PDA

View Full Version : Football NFL union: Save last 3 game checks in case of lockout


LaChapelle
12-04-2010, 01:25 PM
Updated: December 4, 2010, 2:52 PM ET
NFL union: Prepare for pending lockout



Email (http://sendtofriend.espn.go.com/sendtofriend/SendToFriend?URL=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5882717&title=NFLPA%20to%20players:%20Save%20pay,%20lockout\'s%20coming&id=5882717)
Print (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=5882717&type=story)
Comments (http://myespn.go.com/s/conversations/show/story/5882717)479 (http://myespn.go.com/s/conversations/show/story/5882717)
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> jQuery.getScriptCache('http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/c/?js=espn.tools.r4.js', function() { espn.core.init.tools('5882717','http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5882717'); });</SCRIPT><CITE class=source>Associated Press
</CITE>
<!-- end mod-article-title --><!-- begin story body -->
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- The NFL players' union has advised its members to prepare for a lockout it expects to come in March, telling players to save their last three game checks this year in case there is no season in 2011.

In a letter to the players that was seen by The Associated Press, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the union had an "internal deadline" for agreeing to a new collective bargaining agreement.

"That deadline has now passed," he wrote. "It is important that you protect yourself and your family."

The letter was dated Wednesday, and copies were strewn across a table in the New England Patriots (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ne/new-england-patriots) locker room during the media availability on Saturday.
<!-- begin inline 1 --><!-- INLINE LIST MODULE -->

After a reporter asked players about the letter, a Patriots spokesman flipped the copies face-down.


NFL spokesman Greg Aiello called the union's deadline "disappointing and inexplicable, especially for fans."

"We hope this does not mean the union has abandoned negotiating in favor of decertifying and litigating," he said. "We are ready to meet and negotiate anytime and anywhere. But it takes sustained effort and shared commitment to reach an agreement. One side can't do it alone."
It was not clear when the union's self-imposed deadline was or what has changed now that it has passed. NFLPA spokesman George Atallah did not immediately return calls seeking clarification.

The NFL has not missed games due to labor strife since 1987, when owners responded to a player strike by continuing the season with replacement players. But the prospect of a lost season in 2011 intensified when owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008.

Smith has said that he believes the owners opted out with the goal of locking the players out. The NFLPA's home page features a "Lockout Watch" that counts down the days, hours, minutes and seconds until the CBA expires on March 3.

The one-page letter on NFLPA stationery said the union expects the lockout on March 4, and that players should work with their advisers to prepare for an impending lack of income.

It also said the league threatened to cancel the players' health insurance.
The union said it is filing a grievance to contest a cancellation of health insurance, citing a section of the collective bargaining agreement that states: "Players will continue to receive the benefits provided in this article through the end of the Plan Year in which they are released or otherwise sever employment."

Patriots offensive lineman Matt Light (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=2596), one of the team's player representatives, said players understand the nature of the business but the threat to cancel health insurance is different.

"You're going to cancel somebody's health insurance and maybe they've got a baby that's due in the offseason?" he said. "Yeah, it gets personal."
Aiello said that there would be no interruption of health care, because of the federal COBRA law that allows employees to continue coverage at their own expense.

"This means that no player or family member would experience any change in coverage for so much as a single day because of a work stoppage," he said. "The union surely knows this and there is no excuse for suggesting otherwise."

Light said he is doing his best to educate his teammates on how to prepare.

"They've got to look at it like they're going into a period in which they are going to change their financial situation," he said. "Nobody knows what's going to happen. But if you're going to go a year without getting paid, you need to prepare accordingly."

Under the deal agreed to in 2006, the players get 59.6 percent of designated NFL revenues. The owners opted out of that deal beginning next year, arguing they have huge debts from building stadiums and starting up the NFL Network that make it impossible to be profitable.
The two sides met last month and said they made "some progress" on proposals involving an 18-game regular season and limiting offseason workouts.

Players have taken their case to the public in recent weeks, briefing Congress on the job loss and other economic impact of a lockout and even drafting letters for lawmakers to send to the league.

Using many of the same studies the NFL relies on when trumpeting public subsidies for new stadiums, an economist commissioned by the union estimated an average of about $160 million in local spending and 3,000 jobs would be lost in each league city if the full 2011 season were wiped out.

