PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Great news on CBA


ChiefsandO'sfan
03-01-2011, 04:47 PM
SI_PeterKing Peter King
For fb fans, Doty's ruling that NFL can't use $4B in TV money for '11 expenses during lockout is gd news. Could push sides to legit talks.


AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
Doty ruled for Players in TV Case. Overturned Burbank's Decision. All TV Contracts violate CBA. Separate earing to come on the damages.

Brock
03-01-2011, 04:57 PM
whoops!

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 05:02 PM
Brock's jizzing in his pants


GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UNIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

milkman
03-01-2011, 05:03 PM
The owners have a poor record in court.

They should be motivated to negotiate in good faith, because they really don't have a chance at winning in court if the players file a lawsuit.

Detoxing
03-01-2011, 05:07 PM
Doty really doesn't care for the owners, does he?

Brock
03-01-2011, 05:08 PM
Brock's jizzing in his pants


GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UNIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laz is cryin in his beer


Goooooo billionaires!!!!!!

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 05:17 PM
Laz is cryin in his beer


Goooooo billionaires!!!!!!

Brock teh major fail understanding the point


Players win = fans lose

everything the NFLPA wins pushes the cost of t.v.,tickets,parket,PSL's higher

Brock
03-01-2011, 05:19 PM
Brock teh major fail understanding the point


Players win = fans lose

everything the NFLPA wins pushes the cost of t.v.,tickets,parket,PSL's higher

Yeah, the owners just want to hold the line "for the fans". LMAO Naivete at its finest.

WV
03-01-2011, 05:20 PM
Brock teh major fail understanding the point


Players win = fans lose

everything the NFLPA wins pushes the cost of t.v.,tickets,parket,PSL's higher

I'm with you....I think the owners should tell them to take the current offer or leave it. I don't see how the players have a leg to stand on.

Brock
03-01-2011, 05:21 PM
That nice Dan Snyder just wants to keep things affordable for the fans, and those dastardly players won't let him do it!

WV
03-01-2011, 05:22 PM
That Dan Snyder just wants to keep things affordable for the fans, and those dastardly players won't let him do it!

And paying the players more is going to help how?

Brock
03-01-2011, 05:23 PM
And paying the players more is going to help how?

How does keeping the revenue split the same = "paying the players more"?

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 05:25 PM
How does keeping the revenue split the same = "paying the players more"?

I think it's clear that most people don't understand why the union and owners are at odds.

bevischief
03-01-2011, 05:25 PM
But they have about 2 years in cash reserves.

BigMeatballDave
03-01-2011, 05:28 PM
Admittedly, I'm kind of on the side of the players. Basically, because they are the product and its the reason I watch.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why ANYONE would cuddle up to the owners nutsack, like a certain poster here is...



HBD, Laz :)

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 05:28 PM
I think it's clear that most people don't understand why the union and owners are at odds.
oh ... here we go

the old "everyone else is not as smart as me" argument by dane


you never do get over yourself, do you?


:doh!:

Baconeater
03-01-2011, 05:29 PM
I'm not sure how one can pick a side when both of them are motivated by the same thing.

Brock
03-01-2011, 05:30 PM
oh ... here we go

the old "everyone else is not as smart as me" argument by dane


you never do get over yourself, do you?


:doh!:

I've been waiting for you to explain why you think MLB is "all screwed up" because the players make too much money for a while. Feel free to do it here.

tk13
03-01-2011, 05:32 PM
I'm not sure how one can pick a side when both of them are motivated by the same thing.

Go team! Win that money!

That aside... Dane is probably going to be right from the standpoint that people are going to think players want more money.

But that's not really the case here. It's the owners saying they aren't making enough money and they gave away too much to the players in the last CBA.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 05:34 PM
oh ... here we go

the old "everyone else is not as smart as me" argument by dane


you never do get over yourself, do you?


:doh!:

What the fuck is wrong with your vagina today, Laz?

Why don't you explain to us WHY the union and owners are at odds, instead of acting like a fucking jackass.

