be the death blow to the players' case, but that the overall "landscape" of this case seems to easily favor the players based on many factors that are legal in nature.

Link to the interview: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15057594/experts-say-players-case-is-stronger-but-nfl-could-win-appeal

Because the NFLPA decertified, and because they have not been supported by (nor have they supported) a union since decertification, this is all an anti-trust case and not anything to do with "labor laws" that the owners are trying to frame with their arguments.

Furthermore, in the interview I linked, the two experts said that the 8th Circuit only has to decide whether Judge Nelson's ruling had a legitimate basis to stand as she had ruled it. Refer back to the previous paragraph of my post, which states that this is not a labor law case but is an anti-trust case. upon those merits, the owners lose and the players win.

Whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a "sham" or not, and the owners are crowing that it WAS a sham (just as they did in the previous lockout situation) has no merit, either, according to the two experts interviewed by CBS sports commentator Clark Judge. They said that this recent decertification is much more genuine than the previous decert in the last lockout situation. Furthermore, there is nothing "wormy" about the decert by the players. It's smart AND legally OK to do it.

The players are proving that the owners colluded to squeeze them into a bad situation--That this was a premeditated course the owners set everyone upon as much as two years ago (IIRC from the article I linked here).

Conclusion/recap:

As long as Judge Nelson didn't royally botch some important facet of her ruling, which I am hoping she didn't since it was like a 90-something page document AND she spent almost a month crafting it to withstand the 8th Circuit's scrutiny, then this is a slam-dunk case in favor of the players. The 8th Circuit, as I understand the two experts to be saying in the interview I linked in this post, cannot really entertain new, undiscovered evidence etc., they can only rule whether Judge Nelson was right or wrong according to the interpretation of the law. The 8th circuit, unless I have misinterpreted the linked story, is ruling on Judge Nelson's ruling.

Unless there's something buried that Judge Nelson ignored (either on purpose or just by pure accident) we have enough to say who should win and who should be the loser. So your assertion that we don't have enough to form an educated opinion is a little off, IMO.

Outside of the possibility that Judge Nelson botched a major item, her ruling should stand. If it doesn't, then I say the "activist" judge (in this case) would be the 8th Circuit. They would be the ones who are trying to be an activist court and circumvent Judge Nelson. The previous ruling should be so waterproof (no matter which way Nelson ruled on it) that an appeals court can't expose its flaws and overturn Nelson's ruling.

So if we're playing the odds, the players ought to win this 8th Circuit ruling, as well.

 

[infantrycak]

Two experts disagree with you. They say the landscape favors the players.

I took your right or wrong question as a non-legal one since you admitted you knew jack about the underlying law and really didn't care.

And psssst - you can find people to interview who will say anything. There are 330 million of them around.

 

[Mr teX]

Two experts disagree with you. They say the landscape favors the players.

They say the players have easily won 2 out of 3 "major" arguments. Granted, the two experts said that the 3rd argument (the one the owners have an edge on) COULD prove to be the death blow to the players' case, but that the overall "landscape" of this case seems to easily favor the players based on many factors that are legal in nature.

Link to the interview: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15057594/experts-say-players-case-is-stronger-but-nfl-could-win-appeal

Because the NFLPA decertified, and because they have not been supported by (nor have they supported) a union since decertification, this is all an anti-trust case and not anything to do with "labor laws" that the owners are trying to frame with their arguments.

Furthermore, in the interview I linked, the two experts said that the 8th Circuit only has to decide whether Judge Nelson's ruling had a legitimate basis to stand as she had ruled it. Refer back to the previous paragraph of my post, which states that this is not a labor law case but is an anti-trust case. upon those merits, the owners lose and the players win.

Whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a "sham" or not, and the owners are crowing that it WAS a sham (just as they did in the previous lockout situation) has no merit, either, according to the two experts interviewed by CBS sports commentator Clark Judge. They said that this recent decertification is much more genuine than the previous decert in the last lockout situation. Furthermore, there is nothing "wormy" about the decert by the players. It's smart AND legally OK to do it.

The players are proving that the owners colluded to squeeze them into a bad situation--That this was a premeditated course the owners set everyone upon as much as two years ago (IIRC from the article I linked here).

Conclusion/recap:

As long as Judge Nelson didn't royally botch some important facet of her ruling, which I am hoping she didn't since it was like a 90-something page document AND she spent almost a month crafting it to withstand the 8th Circuit's scrutiny, then this is a slam-dunk case in favor of the players. The 8th Circuit, as I understand the two experts to be saying in the interview I linked in this post, cannot really entertain new, undiscovered evidence etc., they can only rule whether Judge Nelson was right or wrong according to the interpretation of the law. The 8th circuit, unless I have misinterpreted the linked story, is ruling on Judge Nelson's ruling.

Unless there's something buried that Judge Nelson ignored (either on purpose or just by pure accident) we have enough to say who should win and who should be the loser. So your assertion that we don't have enough to form an educated opinion is a little off, IMO.

Outside of the possibility that Judge Nelson botched a major item, her ruling should stand. If it doesn't, then I say the "activist" judge (in this case) would be the 8th Circuit. They would be the ones who are trying to be an activist court and circumvent Judge Nelson. The previous ruling should be so waterproof (no matter which way Nelson ruled on it) that an appeals court can't expose its flaws and overturn Nelson's ruling.