The NFL called the figures "a fairy tale."

New England linebacker Tully Banta-Cain (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=4697) said he was already squirreling away his savings in case of a lockout. Banta-Cain said he was also working on his outside businesses, which include a clothing line and a music label.
"I'm trying to prepare," he said. "And I'm trying to establish my off-the-field businesses and make sure I can make money in the offseason."

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 01:32 PM
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Well not that this is surprising....but still bad news...

There is a high likelihood of no football next season..Just when things are looking bright for us.

Just our fuckign luck fellas.

Bowser
12-04-2010, 01:32 PM
I still say this is all posturing. The NFL, not the owners, not the players, want to squander a season's worth of revenue. There is simply too much money to be made by all parties involved, which is why I think there will be a deal hammered out at some point before the start of next season.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 01:32 PM
I'd be shocked if there was no 2011 season.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-04-2010, 01:33 PM
lol there won't be a lockout. Love the fake drama though.

LaChapelle
12-04-2010, 01:34 PM
Three game checks for the year
the playng squad guys needed three months

ChiefsCountry
12-04-2010, 01:36 PM
Average NFL game check before taxes and other shit is like $48,000.

hawkchief
12-04-2010, 01:36 PM
If my employees weren't happy with 60% of my revenues, I'd tell them to take a hike also. Get real spoiled, overpaid players.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 01:37 PM
lol there won't be a lockout. Love the fake drama though.

I really REALLY hope you are right. The last strike I was only 14 I think. But if they are 'faking' this drama they are sure doing one hell of a job, cuz it is scaring the shit out of me.

Spott
12-04-2010, 01:38 PM
I dont know how all of those millionaires are gonna be able to manage their money. Those poor guys.

Deberg_1990
12-04-2010, 01:38 PM
Bring in the scabs like in 1987!

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 01:39 PM
Bring in the scabs like in 1987!

FUCK YES!

KCFalcon59
12-04-2010, 01:39 PM
I know the owners make a shit ton of money. A shit ton. But I am completely disgusted by the players sense of entitlement to all that money given all they receive now. Though I do think the NFL should do more for the older retired players concerning their quality of life as they have aged. The pounding takes a toll. I will hate it if there is a lockout.

Spott
12-04-2010, 01:42 PM
Bring in the scabs like in 1987!

I remember those days. Of all the scab teams, I think ours was the worst.

Deberg_1990
12-04-2010, 01:45 PM
I remember those days. Of all the scab teams, I think ours was the worst.

heh, yea i think it was....but we would have been bad anyways that year.

If i remember right, there were some ugly incidents around the league between striking players and scabs. But the NFL and the media that covers it wasnt nearly as big in those days.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 02:01 PM
If my employees weren't happy with 60% of my revenues, I'd tell them to take a hike also. Get real spoiled, overpaid players.Remember, the players arent going to strike. If there is a work stoppage, its a Lock-out.

KCtotheSB
12-04-2010, 02:03 PM
So if we win the Super Bowl this year, that means we'll be able to gloat for TWO years instead of ONE!

Spott
12-04-2010, 02:05 PM
heh, yea i think it was....but we would have been bad anyways that year.

If i remember right, there were some ugly incidents around the league between striking players and scabs. But the NFL and the media that covers it wasnt nearly as big in those days.

I remember Jack Del Rio and Otis Taylor getting into a fistfight outside of Arrowhead.

The only bright side about there being and NFL lockout is that we at least will have college football to fill the void. They may even be able to schedule some games on Sunday if the NFL was locked out.

ChiefsCountry
12-04-2010, 02:11 PM
heh, yea i think it was....but we would have been bad anyways that year.


Even when the Chiefs suck, they can't even be the best at sucking. See 1988 and 2008.

Rausch
12-04-2010, 02:14 PM
Flat out will not watch, pay, or support lockout/scab season.

DJ's left nut
12-04-2010, 02:16 PM
I still don't think it will happen.

The NFL can tell these guys to save their checks all they want, but for 80% of them, that money's already spent.

It's amazing how far beyond their means professional athletes live.

I still think that the NFL will back off the 18 game schedule (put there as a bargaining ploy, nothing more) and the Union will cave on the rest.