IF that's even possible.

WV
03-01-2011, 05:36 PM
How does keeping the revenue split the same = "paying the players more"?

Unless it's changed recently it isn't the same.

BigMeatballDave
03-01-2011, 05:38 PM
I'm not sure how one can pick a side when both of them are motivated by the same thing.Pretty much.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 05:43 PM
Admittedly, I'm kind of on the side of the players. Basically, because they are the product and its the reason I watch.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why ANYONE would cuddle up to the owners nutsack, like a certain poster here is...

HBD, Laz :)
because i'm looking at it from what is best for the fans not player hero worship.

The more the NFLPA wins, the more "power" they get ... the more power they get, the more the NFL will become like the MLB.

A powerful NFLPA will lead to things like:

1. guaranteed contracts
2. no rookie wage scale
3. no franchise/transition tags
4. no RFA year
5. no salary cap
6. no trade clauses

pretty much everything else that lets MLB players be lazy ****s.


I love how you taking the players side is just ... taking their side. But me siding with the owners is "cuddling up to the owners nutsack". :rolleyes:

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 05:46 PM
What the **** is wrong with your vagina today, Laz?

Why don't you explain to us WHY the union and owners are at odds, instead of acting like a ****ing jackass.

IF that's even possible.
and again


it can't be possible that your really don't realize what a complete fucking asshole you are

milkman
03-01-2011, 05:47 PM
I'm with you....I think the owners should tell them to take the current offer or leave it. I don't see how the players have a leg to stand on.

The owners are the ones with no leg to stand on, unless they can produce proof that the last agreement has hurt them financially.

The fact that they have been unwilling to open their books suggest they have something to hide.

If the players decertify, and then file a lawsuit, the owners will be compelled by a judge to open those books.

When they do, if, as the union believes, it shows just the opposite, the owners will lose.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 05:48 PM
because i'm looking at it from what is best for the fans not player hero worship.

The more the NFLPA wins, the more "power" they get ... the more power they get, the more the NFL will become like the MLB.

A powerful NFLPA will lead to things like:

1. guaranteed contracts
2. no rookie wage scale
3. no franchise/transition tags
4. no RFA year
5. no salary cap
6. no trade clauses

pretty much everything else that lets MLB players be lazy ****s.


I love how you taking the players side is just ... taking their side. But me siding with the owners is "cuddling up to the owners nutsack". :rolleyes:

Wow, your assumptions couldn't be more asinine but I guess that's what we've come to expect from you.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 05:48 PM
and again


it can't be possible that your really don't realize what a complete fucking asshole you are

Come on, Laz, tell us exactly what issue is between the union and owners.

Tell us, V-boy.

milkman
03-01-2011, 05:49 PM
because i'm looking at it from what is best for the fans not player hero worship.

The more the NFLPA wins, the more "power" they get ... the more power they get, the more the NFL will become like the MLB.

A powerful NFLPA will lead to things like:

1. guaranteed contracts
2. no rookie wage scale
3. no franchise/transition tags
4. no RFA year
5. no salary cap
6. no trade clauses

pretty much everything else that lets MLB players be lazy ****s.


I love how you taking the players side is just ... taking their side. But me siding with the owners is "cuddling up to the owners nutsack". :rolleyes:

The players aren't asking for any of that.

All they are fighting for is to keep what they've already got.

bevischief
03-01-2011, 05:50 PM
The owners are the ones with no leg to stand on, unless they can produce proof that the last agreement has hurt them financially.

The fact that they have been unwilling to open their books suggest they have something to hide.

If the players decertify, and then file a lawsuit, the owners will be compelled by a judge to open those books.

When they do, if, as the union believes, it shows just the opposite, the owners will lose.

We need a lawyer to speak here.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 05:50 PM
and again


it can't be possible that your really don't realize what a complete fucking asshole you are

LMAO

I'm an asshole because YOU don't know why the union and owners are at odds?