So if we're playing the odds, the players ought to win this 8th Circuit ruling, as well.

Just b/c the "experts" say that, doesn't mean that the players are in the right..it also doesn't mean that they're going to win. At the end of the day, all the owners need to do is win this last battle to keep the lockout going & they'll likely win...mainly b/c they can financially withstand the lockout....the players on the other hand, not so much.

I could care less who wins. Both are in the wrong & they're fighting over gobs of money that i'll never see in my lifetime.

 

[DonnyMost]

Just b/c the "experts" say that, doesn't mean that the players are in the right..it also doesn't mean that they're going to win. At the end of the day, all the owners need to do is win this last battle to keep the lockout going & they'll likely win...mainly b/c they can financially withstand the lockout....the players on the other hand, not so much.

I could care less who wins. Both are in the wrong & they're fighting over gobs of money that i'll never see in my lifetime.

How are the players "in the wrong"?

 

[Mr teX]

How are the players "in the wrong"?

I just think the players have their heads in the sand is all. The owners say "the costs are rising" & the players say "we don't believe you, open up your books." the owners do it & the players still complain like there aren't signs all over the place that show what the owners say is true.

Part of the owners contention of wanting to increase their bit of the pie is b/c the costs of fielding NFL teams are rising...the players have a big part in that with how these rookie players are coming into the league with these gargantuan sums of guaranteed money.......that's rising every single year. They are also constantly pushing the envelope in FA....New stadiums popping up everywhere aren't only to keep fans comfortable, they're also to keep players comfy too...who can forget Brian Billick refusing to have his team play on that dump in Philly (The Vet i believe) with all kinds of divets over the field?


Then you add in this concussion crap & something needing to be done to help these retired, broken down players out...The players sure as hell aren't going to be footing those bills to institute these changes, it'll be the owners.

The owners have a right to make a profit & it seems the players are trying to minimize that, yet are demanding more & more every year.

I just don't like how the players have tried to project this "we're innocent, we just want to play" garbage, all the while trying to manuver behind the scenes to get more money with these bogus law suits.

 

[DonnyMost]

I just think the players have their heads in the sand is all. The owners say "the costs are rising" & the players say "we don't believe you, open up your books." the owners do it & the players still complain like there aren't signs all over the place that show what the owners say is true.

The owners didn't open their books. They showed financial data from the only team in the NFL that is publicly owned and operated (which has to publicly disclose their records anyway), the Green Bay Packers. So basically, the one team that isn't really all that concerned with turning a gigantic profit and is set in a very small market, etc. A very unrepresentative sample of the 32 NFL teams.

Part of the owners contention of wanting to increase their bit of the pie is b/c the costs of fielding NFL teams are rising.

No, they aren't. The revenue is rising. Costs (except for self-inflicted debt), not so much.

the players have a big part in that with how these rookie players are coming into the league with these gargantuan sums of guaranteed money.......that's rising every single year. They are also constantly pushing the envelope in FA....New stadiums popping up everywhere aren't only to keep fans comfortable, they're also to keep players comfy too...who can forget Brian Billick refusing to have his team play on that dump in Philly (The Vet i believe) with all kinds of divets over the field?

1) The rookie pay scale was advocated by the NFLPA. Many veterans felt short changed by having rookies given such a large amount of the salary pie. The owners like this idea, but not because they don't like paying rookies, they like it because they feel it is an opportunity to reduce their payroll without having to redistribute that money to veteran players. And also, the owners themselves are the ones who agree to those ridiculous contracts, it is a problem of their own making. No one is forcing them to spend that money.

2) New stadiums are mostly tax payer subsidized. And in some cases, they're not even necessary, and just used as a bargaining tool (Bud Adams, anyone?). The players/coaches are really the last ones to care about stadiums, you're pointing to an example of a stadium that was 37 years old to make your point. 37! And even in that case, Billick was complaining about the playing surface, not the stadium. Just as with contracts, this is a problem of the owners' own making. No one is forcing them to build new stadiums.

Then you add in this concussion crap & something needing to be done to help these retired, broken down players out...The players sure as hell aren't going to be footing those bills to institute these changes, it'll be the owners.

Actually, the players *do* pay for it. They will likely have a health insurance program they will buy into during their time in the league that will pay for medical problems related to their job duties. This is something the owners got away with forever, and now it is catching up to them.

The owners have a right to make a profit & it seems the players are trying to minimize that, yet are demanding more & more every year.

Once again, you can demand more money all you want, but at the end of the day, the owner signs the check. It's not the players' fault that the owners can't help from spending themselves into oblivion. (Which they're not, btw)

I just don't like how the players have tried to project this "we're innocent, we just want to play" garbage, all the while trying to manuver behind the scenes to get more money with these bogus law suits.

Spoken like someone truly ignorant of labor and anti-trust laws. "Behind the scenes"? Oh, you mean like, the most public labor dispute of the last century? The NFLPA has nothing to hide, did it ever occur to you that these "bogus law suits" are only being pursued because without them, we would 100% definitely NOT be having football this year? You do realize whose interests are better served by this labor stoppage, right? It sounds like you have almost no grasp on this issue.