CoMoChief
12-04-2010, 02:18 PM
$4 Billion Dollars says there will be football next season.

bowener
12-04-2010, 02:54 PM
Bring in the scabs like in 1987!

J. Charles will play for the Chiefs, and rush for 2500 yards next season.

Param
12-04-2010, 03:12 PM
I still don't think it will happen.

The NFL can tell these guys to save their checks all they want, but for 80% of them, that money's already spent.

It's amazing how far beyond their means professional athletes live.

I still think that the NFL will back off the 18 game schedule (put there as a bargaining ploy, nothing more) and the Union will cave on the rest.

New England linebacker Tully Banta-Cain (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=4697) said he was already squirreling away his savings in case of a lockout. Banta-Cain said he was also working on his outside businesses, which include a clothing line and a music label.
"I'm trying to prepare," he said. "And I'm trying to establish my off-the-field businesses and make sure I can make money in the offseason."

You know, you make a ton of money. Why not ditch other ventures if you're concerned about not getting a paycheck and you know like save the money instead?

kstater
12-04-2010, 03:13 PM
I still say this is all posturing. The NFL, not the owners, not the players, want to squander a season's worth of revenue. There is simply too much money to be made by all parties involved, which is why I think there will be a deal hammered out at some point before the start of next season.

Yeah, they conveniently left the letters on the table when the media came in then hurriedly covered them up. Not planned at all.

kstater
12-04-2010, 03:15 PM
New England linebacker Tully Banta-Cain (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=4697) said he was already squirreling away his savings in case of a lockout. Banta-Cain said he was also working on his outside businesses, which include a clothing line and a music label.
"I'm trying to prepare," he said. "And I'm trying to establish my off-the-field businesses and make sure I can make money in the offseason."

You know, you make a ton of money. Why not ditch other ventures if you're concerned about not getting a paycheck and you know like save the money instead?

Wut?

notorious
12-04-2010, 03:16 PM
I still think that the NFL will back off the 18 game schedule (put there as a bargaining ploy, nothing more) and the Union will cave on the rest.

This.



I think they started the bullshit 18 game schedule talk just so they could take it off the table and "appear" as if they are compromising.

notorious
12-04-2010, 03:18 PM
New England linebacker Tully Banta-Cain (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=4697) said he was already squirreling away his savings in case of a lockout. Banta-Cain said he was also working on his outside businesses, which include a clothing line and a music label.
"I'm trying to prepare," he said. "And I'm trying to establish my off-the-field businesses and make sure I can make money in the offseason."

You know, you make a ton of money. Why not ditch other ventures if you're concerned about not getting a paycheck and you know like save the money instead?


These guys live in a fantasy world. :facepalm:

Param
12-04-2010, 03:19 PM
Wut?

You know, save your game checks and put them in the bank. Rather than start a clothing line and music labels...

Chiefs Pantalones
12-04-2010, 03:21 PM
No worries...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:zs3fEa9DpscZWM:http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m310/mattyc33/Keanu-Reeves---The-Replacements-Pho.jpg&t=1

Falco > Cassel

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 03:21 PM
Remember, the players arent going to strike. If there is a work stoppage, its a Lock-out.

It is really a matter of Semantics. While it technically would be a lock out, there would be PLENTY of blame to go around. The NFLPA voted to De-Certify, which allowed the lockout...So if you want to play the 'blame game' you could say this is about De-Certification, and the owners merely reacted to that...

Basically both sides are at fault if they can't / don't fix this by march.

Thig Lyfe
12-04-2010, 03:22 PM
$4 Billion Dollars says there will be football next season.

Wow, four billion dollars dollars? That's pretty steep.

Banta-Cain said he was also working on his outside businesses, which include a clothing line and a music label.


Very original. Very practical.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 03:23 PM
$4 Billion Dollars says there will be football next season.

Is that 4 billion in World of Warcraft coins?

kstater
12-04-2010, 03:23 PM
You know, save your game checks and put them in the bank. Rather than start a clothing line and music labels...

Yeah, investing their money is not really a good idea.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 03:24 PM
Yeah, investing their money is not really a good idea.