You live in a fucking fantasy land.

chefsos
03-01-2011, 05:51 PM
Doty really doesn't care for the owners, does he?I think this might be the point of the whole thing. I read somewhere that he is judicially "in charge" of this CBA. Seems that the owners hope when it goes away, so does he.

milkman
03-01-2011, 05:55 PM
We need a lawyer to speak here.

This from another thread.

Listening to ESPN Radio this morning, they had Lester Munson on, ESPN legal analyst.

Essentially, to the best of my understanding, the decertification of the union is specifically to battle this.

After decertifying, if the owners lock the players out, the players will sue the owners.

They'll first attempt to get an injunction against the lockout, and if successful, all league business will resume.

After that, the league and players will essentially negotiate with a judge presiding over the negotiations, and the judge will make rulings that will be binding.

He also talked about the owners trying to get the law changed in the Supreme Court last year to make the decertification and lawsuit no longer an option.

Supreme Court ruled against the owners 9-0.

Munson also said that when that happens, if the owners can't prove they are somehow hurting finanacially, they can't win.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 05:56 PM
I've been waiting for you to explain why you think MLB is "all screwed up" because the players make too much money for a while. Feel free to do it here.
just about everything about the business part of baseball is ****ed up ... leading to almost a complete lack of parity and the smaller markets basically become farm teams for the big markets.

the fact that a player can sign a contract while performing at a certain level and then take a nap, sit back and collect is ****ed up.

jesus ... if you weren't already totally bias you would know the endless list of screwed up stuff in MLB. It's been talked about Ad nauseam and i shouldn't need to rehash it.

you just don't give a **** about it being screwed up as long as your union brethren are bending over "the man"

Union born
Union bred
When Brock dies he will be Union dead

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 05:58 PM
LMAO

I'm an asshole because YOU don't know why the union and owners are at odds?

You live in a ****ing fantasy land.
no, you're an asshole because you automatically assume anyone that disagrees with you about something must be stupid or not "understand" something.

DeezNutz
03-01-2011, 05:58 PM
The players aren't asking for any of that.

All they are fighting for is to keep what they've already got.

Don't let facts influence a potential argument.

alpha_omega
03-01-2011, 06:00 PM
Sounds like a fair ruling to me.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 06:02 PM
no, you're an asshole because you automatically assume anyone that disagrees with you about something must be stupid or not "understand" something.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I stated simply that most people don't know or understand the issues. You countered with your typical, non-related, nonsensical bullshit.

Again, Laz, why don't you detail and outline the true issues involved between the union and the owners?

Or are you one of people who doesn't know?

Zip up your pants, Laz. Your labia's showing again.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 06:02 PM
Sounds like a fair ruling to me.

It's fairly irrelevant because it only affected money from 2012, not 2011.

WV
03-01-2011, 06:04 PM
The owners are the ones with no leg to stand on, unless they can produce proof that the last agreement has hurt them financially.

The fact that they have been unwilling to open their books suggest they have something to hide.

If the players decertify, and then file a lawsuit, the owners will be compelled by a judge to open those books.

When they do, if, as the union believes, it shows just the opposite, the owners will lose.

This is one of the sticking points for me. I don't see why they shoud have to open their books for the NFLPA. I'm fairly certain that any one of our employers would balk at opening their books for their employees. I guess given the fact that they already participate in revenue sharing matters, but even still it wasn't in the expiring contract so why would it be in this one.

The NFLPA is trying to mask the 50/50 revenue split before the owners take their portion off the top as the same as the 60/40 split already in place, but in actuality there is a slight increase in there for the NFLPA. When we're talking the amount of money that's involved here 1 or 2% is huge.

I'm trying to look at this from the business perspective and not the fan perspective, so for me it just doesn't make good business sense to give in to the NFLPA. They're both after the same thing...more $$...but IMO it's the owners who have more of a "right" to the additional revenues.
I know there are other sticking points....rookie wage scaling (which is a must IMO), the 18 game season (which I couldn't care less about) and some questions about benefits.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 06:05 PM
The players aren't asking for any of that.