 

[Mr teX]

The owners didn't open their books. They showed 5 years of financial data from the only team in the NFL that is publicly owned and operated, the Green Bay Packers. So basically, the one team that isn't really all that concerned with turning a gigantic profit.




No, they aren't. The revenue is rising. Cost (except for self-inflicted debt, a la stadium building), not so much.



1) The rookie pay scale was advocated by the NFLPA. Many veterans felt short changed by having rookies given such a large amount of the salary pie. The owners like this idea, but not because they don't like paying rookies, they like it because they feel it is an opportunity to reduce their payroll without having to redistribute that money to veteran players. And also, the owners themselves are the ones who agree to those ridiculous contracts, it is a problem of their own making. No one is forcing them to spend that money.

2) New stadiums are mostly tax payer subsidized. And in some cases, they're not even necessary, and just used as a bargaining tool (Bud Adams, anyone?). The players/coaches are really the last ones to care about stadiums, you're pointing to an example of a stadium that was 46 years old to make your point. 46! And even in that case, Billick was complaining about the playing surface, not the stadium. Just as with contracts, this is a problem of the owners' own making. No one is forcing them to build new stadiums.




Actually, the players *do* pay for it. They will likely have a health insurance program they will buy into during their time in the league that will pay for medical problems related to their job duties. This is something the owners got away with forever, and now it is catching up to them.



Once again, you can demand more money all you want, but at the end of the day, the owner signs the check. It's not the players' fault that the owners can't help from spending themselves into oblivion. (Which they're not, btw)




Spoken like someone truly ignorant of labor and anti-trust laws. "Behind the scenes"? Oh, you mean like, the most public labor dispute of the last century? The NFLPA has nothing to hide, did it ever occur to you that these "bogus law suits" are only being pursued because without them, we would 100% definitely NOT be having football this year? You do realize whose interests are better served by this labor stoppage, right? It sounds like you have almost no grasp on this issue.

The owners might be firing the gun, but the players are at base minmimum helping them load it...The name of the game is to be competitive & to be competitive you've got to have top talent & you've got to get that talent in a variety of ways & if you won't pay for it another team will; players know this. Besides, players all over the league hold mini-lockouts every year by holding out of camp so as to wrangle more money out of teams...like i said, they're not innocent in this whole ordeal like they are attempting to portray themselves to be.

You sound like a player....perhaps one of our local houston texan players lol? Either way, it's not a bad thing & thank you for setting me straight on most of what i said...... but what you have to realize is that everything you said, the average fan could care less about. We just want football & Both parties are responsible for interrupting that. To us it just looks like millionaires fighting with billionaires.

& spare me the "not everyone playing makes millions" argument b/c those players who aren't making millions still bring home a nice piece of change that the average american would love to have right about now. So forgive me if i don't side with a group of guys who at base minimum are still likely bringing home 6 figures.

 

[DonnyMost]

The owners might be firing the gun, but the players are at base minmimum helping them load it...The name of the game is to be competitive & to be competitive you've got to have top talent & you've got to get that talent in a variety of ways & if you won't pay for it another team will; players know this. Besides, players all over the league hold mini-lockouts every year by holding out of camp so as to wrangle more money out of teams...like i said, they're not innocent in this whole ordeal like they are attempting to portray themselves to be.

I can't blame the players for trying to get everything they can, while they can. If the owners are dumb enough to pay for it, then why is that the players' fault? Clearly if they're willing to spend the money, then they must obviously not be in that much of financial dire straits. Asking the players to save the owners from themselves is silly.

You sound like a player....perhaps one of our local houston texan players lol? Either way, it's not a bad thing & thank you for setting me straight on most of what i said...... but what you have to realize is that everything you said, the average fan could care less about. We just want football & Both parties are responsible for interrupting that. To us it just looks like millionaires fighting with billionaires.

I know the average fan doesn't care. That much is obvious. Most fans actually think just like you do. They assume this whole messed was caused by the players, because so rarely do we see a lockout situation where the owners literally shut down their industry in an attempt to starve workers into accepting a less lucrative agreement. People understand the concept of a strike, it's fairly straight forward, but a lockout like this is far more complex.

& spare me the "not everyone playing makes millions" argument b/c those players who aren't making millions still bring home a nice piece of change that the average american would love to have right about now. So forgive me if i don't side with a group of guys who at base minimum are still likely bringing home 6 figures.

That seems like a silly reason to take sides. If you're going to be play the "I don't feel sorry for millionaires" card, it should be aimed directly at the owners, whom will still make money, despite a lockout, and are whining at the top of their lungs, despite bringing this entire mess on themselves.

Like it or not, most NFL players don't make megamillions. The salary distribution is so awfully skewed. You've got hundreds of guys making the league minimum, a whole bunch making roughly twice or three times that, and then very few at the top of the pyramid making tens of millions. Add in the fact that the average NFL career is something like 2 and a half years, and you've got a bunch of very tenuous thousandaires. Yeah, we'd all like to have that money, but don't fool yourself into thinking the NFL is all champagne and caviar all the time. These guys have a very small window to make as much money as they can in a very cutthroat and dangerous business. Take Arian Foster, for example, the league's most prolific runningback. Making the minimum and driving around in a Dodge Charger. Any moment, his career could be over and he's basically back to sacking groceries, and his prime earning power is being wasted during this work stoppage, which is something he'll never get back.