ROFL

Thig Lyfe
12-04-2010, 03:27 PM
Yeah, investing their money is not really a good idea.

Sure. But it might be a good idea to invest in something other than a music label or clothing line. Athletes seem to think it's mandatory that they start one or both of those things the moment they get their first paycheck.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-04-2010, 03:46 PM
Sure. But it might be a good idea to invest in something other than a music label or clothing line. Athletes seem to think it's mandatory that they start one or both of those things the moment they get their first paycheck.

Not all athletes, only the black ones.

Thig Lyfe
12-04-2010, 04:11 PM
Not all athletes, only the black ones.

What about Brett Favre's line of Crocs or Ben Roethlisberger's "Rape Jam" record label?

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 04:55 PM
It is really a matter of Semantics. While it technically would be a lock out, there would be PLENTY of blame to go around. The NFLPA voted to De-Certify, which allowed the lockout...So if you want to play the 'blame game' you could say this is about De-Certification, and the owners merely reacted to that...

Basically both sides are at fault if they can't / don't fix this by march.From what I've read, if the players vote to decertify the union, the Owners would open themselves up to lawsuits from the players if they Lock-out. Something about anti-trust.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-04-2010, 05:00 PM
What about Brett Favre's line of Crocs or Ben Roethlisberger's "Rape Jam" record label?

ROFL

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 05:01 PM
The NFLPA voted to De-Certify, which allowed the lockout...So if you want to play the 'blame game' you could say this is about De-Certification, and the owners merely reacted to that...

You sure about this? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/11/nflpa-decertification-vote-could-ensure-nfl-football-in-2011/

NFLPA decertification vote could ensure NFL football in 2011

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on September 11, 2010, 3:51 PM EST
With fans celebrating the return of the NFL season, the NFLPA is providing us all with regular reminders that the league and the players are on a collision course for a potential work stoppage.

But the news this time is good, at least for the fans.

The union believes that the owners will lock the players out and/or unilaterally impose the leagueís last, best offer as new work rules. And so the NFLPA reportedly is laying the foundation for a move that would set the stage for another class-action antitrust lawsuit, and that necessarily would allow football to continue, while the lawyers clean up all details.

Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reports that all players will
be asked to vote to authorize
decertification. Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that the Saints already
have voted unanimously to allow decertification.

Decertification would be used either to block a lockout or to combat the unilateral imposition of work rules by the league. Put simply, if the NFLPA decertifies, the league would then be required to promulgate player acquisition and retention rules on an across-the-board basis. The union then would sue the league, arguing that the imposition of standard rules regarding player acquisition and retention among 32 different businesses constitutes a violation of antitrust laws.

The union applied the same approach after the failed strike of 1987. And the unionís ability to at least attempt the move was validated by the U.S. Supreme Courtís ruling earlier this year in the American Needle case. Though the lengthy written opinion of the Court contains language suggesting that the NFL could defeat an antritust challenge in the context of labor relations, the outcome preserves the ability of the union to pursue the antitrust route.

Still, the move likely would prevent a work stoppage. And if the NFL were to attack the move by calling it a sham (Mullen points out the league has done this before), it would be very easy for the union to point out to the fans that they are doing everything they can to ensure that football will continue ó and that the NFL is trying to take it away.

Brock
12-04-2010, 05:05 PM
It is really a matter of Semantics. While it technically would be a lock out, there would be PLENTY of blame to go around. The NFLPA voted to De-Certify, which allowed the lockout...So if you want to play the 'blame game' you could say this is about De-Certification, and the owners merely reacted to that...

Basically both sides are at fault if they can't / don't fix this by march.

LMAO

HemiEd
12-04-2010, 05:11 PM
This brings back memories of Jack Del Rio with a shotgun in the Arrowhead parking lot. I believe he was trying to discourage the scabs.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 05:12 PM
LMAOAdmittedly, I know little about Labor Strife, so I did a search before I spouted off about it. Unlike Pawnmower. :)

Chiefshrink
12-04-2010, 05:25 PM
I still say this is all posturing. The NFL, not the owners, not the players, want to squander a season's worth of revenue. There is simply too much money to be made by all parties involved, which is why I think there will be a deal hammered out at some point before the start of next season.