All they are fighting for is to keep what they've already got.keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more. Besides the owners should have the right to cut cost for THEIR business imo

and when the win this time, what do you think they will ask for next time?

naturally the players want to try and get the courts to force the issue. Judge Doty has been ruling on the NFL labor issues since about 1992 and has taken the Union side in virtually every situation.

looks like somebody is on the Union payroll

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 06:08 PM
This is one of the sticking points for me. I don't see why they shoud have to open their books for the NFLPA.

If the owners claim they're losing money, they should be obligated to prove it.

Taking $1 billion a year off the available income for stadium upgrades and improvements is fucking bullshit, especially since most of those improvements are paid by the taxpayers.

They need to share their finance reports, period.

DeezNutz
03-01-2011, 06:08 PM
keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more. Besides the owners should have the right to cut cost for THEIR business imo

and when the win this time, what do you think they will ask for next time?

naturally the players want to try and get the courts to force the issue. Judge Doty has been ruling on the NFL labor issues since about 1992 and has taken the Union side in virtually every situation.

looks like somebody is on the Union payroll

Fair enough. When the owners prove that their profit margins are declining, they'll "win" going away.

Open the books. Put this whole thing to rest.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 06:10 PM
keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more.

LMAO

Apparently, the economy doesn't mean shit because the networks are shelling out more money than ever (willingly) for the NFL.

JFC, you're clueless to these issues.

Brock
03-01-2011, 06:10 PM
just about everything about the business part of baseball is ****ed up ... leading to almost a complete lack of parity and the smaller markets basically become farm teams for the big markets.

the fact that a player can sign a contract while performing at a certain level and then take a nap, sit back and collect is ****ed up.

jesus ... if you weren't already totally bias you would know the endless list of screwed up stuff in MLB. It's been talked about Ad nauseam and i shouldn't need to rehash it.

you just don't give a **** about it being screwed up as long as your union brethren are bending over "the man"

Union born
Union bred
When Brock dies he will be Union dead

A load of uninformed nonsense. The reason MLB has a seeming lack of parity between the small markets and the large markets is because they don't share revenue. That's not on the players, that's on the owners. Secondly, the NFL with all its supposed parity has had much fewer different league champions than MLB has in the past decade. Thirdly, I don't care what you think of me personally.

Brock
03-01-2011, 06:11 PM
keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more. Besides the owners should have the right to cut cost for THEIR business imo

and when the win this time, what do you think they will ask for next time?

naturally the players want to try and get the courts to force the issue. Judge Doty has been ruling on the NFL labor issues since about 1992 and has taken the Union side in virtually every situation.

looks like somebody is on the Union payroll

Are you willing to take a paycut, laz? Just because your boss says he's hurting? At least tell me you're not THAT dumb.

milkman
03-01-2011, 06:11 PM
keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more. Besides the owners should have the right to cut cost for THEIR business imo

and when the win this time, what do you think they will ask for next time?

naturally the players want to try and get the courts to force the issue. Judge Doty has been ruling on the NFL labor issues since about 1992 and has taken the Union side in virtually every situation.

looks like somebody is on the Union payroll

I don't give a rat's ass about either side.

If the time comes that the usion asks for those things you are talking about, then I will be on the owner's side.

But the fact is, it has no bearing on what they are fighting for now.

milkman
03-01-2011, 06:13 PM
If the owners claim they're losing money, they should be obligated to prove it.

Exactly.

And since the players are sharing in the profits, the books should be open so that the owners are showing that they are sharing honestly.

Brock
03-01-2011, 06:15 PM
This is one of the sticking points for me. I don't see why they shoud have to open their books for the NFLPA. I'm fairly certain that any one of our employers would balk at opening their books for their employees. I guess given the fact that they already participate in revenue sharing matters, but even still it wasn't in the expiring contract so why would it be in this one.

What wasn't in the expiring contract?

WV
03-01-2011, 06:22 PM
If the owners claim they're losing money, they should be obligated to prove it.