Are they super sympathetic figures? Not really, are they more sympathetic figures than the owners, you bet. Consider this, then. You work at a local widget factory. Things are going pretty well. One day, you show up and your boss tells you that you're not allowed to work another day unless you agree to a pay cut, despite Widgets Inc doing record business. You say screw that, and try to go work at the Widget factory in the next town over, but you're barred from there also, because the Widget makers got together and decided to bring the entire Widget industry to a halt. You're out of work with no where to ply your trade, and the clock is ticking on your widget making skills, which will surely erode soon (real soon, in fact).

Even if you're making 6 figures working at the Widget factory, that is kind of a crappy situation.

 

[AcresHomesTexan]

Stay upheld...so the lockout standing...for the lawyer/reader types he is the ruling

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf

 

[hot pickle]

I want football dammit!!!!!!

 

[TEXANRED]

Stay upheld...so the lockout standings...for the lawyer/reader types he is the ruling

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf

Figures

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Isn't this the same day that Mediation is to restart?

 

[disaacks3]

The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. See id. at *24. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act. The plain language of the Act states that a case involves or grows out of a labor dispute when it is “between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Act does not specify that the employees must be members of a union for the case to involve or grow out of a labor dispute.

^^^^^THIS is the important part. The Appellate court is basically saying the previous judge is off her rocker and that Boies' argument DOES hold water and is likely to be overturned by the entire panel.

 

[b0ng]

Isn't this the same day that Mediation is to restart?

Yep

Unsurprising "breakthrough" in negotiations.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

According to NFL.com, the league’s request for a stay of injunction of Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling was granted by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, keeping a lockout of the players in place.

After a couple weeks without a ruling, many people were on the fence about whether to expect a ruling on the stay at all with oral arguments in front of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals set for June 3 in St. Louis. The Eight Circuit issued a temporary stay of injunction on April 28, hours before the start of the 2011 NFL Draft. With this ruling, there will be no football activities taking place until a ruling comes down from the court after arguments are given, barring an agreement by the two sides on a new collective bargaining agreement.

NFL Network’s Albert Breer reported shortly after the news broke that former NFL great Carl Eller told him that the players side expects a proposal from the league owners either tonight or tomorrow before scheduled mediation breaks. While many believe that the mediation session scheduled May 16-17 will not help matters any, this at least provides a glimmer of hope.

So the next big date on the calendar will be June 3 when arguments are heard by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling is expected 30-45 days after the court hears these arguments. Until then, no OTA’s, free agency, or trades will happen. Here’s to hoping both sides can do the unthinkable and reach an agreement before then, but don’t hold your breath.

link

 

[MistaRed]

Isn't this the same day that Mediation is to restart?

Mediation resumed yesterday.

edit: I forgot today was monday, nvm smh

 

[Double Barrel]

I think the owners are willing to sacrifice this season in order to force the players to accept the owner-friendly deal. I honestly don't see this situation resolved soon enough to allow for training camp and pre-season at this point.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

DB, your scenario is not that wild.

PFT:

League calls for a deal to be done now

With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit giving the NFL a significant victory in Monday’s ruling granting a stay of the order lifting the lockout - and dropping very clear hints that the league will prevail on the appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling - the league has issued a response that calls for the two sides to get back to the bargaining table and get a deal done.

“It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans,” the NFL said in a statement forwarded to PFT. “This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal labor law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation.”

The players were much more muted in their response to the ruling, as expected. “The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football,” the NFLPA* said in a statement posted at NFLLockout.com. “The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season. The court will hear the full appeal on June 3.”

But with the court poised to reverse Judge Nelson’ ruling on or after June 3, the league has the leverage. The question is whether the league will try to crush the players with it, or whether the league will do a deal that the players will regard as fair.

Sal Paolantonio of ESPN reports that a new proposal has been made by the league, and that the players are considering the proposal and will respond. The process could go back and forth on Tuesday, and there’s no reason why the parties can’t keep talking without the mediator’s involvement after Tuesday, if momentum is building to get a deal done.

The best outcome, in our opinion, remains a long-term CBA that both the league and the players regard as fair. Though many people just want this mess to end, it needs to end the right way in order to keep it from happening again a few years down the road.

Then again, the league could decide that the best way to keep this from happening a few years down the road comes from pushing the litigation to a conclusion, so that the non-asterisked NFLPA won’t be able at some future juncture to decertify and sue if faced with a lockout. Hopefully, any settlement will include an agreement to seal that door in the future.

 

[TEXANRED]

So the next big date is June 3rd, 30-45 days after that puts us in the middle of July. Then what? Isn't the June 3rd date ruling just to tell us whether or not the lock out can continue?

If the lockout ends then that only gives teams, what, 6 weeks to put a team together and get all the rookies signed as well as the free agents?

The 2011 season is a wash whether it's played or not at this point.

Lets see us some UFL action!