You know Bowser "IF" Demaurice Smith wasn't their(players) negotiating lawyer I would 100% agree with you.:thumb: BUT because Smith has taken over for the late Gene Upshaw;Smith a former Obama attorney who has represented many employee unions in the past and thrives in being a "union thug" will not play ball whatsoever IMO :shrug:.

If you haven't already 'google' "Black Liberation Theology" and you will understand better how Demaurice Smith views America, The NFL, Capitalism etc..... not to mention his friends in higher places have the same view as well(ala Obama, Eric Holder)

Not trying to be political in the lounge here but you really can't separate Demaurice's political viewpoints from his negotiating goals here. I call it like I see it:thumb:

kstater
12-04-2010, 05:26 PM
Yeah you need to go back to your hole.

Spott
12-04-2010, 05:28 PM
DC is for homos.

Chiefshrink
12-04-2010, 05:40 PM
DC is for homos.

DC is for "some" not all who can argue intelligently unlike you who just showed your lack of intelligence and maturity by just name calling:rolleyes:

Over-Head
12-04-2010, 05:42 PM
Heres hoping we both get a few gems in the "Scabs" that replace these over priced bitchey millionair wanna be athleats, who seem to have forgotten why they played ball in teh first place...they used to love it...not just the huge paycheques

Chiefshrink
12-04-2010, 05:42 PM
Yeah you need to go back to your hole.

That's all you got:shrug:

Chiefshrink
12-04-2010, 05:47 PM
Heres hoping we both get a few gems in the "Scabs" that replace these over priced bitchey millionair wanna be athleats, who seem to have forgotten why they played ball in teh first place...they used to love it...not just the huge paycheques

Precisely!!!:thumb: Parcells taught all his "underlings" what "true football players" look like and this is where you can find some "true football players"(ala no-names that can PLAY BABY!!)

Brock
12-04-2010, 05:50 PM
Heres hoping we both get a few gems in the "Scabs" that replace these over priced bitchey millionair wanna be athleats, who seem to have forgotten why they played ball in teh first place...they used to love it...not just the huge paycheques

Ugh. :facepalm:

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/_photos/2007/07/08/doblerx.jpg

Mojo Jojo
12-04-2010, 05:53 PM
The '87 scabs gave the NFL and finally the Chiefs Steve Bono.
Gary Spani and Dino Hackett were with Del Rio during the shotgun ride around Arrowhead.

Brock
12-04-2010, 05:54 PM
People calling for scab football don't remember scab football.

Over-Head
12-04-2010, 05:59 PM
People calling for scab football don't remember scab football.
Better than none aint it?? (I know it's only just margionally, but still)

Brock
12-04-2010, 06:00 PM
Better than none aint it?? (I know it's only just margionally, but still)

Watch the UFL and get back to me on that.

GloryDayz
12-04-2010, 06:28 PM
Wow, this will be an Xmas present in September for Baseball, NCAA Football, and NASCAR....

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 06:33 PM
Admittedly, I know little about Labor Strife, so I did a search before I spouted off about it. Unlike Pawnmower. :)

What exactly is incorrect about what I said?

To me, decertifying does MORE to cause a lockout than not....but maybe I understand it incorrectly. If so, I am curious to know how you think decertification helps anything.

If they didn't decertify, but instead came to some kind of agreement there would be a 2011 season...guaranteed.

The decertification (instead of bargaining / negotiating ) was only an attempt to THREATEN litigation....(if I understand it correctly)

For example: It is like saying ' you lock us out, and we will SUE THE **** OUT OF YOU'

In other words, the NFLPA spent all kinds of time and money and effort to decertify instead of actually trying to come to an agreement. WHy would they want to decertify? MORE MONEY....They thought it would be in their best interest to decertify to avoid a lockout...basically a kind of exthortion....But it appears they were wrong. There is only an extremely limited amount of time to come to some kind of agreement (March?) so to use this time and efforts on decertification (threating lawsuits)....well...I have been sued twice and threatened to be sued multiple times so believe me...threatening suits is not a way to calm the situation down.

Struggling to decertify instead of struggling to come up with a compromise was failure, and could be argued that it led to a lockout IMO. I guess we will see...