Taking $1 billion a year off the available income for stadium upgrades and improvements is fucking bullshit, especially since most of those improvements are paid by the taxpayers.

They need to share their finance reports, period.

Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?
They want to double their take off the top, but let's face it there is still going to be what 7 or 8 billion to be split? Players and their agents are continually increasing the salary ceiling and while the owners ultimately have to approve those contracts (in a round about way) this has to cut into the owners profits. Isn't it understandable that at some point they would need an increase in their "wages" to cover their asses. Players demand more money each year and the salary cap increases, are the owners just supposed to absorb it?
And some improvements are paid for by the tax payers, but I'd be hesitant to say most. They have to get those passed and aren't exactly forcing people to vote for them. I would never vote to help them pay for it, you should be bitching at the taxpayers for that.

WV
03-01-2011, 06:22 PM
What wasn't in the expiring contract?

An agreement to open their books.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 06:25 PM
keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more. Besides the owners should have the right to cut cost for THEIR business imo

and when the win this time, what do you think they will ask for next time?

naturally the players want to try and get the courts to force the issue. Judge Doty has been ruling on the NFL labor issues since about 1992 and has taken the Union side in virtually every situation.

looks like somebody is on the Union payroll

It's a revenue sharing model, not a flat wage model. The owners get the first billion, free and clear, and the players then get 60% of the amount made above that. If the percentage remains the same and the income goes down, the players get less. If the percentage remains the same and the income goes up, the players get more.

milkman
03-01-2011, 06:26 PM
Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?
They want to double their take off the top, but let's face it there is still going to be what 7 or 8 billion to be split? Players and their agents are continually increasing the salary ceiling and while the owners ultimately have to approve those contracts (in a round about way) this has to cut into the owners profits. Isn't it understandable that at some point they would need an increase in their "wages" to cover their asses. Players demand more money each year and the salary cap increases, are the owners just supposed to absorb it?
And some improvements are paid for by the tax payers, but I'd be hesitant to say most. They have to get those passed and aren't exactly forcing people to vote for them. I would never vote to help them pay for it, you should be bitching at the taxpayers for that.

The percentage of profits to the players is what determines the salary cap.

Brock
03-01-2011, 06:26 PM
Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?

Why wouldn't they want to prove it?

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 06:29 PM
Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?

Because they are running a revenue sharing model and claiming revenue issues.


They want to double their take off the top, but let's face it there is still going to be what 7 or 8 billion to be split? Players and their agents are continually increasing the salary ceiling and while the owners ultimately have to approve those contracts (in a round about way) this has to cut into the owners profits. Isn't it understandable that at some point they would need an increase in their "wages" to cover their asses. Players demand more money each year and the salary cap increases, are the owners just supposed to absorb it?
And some improvements are paid for by the tax payers, but I'd be hesitant to say most. They have to get those passed and aren't exactly forcing people to vote for them. I would never vote to help them pay for it, you should be bitching at the taxpayers for that.

Again, it's a revenue sharing model. The owners pocket the first billion. The players get a 60% share of the revenue other than that first billion. There's only an increase in the cap if there's an increase in revenue. The owners aren't getting squeezed here.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 06:29 PM
Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?



Apparently, you don't understand the fact that the NFL is protected an Anti-Trust Exemption.

The NFL is not your typical corporate entity.

If the NFL is claiming it's losing money, they should be required to share their financials with the NFLPA. Otherwise, they should lose their Anti-Trust exemption.

WV
03-01-2011, 06:39 PM
Apparently, you don't understand the fact that the NFL is protected an Anti-Trust Exemption.

The NFL is not your typical corporate entity.

If the NFL is claiming it's losing money, they should be required to share their financials with the NFLPA. Otherwise, they should lose their Anti-Trust exemption.

I understand why the NFLPA wants to see the books, to obviously protect their share of the revene (didn't know the Anti-Trust Exemption part). But why did they agree to the initial contract without seeing them?

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 06:42 PM
But why did they agree to the initial contract without seeing them?