 

[b0ng]

So the next big date is June 3rd, 30-45 days after that puts us in the middle of July. Then what? Isn't the June 3rd date ruling just to tell us whether or not the lock out can continue?

If the lockout ends then that only gives teams, what, 6 weeks to put a team together and get all the rookies signed as well as the free agents?

The 2011 season is a wash whether it's played or not at this point.

Lets see us some UFL action!

It's even better than that. Most likely the judges aren't going to lift the lockout (if you go by their reasoning today anyway), and therefore you are going to have a locked out NFL until the players capitulate and sign a deal that is unfriendly towards them. However, it is believed that the players knew that this would drag into the season and are prepared to torpedo the 2011 season, and possibly even the 2012 season if this keeps going and neither side wants to budge.

Hell, it might actually be even longer than that if both sides want to be shitty and non-compromising. If the players do sign an unfriendly deal so that football can be played in 2011 expect a strike in about 3 to 5 years.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

I'm trying to imagine what a 2012 season would be like if the entire 2011 season is canned. Even if things are settled by the beginning of 2012, I expect that season to produce noticeably subpar performance. The vets will have not been playing for a year, yet added a year to their age. The 2011 rookies will have not been playing for a year AND will have had no NFL experience. Add new coaches and schemes for teams that have had no time to establish track records. You won't know what you need to look for in the 2012 Draft or free agents..................

..................."what a wonderful world this will be"......................

 

[TEXANRED]

I'm trying to imagine what a 2012 season would be like if the entire 2011 season is canned. Even if things are settled by the beginning of 2012, I expect that season to produce noticeably subpar performance. The vets will have not been playing for a year, yet added a year to their age. The 2011 rookies will have not been playing for a year AND will have had no NFL experience. Add new coaches and schemes for teams that have had no time to establish track records. You won't know what you need to look for in the 2012 Draft or free agents..................

..................."what a wonderful world this will be"......................

Well at least we won't finish last in 2011.

 

[gtexan02]

 

[GP]

I can't blame the players for trying to get everything they can, while they can. If the owners are dumb enough to pay for it, then why is that the players' fault? Clearly if they're willing to spend the money, then they must obviously not be in that much of financial dire straits. Asking the players to save the owners from themselves is silly.

I know the average fan doesn't care. That much is obvious. Most fans actually think just like you do. They assume this whole messed was caused by the players, because so rarely do we see a lockout situation where the owners literally shut down their industry in an attempt to starve workers into accepting a less lucrative agreement. People understand the concept of a strike, it's fairly straight forward, but a lockout like this is far more complex.

That seems like a silly reason to take sides. If you're going to be play the "I don't feel sorry for millionaires" card, it should be aimed directly at the owners, whom will still make money, despite a lockout, and are whining at the top of their lungs, despite bringing this entire mess on themselves.

Like it or not, most NFL players don't make megamillions. The salary distribution is so awfully skewed. You've got hundreds of guys making the league minimum, a whole bunch making roughly twice or three times that, and then very few at the top of the pyramid making tens of millions. Add in the fact that the average NFL career is something like 2 and a half years, and you've got a bunch of very tenuous thousandaires. Yeah, we'd all like to have that money, but don't fool yourself into thinking the NFL is all champagne and caviar all the time. These guys have a very small window to make as much money as they can in a very cutthroat and dangerous business. Take Arian Foster, for example, the league's most prolific runningback. Making the minimum and driving around in a Dodge Charger. Any moment, his career could be over and he's basically back to sacking groceries, and his prime earning power is being wasted during this work stoppage, which is something he'll never get back.

Are they super sympathetic figures? Not really, are they more sympathetic figures than the owners, you bet. Consider this, then. You work at a local widget factory. Things are going pretty well. One day, you show up and your boss tells you that you're not allowed to work another day unless you agree to a pay cut, despite Widgets Inc doing record business. You say screw that, and try to go work at the Widget factory in the next town over, but you're barred from there also, because the Widget makers got together and decided to bring the entire Widget industry to a halt. You're out of work with no where to ply your trade, and the clock is ticking on your widget making skills, which will surely erode soon (real soon, in fact).

Even if you're making 6 figures working at the Widget factory, that is kind of a crappy situation.

Amazingly awesome post, man.

Rep your way if it lets me.

I wish the players would all bolt and just join the UFL. Abandon the NFL, take your talents to the UFL, and drag about 400 other players with you. Increase the teams to accomodate the roster limits which have swollen with the addition of several hundred NFL players, and rent out college stadiums in those cities to play your games at every Sunday.

I'm serious, too. Drain the NFL of its talent and make them play an NFL season with scrubs. It'll take a good 5+ years for the NFL to even replace the lost talent...and that's being generous when we consider that many college players might just go to the UFL.

You know, wherever the players go...the fans will follow. I don't watch Sunday NFL football to see the owners. I watch it to see the players play. I guess that's what irks me about this ordeal: The guys throwing themselves out there and risking their long-term health are being screwed over by the owners and treated like horse meat. If I was a premiere player in the NFL, like Drew Brees, I'd start telling everybody to join up and go to the UFL. I'd be on the phone day and night trying to secure "gentlemen's agreement" sponsorship dollars from major businesses who might not have had a chance to do that in the NFL due to how things work there (Not having enough clout or money to overthrow the big players in the sponsorship realm).