If you are correct, and de-certification proves to be the cause for a 2011 season, and not a provocation for a lock-out and a complete wasted effort by the NFLPA...then I will be happy...But So far I doubt it...

Brock
12-04-2010, 06:35 PM
What exactly is incorrect about what I said?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a70089/article/nflpa-seeking-signatures-for-possible-decertification

Decertification is one tact the players' union could take this spring to negate a potential lockout and begin a process through the court system toward a possible resolution of the labor impasse with NFL owners..

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 06:40 PM
What exactly is incorrect about what I said?

[
To me, decertifying does MORE to cause a lockout than not....but maybe I understand it incorrectly.

If they didn't decertify, but instead came to some kind of agreement there would be a 2011 season...

The decertification (insteadYour previous post has nothing to do with this. Decertification would likely allow the players to play next season because the Owners dont want to face a lawsuit. They would play under current CBA regulations.

salame
12-04-2010, 06:47 PM
if there is a lockout I guess I will take up crystal meth....

Tylerthigpen!1!
12-04-2010, 06:47 PM
3 game checks? Nobody can live on a 500k-1mil for a year! Something needs to be done.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 06:48 PM
Your previous post has nothing to do with this. Decertification would likely allow the players to play next season because the Owners dont want to face a lawsuit. They would play under current CBA regulations.

I was editing my post...sorry for confusion

If you believe decertification will lead to a 2011 season, all I can say is I hope to god you are correct.

But, As someone who has been sued / threatened with lawsuits...I can tell you that a threat doesn't always have the desired consequence.

I do hope you are correct, don't get me wrong...But I have a very bad feeling about it.

My main points are 1) I think spending time threatening lawsuits / decertifying instead of actual negotiations to accomplish the needed goals was a huge waste... and 2) decertification will not prevent a lockout

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 06:49 PM
What exactly is incorrect about what I said?

To me, decertifying does MORE to cause a lockout than not....but maybe I understand it incorrectly. If so, I am curious to know how you think decertification helps anything.

If they didn't decertify, but instead came to some kind of agreement there would be a 2011 season...guaranteed.

The decertification (instead of bargaining / negotiating ) was only an attempt to THREATEN litigation....(if I understand it correctly)

For example: It is like saying ' you lock us out, and we will SUE THE **** OUT OF YOU'

In other words, the NFLPA spent all kinds of time and money and effort to decertify instead of actually trying to come to an agreement. WHy would they want to decertify? MORE MONEY....They thought it would be in their best interest to decertify to avoid a lockout...basically a kind of exthortion....But it appears they were wrong. There is only an extremely limited amount of time to come to some kind of agreement (March?) so to use this time and efforts on decertification (threating lawsuits)....well...I have been sued twice and threatened to be sued multiple times so believe me...threatening suits is not a way to calm the situation down.

Struggling to decertify instead of struggling to come up with a compromise was failure, and could be argued that it led to a lockout IMO. I guess we will see...

If you are correct, and de-certification proves to be the cause for a 2011 season, and not a provocation for a lock-out and a complete wasted effort by the NFLPA...then I will be happy...But So far I doubt it...Struggling to decertify? The players of all 32 teams take a vote. As far as I know, thats pretty much it. I dont think its some drawn-out, complicated process.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 06:50 PM
if there is a lockout I guess I will take up crystal meth....Judging by your posts, I thought you already had.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 06:52 PM
Decertification is one tact the players' union could take this spring to negate a potential lockout and begin a process through the court system toward a possible resolution of the labor impasse with NFL owners.

Again, that is speculation....It isn't a fact that decertification will 'negate' a potential lockout.....in terms of us (the fans) getting to have a football season.

Sure, it might negate the lockout in terms of $$$ going into players pockets, even of they do not play any games...But how does that help us (the fans) ?

*edit: and that is a big MIGHT.....it might not

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 06:54 PM
Struggling to decertify? The players of all 32 teams take a vote. As far as I know, thats pretty much it. I dont think its some drawn-out, complicated process.

Well there were meetings, discussions, study, etc...(weeks/ months?) Lawyers and staff time are not free...and also take time...

If you think they all just voted on it without spending time researching it.....and if you think all the votes happened instantly....