Because the NFLPA was happy with the agreement. As a matter of fact, the NFLPA would be happy to continue with the agreement signed in 2006 moving forward. Unfortunately, the owners want a new agreement because they claim they're losing money.

If so, they need to prove it, don't you think?

WV
03-01-2011, 06:49 PM
Because the NFLPA was happy with the agreement. As a matter of fact, the NFLPA would be happy to continue with the agreement signed in 2006 moving forward. Unfortunately, the owners want a new agreement because they claim they're losing money.

If so, they need to prove it, don't you think?

In that light then yes I would agree that they should show their loses.

The owners should have just renewed the old one and been done with it.
Given they'd just done that, then it wouldn't have given the NFLPA the opportunity to restructure anything or complicate matters like shitting their own bed with the "Lockout Insurance" scam.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2011, 06:50 PM
The owners are fucking cocksuckers. Piss on them.

cardken
03-01-2011, 07:02 PM
Brock teh major fail understanding the point


Players win = fans lose

everything the NFLPA wins pushes the cost of t.v.,tickets,parket,PSL's higher

Absolutely. QFT. NFLPA gets all they want we could be looking at the same landscape that the MLBPA has carved out for themselves, Zero Parody. Same 5 teams in the Playoffs very year and skyrocketing Player salaries, we ultimately pay for.

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:03 PM
Imo they couldn't just re up. There haS GOT to be a rookie wage scale. Nba style would do just fine
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:04 PM
Absolutely. QFT. NFLPA gets all they want we could be looking at the same landscape that the MLBPA has carved out for themselves, Zero Parody. Same 5 teams in the Playoffs very year and skyrocketing Player salaries, we ultimately pay for.

Everything you said in this post is false.

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:05 PM
Imo they couldn't just re up. There haS GOT to be a rookie wage scale. Nba style would do just fine
Posted via Mobile Device

The rookie wage scale is a relatively minor issue. The owners could have that without trying to take back 20 percent of the revenue from the players.

-King-
03-01-2011, 07:05 PM
Absolutely. QFT. NFLPA gets all they want we could be looking at the same landscape that the MLBPA has carved out for themselves, Zero Parody. Same 5 teams in the Playoffs very year and skyrocketing Player salaries, we ultimately pay for.

:facepalm: That's NOT what players want. Read the damn thread. Dane and Milkman have said it like 10 times.

And its Parity not parody.
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:09 PM
The rookie wage scale is a relatively minor issue. The owners could have that without trying to take back 20 percent of the revenue from the players.
I doubt it. And I'm not talking about the 20 %. That had nothing to do with my post.

All I said was that in my opinion there has to be a rook wage scale. Otherwise I would think they should have just re upped
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 07:09 PM
:facepalm: That's NOT what players want. Read the damn thread. Dane and Milkman have said it like 10 times.

And its Parity not parody.
Posted via Mobile Device

His post must have been parody, though.

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:11 PM
I doubt it. And I'm not talking about the 20 %. That had nothing to do with my post.

All I said was that in my opinion there has to be a rook wage scale. Otherwise I would think they should have just re upped
Posted via Mobile Device

You didn't understand what I said. If all the owners wanted was a rookie wage scale, they could have had that through bargaining WITHOUT trying to take back 20 percent of the revenue from the players. Read it again.

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:14 PM
You didn't understand what I said. If all the owners wanted was a rookie wage scale, they could have had that through bargaining WITHOUT trying to take back 20 percent of the revenue from the players. Read it again.
I read it the first time. It had nothing to do with my post.

You are starting something that's obvious. So why say it?

I know that they didn't have to ask for 20% to get a wage scale. Duh.
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:16 PM
And I doubt the union would have just given the owners arookie wage scale without a fight.

If you think that brock you are a little out of touch imo
Posted via Mobile Device

cardken
03-01-2011, 07:16 PM
Everything you said in this post is false.

My Bad.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 07:17 PM
I read it the first time. It had nothing to do with my post.

You are starting something that's obvious. So why say it?