It's possible. A lot of you will say that the NFL has too much rich history, but the fact is that our generation of fans is living in a time when there is really no such thing as "loyalty" anymore. Wherever the best gig is at, we're there. I'd just like to see the players band together and say to the NFL: "You can have your league. Let other fools sign your deals and play your reindeer games. We're bouncing to the UFL and they welcome us with open arms. Buh-bye!"

THEN let's see which side is ready to do business. Faced with losing a good 75% of their player base, I bet the NFL would be a little more generous. The players need to play hardball, enough with the patty-cake patty-cake stuff. Move your loyalty to the UFL. Or at least use it as a bargaining chip. I wouldn't even return to mediation, or I'd at least pretend to not care even if I was ordered to mediation. I'd start a grass roots campaign immediately and would only talk about the UFL and how we're going to go play in the UFL. And watch the NFL crap a brick over it.

 

[GP]

Stay upheld...so the lockout standing...for the lawyer/reader types he is the ruling

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf

It's all just a foregone conclusion now.

With the statements released, they've easily tipped their hand that the NFL Owners have a better case than the players.

All the players can do now is either lie to themselves and continue with litigation, knowing full well that the judges are favoring the owners AND will say Judge Nelson misinterpreted the law...which I don't think she did, btw, but who cares what I think, right?, or they can try to get the best the deal possible and move forward with tails tucked between their legs.

Personally, I'd like to see the players just go join the UFL and leave the NFL a wasteland. But let's face it, the players want the most money they can get and they won't ditch the NFL just to roll the dice with the UFL. It'd be really cool to see the majority of players uproot and join the UFL and try to make it a viable alternative to the NFL--I mean, to really really really put their hearts and souls into it, for love of the game, and to squash the NFL and hopefully force the NFL Owners to re-think how things are handled.

This petty lawsuit won't help either side. But a true migration, and genuine support for an alternative league, IMO, would show that the players want money but they also want to play football for the love of the game. Realistically, though, I know this won't happen. It's just good to concoct a Disney movie feel-good script, I suppose. LOL.

 

[badboy]

Amazingly awesome post, man.

Rep your way if it lets me.

I wish the players would all bolt and just join the UFL. Abandon the NFL, take your talents to the UFL, and drag about 400 other players with you. Increase the teams to accomodate the roster limits which have swollen with the addition of several hundred NFL players, and rent out college stadiums in those cities to play your games at every Sunday.

I'm serious, too. Drain the NFL of its talent and make them play an NFL season with scrubs. It'll take a good 5+ years for the NFL to even replace the lost talent...and that's being generous when we consider that many college players might just go to the UFL.

You know, wherever the players go...the fans will follow. I don't watch Sunday NFL football to see the owners. I watch it to see the players play. I guess that's what irks me about this ordeal: The guys throwing themselves out there and risking their long-term health are being screwed over by the owners and treated like horse meat. If I was a premiere player in the NFL, like Drew Brees, I'd start telling everybody to join up and go to the UFL. I'd be on the phone day and night trying to secure "gentlemen's agreement" sponsorship dollars from major businesses who might not have had a chance to do that in the NFL due to how things work there (Not having enough clout or money to overthrow the big players in the sponsorship realm).

It's possible. A lot of you will say that the NFL has too much rich history, but the fact is that our generation of fans is living in a time when there is really no such thing as "loyalty" anymore. Wherever the best gig is at, we're there. I'd just like to see the players band together and say to the NFL: "You can have your league. Let other fools sign your deals and play your reindeer games. We're bouncing to the UFL and they welcome us with open arms. Buh-bye!"

THEN let's see which side is ready to do business. Faced with losing a good 75% of their player base, I bet the NFL would be a little more generous. The players need to play hardball, enough with the patty-cake patty-cake stuff. Move your loyalty to the UFL. Or at least use it as a bargaining chip. I wouldn't even return to mediation, or I'd at least pretend to not care even if I was ordered to mediation. I'd start a grass roots campaign immediately and would only talk about the UFL and how we're going to go play in the UFL. And watch the NFL crap a brick over it.

To add to your scenario what if team players remained the same and owners were found to "buy" each team? New leagues owners got into financial difficulty by trying to outbid each other for individuals. The players would have to play for much less but should draw pretty well if they were allowed 50% of gate, concessions and parking.

A Tillman Fertito (example only) could buy the Texans & play in the renovated Rice stadium. The biggest financial loss would be television revenue and I would think in Houston Fox and ABC would make good offers.

I would think there would be enough coaches floating around to signup and there would be some pretty good UDFA players to sign. The only major problem would be convincing new "owners" to step up if the players were just going back to NFL in 1-2 years. WHo would invest under that scenario?

NFL owners know new product comes out annually from colleges. The current players lose time off their bodies and financially. Advantage owners.

 

[Texecutioner]

It's all just a foregone conclusion now.

With the statements released, they've easily tipped their hand that the NFL Owners have a better case than the players.

All the players can do now is either lie to themselves and continue with litigation, knowing full well that the judges are favoring the owners AND will say Judge Nelson misinterpreted the law...which I don't think she did, btw, but who cares what I think, right?, or they can try to get the best the deal possible and move forward with tails tucked between their legs.