Imagine what could have been done with all of that time had they spent it on actual negotiations (with the owners) instead (instead of meeting amongst themselves and trying to figure out how to sue the owners)?

Brock
12-04-2010, 06:54 PM
Again, that is speculation....It isn't a fact that decertification will 'negate' a potential lockout.....in terms of us (the fans) getting to have a football season.

Sure, it might negate the lockout in terms of $$$ going into players pockets, even of they do not play any games...But how does that help us (the fans) ?

Who said anything about helping the fans? Who thinks like that?

salame
12-04-2010, 06:54 PM
Judging by your posts, I thought you already had.

http://www.hongfire.com/cg/data/7/1150341449762.jpg

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 06:56 PM
I was editing my post...sorry for confusion

If you believe decertification will lead to a 2011 season, all I can say is I hope to god you are correct.

But, As someone who has been sued / threatened with lawsuits...I can tell you that a threat doesn't always have the desired consequence.

I do hope you are correct, don't get me wrong...But I have a very bad feeling about it.

My main points are 1) I think spending time threatening lawsuits / decertifying instead of actual negotiations to accomplish the needed goals was a huge waste... and 2) decertification will not prevent a lockoutI seriously doubt the Owners would want to face a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the NFL played without a new CBA during the late 80s and early 90s.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 06:59 PM
Who said anything about helping the fans? Who thinks like that?

Well, apparently some people believe that the decertification will automatically mean that the lawsuits (or the threat of lawsuits) will guarantee a 2011 season.

The lawsuits could not do this...All a lawsuit can win is CASH. The cash would go repay players for unpaid / unplayed games.

Anyone who thinks decertification means a guaranteed 2011 season is incorrect.

I think that some people think that these lawsuits can force the games to be played....which is not the case.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 07:00 PM
Again, that is speculation....It isn't a fact that decertification will 'negate' a potential lockout.....in terms of us (the fans) getting to have a football season.

Sure, it might negate the lockout in terms of $$$ going into players pockets, even of they do not play any games...But how does that help us (the fans) ?

*edit: and that is a big MIGHT.....it might notIf there is no lock-out, then they play the games as scheduled.

Brock
12-04-2010, 07:00 PM
Well, apparently some people believe that the decertification will automatically mean that the lawsuits (or the threat of lawsuits) will guarantee a 2011 season.

The lawsuits could not do this...All a lawsuit can win is CASH. The cash would go repay players for unpaid / unplayed games.

Anyone who thinks decertification means a guaranteed 2011 season is incorrect.

I think that some people think that these lawsuits can force the games to be played....which is not the case.

I believe there will be a lockout, regardless.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 07:02 PM
I seriously doubt the Owners would want to face a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit.


I absolutely 100% would love to think you are right. I just think that the owners might be prepared to fight.

Don't get me wrong , I hope to god you are right because I love my Sundays the way they are.

Fruit Ninja
12-04-2010, 07:02 PM
I remember Jack Del Rio and Otis Taylor getting into a fistfight outside of Arrowhead.

The only bright side about there being and NFL lockout is that we at least will have college football to fill the void. They may even be able to schedule some games on Sunday if the NFL was locked out.

it will suck for me, i am not into college football. Iguess ill watch other nba games outside of the Lakers. lol

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 07:02 PM
If there is no lock-out, then they play the games as scheduled.

Of course.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 07:04 PM
I believe there will be a lockout, regardless.

Sadly I think so too. The closer we get towards March without any progress....the more you will be right about this.

edit: and March is RIGHT around the fuckign corner unfortunately

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 07:06 PM
Well, apparently some people believe that the decertification will automatically mean that the lawsuits (or the threat of lawsuits) will guarantee a 2011 season.

The lawsuits could not do this...All a lawsuit can win is CASH. The cash would go repay players for unpaid / unplayed games.

Anyone who thinks decertification means a guaranteed 2011 season is incorrect.

I think that some people think that these lawsuits can force the games to be played....which is not the case.If the players vote to decertify, and the Owners Lock out the players, that opens the Owners up to lawsuits. Now, assuming the owners dont want to deal with these lawsuits, the Owners would likely have a vote to NOT lock-out. Thus, no Lawsuit, and they would play under current CBA rules.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2010, 07:09 PM
I believe there will be a lockout, regardless.I dont think so. Something will get done.

Brock
12-04-2010, 07:09 PM
If the players vote to decertify, and the Owners Lock out the players, that opens the Owners up to lawsuits. Now, assuming the owners dont want to deal with these lawsuits, the Owners would likely have a vote to NOT lock-out. Thus, no Lawsuit, and they would play under current CBA rules.

The owners aren't going to cave over some lawsuits.

Pawnmower
12-04-2010, 07:12 PM
If the players vote to decertify, and the Owners Lock out the players, that opens the Owners up to lawsuits. Now, assuming the owners dont want to deal with these lawsuits, the Owners would likely have a vote to NOT lock-out.

The bolded part:

That is a huge HUGE assumption. They just might be ready and willing to fight....That is what I mean by threatening lawsuits. The owners have lawyers too. Hell probably better ones than the players. Do not think for one second that the players won't have to spend HUGE amounts of money on lawyers in a court fight. If it goes to court, everyone loses except the lawyers, and the 2011 season will be disrupted or cancelled.

MichaelH
12-04-2010, 07:12 PM
The 22" rim dealers and coke dealers just went into shock.

gblowfish
12-04-2010, 07:14 PM
The last strike cost us Marv Levy. He turned out to be a pretty good coach when given time to build a system.

salame
12-04-2010, 07:16 PM
maybe we'll get Denny Green

Chieftain58
12-04-2010, 07:26 PM
lol there won't be a lockout. Love the fake drama though.

I bet there is, I watched it happen in the 80's

Three7s
12-04-2010, 11:00 PM
I think there will be a lockout. I'm almost 100% on this. Both the owners and the players need to realize that this is about the fans, not themselves. They're just too greedy to actually care. The biggest problem is that the owners will still make money on revenue sharing, despite no games being played. I think that is the whole reason they opted out in the first place.

Rain Man
12-04-2010, 11:44 PM
The 22" rim dealers and coke dealers just went into shock.

This could drop the bottom out of the blood diamond market as well. And they're already reeling from the Jamarcus Russell waiver.

BryanBusby
12-04-2010, 11:49 PM
I think it's almost a lock that the NFLPA will dissolve if the owners try to lock out, which will result in an ugly trainwreck.

Valiant
12-05-2010, 12:50 AM
New England linebacker [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=4697"][COLOR=#225fb2] Banta-Cain said he was also working on his outside businesses, which include a clothing line and a music label.
"I'm trying to prepare," he said. "And I'm trying to establish my off-the-field businesses and make sure I can make money in the offseason."

You know, you make a ton of money. Why not ditch other ventures if you're concerned about not getting a paycheck and you know like save the money instead?

Yeah, clothing line and music label seem like a huge waste of money for someone no one knows outside of his teams fans..

Valiant
12-05-2010, 12:51 AM
I think it's almost a lock that the NFLPA will dissolve if the owners try to lock out, which will result in an ugly trainwreck.

I have been reading that they will dissolve.. But if they do then don't they lose all bargaining power?? They are no longer a unified voice..

Chief31
12-05-2010, 12:54 AM
Average NFL game check before taxes and other shit is like $48,000.


What about the below-average?

BossChief
12-05-2010, 02:08 AM
Can someone explain to me (the short version) on how owners can choose to just simply not honor hundreds of legally binding contracts because "they dont want to pay that much"

Pawnmower
12-05-2010, 02:13 AM
Can someone explain to me (the short version) on how owners can choose to just simply not honor hundreds of legally binding contracts because "they dont want to pay that much"

Well, as far as I understand...the contract that that the owners and players association have is expired or will expire in March. They are trying to negotiate a new contract and basically re failing to do so.

BigMeatballDave
12-05-2010, 02:23 AM
Can someone explain to me (the short version) on how owners can choose to just simply not honor hundreds of legally binding contracts because "they dont want to pay that much"Good question. You'd think that would constitute a breach of contract.

Mojo Jojo
12-05-2010, 02:30 AM
Can someone explain to me (the short version) on how owners can choose to just simply not honor hundreds of legally binding contracts because "they dont want to pay that much"

Because NFL players sign a series of one year contracts, so every year their contracts are over and the team has the right to pick up the next contract.