Personally, I'd like to see the players just go join the UFL and leave the NFL a wasteland. But let's face it, the players want the most money they can get and they won't ditch the NFL just to roll the dice with the UFL. It'd be really cool to see the majority of players uproot and join the UFL and try to make it a viable alternative to the NFL--I mean, to really really really put their hearts and souls into it, for love of the game, and to squash the NFL and hopefully force the NFL Owners to re-think how things are handled.

This petty lawsuit won't help either side. But a true migration, and genuine support for an alternative league, IMO, would show that the players want money but they also want to play football for the love of the game. Realistically, though, I know this won't happen. It's just good to concoct a Disney movie feel-good script, I suppose. LOL.

The players would be out of their minds if they did that, because they'd be getting paid way less and they'd be in a worse situation than what they're currently getting in the NFL. The UFL teams don't have that kind of money or the types of benefits the NFL has for them as athletes. If they made a move over to the UFL, they'd be scratching their heads after while wondering why the hell they ever did that, because they'd have cut their nose of to spite their face by getting into a war with the owners in the NFL only to bounce off to another league where they'd be getting paid less money than what they had before and they'd have less opportunities for endorsements and everything else, because the UFL wouldn't have all of the tv deals in place with the networks like the NFL does. There is no other league where the players can currently go where they can get a better deal than what they're currently getting. All they can really do is fight the owners legally and make that threat if they want, but the NFL owners know that the players have no other alternatives to play anywhere else where there is a better situation.

 

[Señor Stan]

I wish the players would all bolt and just join the UFL. Abandon the NFL, take your talents to the UFL, and drag about 400 other players with you. Increase the teams to accomodate the roster limits which have swollen with the addition of several hundred NFL players, and rent out college stadiums in those cities to play your games at every Sunday.

I'm serious, too. Drain the NFL of its talent and make them play an NFL season with scrubs. It'll take a good 5+ years for the NFL to even replace the lost talent...and that's being generous when we consider that many college players might just go to the UFL.

That's the rub in this for the owners...if the player form their own league, the NFL cannot replace the lost talent. They can't use scab players or any players at all. It's not a strike, its a lockout. As long as the lockout is in place there will be no NFL football period.

That being said, there is zero chance the players start their own league.

 

[Texecutioner]

That being said, there is zero chance the players start their own league.

Even if the NFL players all wanted to do that, it would never happen. It wouldn't be feasible for them to in any way.

 

[keyser]

There's (what I think is) a really good summary up at SI.com. It gives a pretty comprehensive overview of the situation, including the various options and future possibilities. The author seems to think the 8th Circuit is more likely to rule in favor of the owners, and thus the lockout will go on.

The most interesting part, to me, was in the response to the "Will the players stay unified during the lockout?" question:

The NFLPA cannot prevent any players from negotiating with teams or the league; recertification would be required to do so. The NFL could take advantage of that situation by reaching a deal with one group of players and those players then convincing others to recertify, but perhaps with different NFLPA leadership in place.

 

[eriadoc]

I want football dammit!!!!!!

That's exactly what the owners are counting on.

 

[Texecutioner]

The most interesting part, to me, was in the response to the "Will the players stay unified during the lockout?" question:

My guess is no, the longer this thing drags out. There are just to many players in the NFL that all have different needs. No way they'll miss two seasons. Maybe one possibly, and if that were to happen I think players come to their senses and realize that there is nothing out there better for them than what they currently have in the NFL and to many NFL players foolishly spend their money to where they'll have to get back to playing at some point. I think those factors will cause many of the players to take different positions as to what should happen after while. Guys like Manning, Brady, Haynesworth who have all gotten ridiculous contracts throughout their career can afford to wait a while. Guys like Arian Foster cannot and it's much smarter to get back out there on the field.

 

[b0ng]

My guess is no, the longer this thing drags out. There are just to many players in the NFL that all have different needs. No way they'll miss two seasons. Maybe one possibly, and if that were to happen I think players come to their senses and realize that there is nothing out there better for them than what they currently have in the NFL and to many NFL players foolishly spend their money to where they'll have to get back to playing at some point. I think those factors will cause many of the players to take different positions as to what should happen after while. Guys like Manning, Brady, Haynesworth who have all gotten ridiculous contracts throughout their career can afford to wait a while. Guys like Arian Foster cannot and it's much smarter to get back out there on the field.

That scenario just ends in a strike about 4 or 5 years down the road if the players are basically strong-armed into a signing a deal that they think is unfair.

 

[Texecutioner]

That scenario just ends in a strike about 4 or 5 years down the road if the players are basically strong-armed into a signing a deal that they think is unfair.

Well that may end up being the case, but that still gets them back to playing temporarily for the next few years. They can prepare to battle later on all over again if they want, but there are a lot of players that won't be able to miss more than one season without the NFL money that they've been accustomed to. Eventually many players will fold and just want to get back to playing. The owners are the ones that can hold this thing out for years and years if they wanted to and still be just fine. They already have Billions of dollars and know how to spend it wisely unlike the majority of NFL football players who spend their money unwisely.

 

[gary]

I am sure the owners have invested their money in businesses and also have foundations to earn money off of too.

 

[b0ng]

Well that may end up being the case, but that still gets them back to playing temporarily for the next few years. They can prepare to battle later on all over again if they want, but there are a lot of players that won't be able to miss more than one season without the NFL money that they've been accustomed to. Eventually many players will fold and just want to get back to playing. The owners are the ones that can hold this thing out for years and years if they wanted to and still be just fine. They already have Billions of dollars and know how to spend it wisely unlike the majority of NFL football players who spend their money unwisely.

Yes, Dan Snyder and Al Davis are both guys who I think of when I think of fiscal responsibility. Nobody in this situation right now is "better at spending money" than somebody else. They are all ****ing retarded and can't figure out how to split $9B successfully.

It doesn't really matter though, the next decision to come down that might actually begin the both sides having true earnest negotiations would be in mid July or so when the 8th circuit makes it's decision on the appeal to end the lockout. I don't see any negotiations happening until then, and honestly we can all agree that it looks like the lockout is not going to end via federal courts.

Basically, unless there is a super majority of owners who want to have a 2011 season, this season is toast. The owners want the players to take a much smaller slice of the larger pie. I believe the owners also want a system where the players' % growth in wages is smaller than the % growth of revenue overall. This wasn't clear to me until the last week of CBA negotiations in early March. That's a huge shift from other CBAs over the last 20 years.

 

[hot pickle]

Yes, Dan Snyder and Al Davis are both guys who I think of when I think of fiscal responsibility. Nobody in this situation right now is "better at spending money" than somebody else. They are all ****ing retarded and can't figure out how to split $9B successfully.

It doesn't really matter though, the next decision to come down that might actually begin the both sides having true earnest negotiations would be in mid July or so when the 8th circuit makes it's decision on the appeal to end the lockout. I don't see any negotiations happening until then, and honestly we can all agree that it looks like the lockout is not going to end via federal courts.

Basically, unless there is a super majority of owners who want to have a 2011 season, this season is toast. The owners want the players to take a much smaller slice of the larger pie. I believe the owners also want a system where the players' % growth in wages is smaller than the % growth of revenue overall. This wasn't clear to me until the last week of CBA negotiations in early March. That's a huge shift from other CBAs over the last 20 years.

i should be in there with them during there meetings! 4.5 to the players and 4.5 to the owners!!!! done deal! lets play football!

 

[b0ng]

i should be in there with them during there meetings! 4.5 to the players and 4.5 to the owners!!!! done deal! lets play football!

No see the owners are somehow losing money while simultaneously running some of the most successful sports franchises in the world. The owners need $2B off the top and then the higher end of a 52/48 split in order to not lose money hand over fist.

 

[hot pickle]

ohhh so thats why beer is so expensive at football games! so the owners can afford a bus ticket home!!!!!!!

 

[Marcus]

ohhh so thats why beer is so expensive at football games! so the owners can afford a bus ticket home!!!!!!!

What are YOU crying about?

Doesn't Canada have a football league?

 

[b0ng]

What are YOU crying about?

Doesn't Canada have a football league?

He probably saw a Bills game and wants his money back.

 

[Blake]

The owners are one step closer to throttling the players and forcing them to accept a deal that is obviously not balanced.

Way to go courts.

 

[IDEXAN]

Here's my question: why do they even require these judges to have legal backgrounds/educationss anyway ? I mean after all of this BS about legal theorys this and legal precedents that and all, the 2 Repubs up in St Louie vote for the owners (who are mostly repubs) and the one Dem votes for the Players (who are mostly dems). They are just voting, I mean ruling on the basis of their political conviction looks to me ?

 

[infantrycak]

Here's my question: why do they even require these judges to have legal backgrounds/educationss anyway ? I mean after all of this BS about legal theorys this and legal precedents that and all, the 2 Repubs up in St Louie vote for the owners (who are mostly repubs) and the one Dem votes for the Players (who are mostly dems). They are just voting, I mean ruling on the basis of their political conviction looks to me ?

Why would removing any legal knowledge in any way fix any political bias in the appointment system? And really it is just assumed political bias.

 

[Double Barrel]

The owners are one step closer to throttling the players and forcing them to accept a deal that is obviously not balanced.

Way to go courts.

yep. I expect a strike within a few years if this happens, too.

 

[Blake]

Here's my question: why do they even require these judges to have legal backgrounds/educationss anyway ? I mean after all of this BS about legal theorys this and legal precedents that and all, the 2 Repubs up in St Louie vote for the owners (who are mostly repubs) and the one Dem votes for the Players (who are mostly dems). They are just voting, I mean ruling on the basis of their political conviction looks to me ?

You can have all the education you want. When it comes down to it are you going to vote for:

Person A: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Person B: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[TEXANRED]

You can have all the education you want. When it comes down to it are you going to vote for:

Person A: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Person B: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'll take person B for $500 Alex.

 

[infantrycak]

Folks - judges rule against corporations for little guys all the time.

 

[TEXANRED]

Folks - judges rule against corporations for little guys all the time.

oooooohhhhh I am sorry that is not the right answer. We were looking for "Who is not the little guy."

J/K