I know that they didn't have to ask for 20% to get a wage scale. Duh.
Posted via Mobile Device

The rookie wage scale is nothing but a distraction. It's nothing more than draft bust insurance for teams with lousy scouting.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:18 PM
A load of uninformed nonsense. The reason MLB has a seeming lack of parity between the small markets and the large markets is because they don't share revenue. That's not on the players, that's on the owners. Secondly, the NFL with all its supposed parity has had much fewer different league champions than MLB has in the past decade. Thirdly, I don't care what you think of me personally.
revenue sharing is part of it ... yes, it's mess up too.

but the reality is that when the majority of money is coming from Television dollars, the big markets will always have an unfair advantage. More people, more money ... better ability to acquire talent.

another part of it is a salary cap and that's where the player are involved.

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:19 PM
revenue sharing is part of it ... yes, it's mess up too.

but the reality is that when the majority of money is coming from Television dollars, the big markets will always have an unfair advantage. More people, more money ... better ability to acquire talent.

another part of it is a salary cap and that's where the player are involved.

In the NFL the television money is shared. In MLB it isn't.

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:20 PM
The rookie wage scale is nothing but a distraction. It's nothing more than draft bust insurance for teams with lousy scouting.

Bullshit. No way should a guy that hasn't played a down bee the highest it even top ten paid at their position. Sorry.

And every team has been bitten at some point
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:21 PM
And I doubt the union would have just given the owners arookie wage scale without a fight.

If you think that brock you are a little out of touch imo
Posted via Mobile Device

It's called bargaining. If the rookie wage scale was important to the owners, they should have to give up something for it.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:23 PM
In the NFL the television money is shared. In MLB it isn't.
yea and in the NFL there is a salary cap and in the MLB there isn't

You want one you get both ...

of course you don't agree with that, because you believe the union are the good guys and should get whatever they can grab and that the owners are the bad guys and they should be controlled by the courts.

milkman
03-01-2011, 07:24 PM
And I doubt the union would have just given the owners arookie wage scale without a fight.

If you think that brock you are a little out of touch imo
Posted via Mobile Device

Sure, the union would have negotiated just to keep the owners from setting a scale arbitrarily, but most vetran players agree with the belief that a rookie wage scale is necessary.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 07:25 PM
Bullshit. No way should a guy that hasn't played a down bee the highest it even top ten paid at their position. Sorry.

And every team has been bitten at some point
Posted via Mobile Device

It's not bullshit at all. If it was only an issue for the players, your position would have merit. However, it's the owners clamoring for it. That should be telling you something right there.

And when have the Patriots, Steelers or Colts been bitten by it, to point to 3 examples?

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:25 PM
yea and in the NFL there is a salary cap and in the MLB there isn't

You want one you get both ...

of course you don't agree with that, because you believe the union are the good guys and should get whatever they can grab and that the owners are the bad guys and they should be controlled by the courts.

At least you're not generalizing my opinion.

milkman
03-01-2011, 07:25 PM
yea and in the NFL there is a salary cap and in the MLB there isn't

You want one you get both ...

of course you don't agree with that, because you believe the union are the good guys and should get whatever they can grab and that the owners are the bad guys and they should be controlled by the courts.

Good lord, you are just making shit up as you go.

There isn't a single person here that thinks the players should get whatever they can grab.

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:26 PM
It's called bargaining. If the rookie wage scale was important to the owners, they should have to give up something for it.

Lol ok that's not what you said in your first post.

Minor issue that they could have had without along for money back.
Posted via Mobile Device

milkman
03-01-2011, 07:26 PM
It's not bullshit at all. If it was only an issue for the players, your position would have merit. However, it's the owners clamoring for it. That should be telling you something right there.

And when have the Patriots, Steelers or Colts been bitten by it, to point to 3 examples?

When have any of those teams been in the top 5, top 10 of the draft in the last 10 years?

vailpass
03-01-2011, 07:28 PM
The players aren't asking for any of that.

All they are fighting for is to keep what they've already got.

:LOL:

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:28 PM
Lol ok that's not what you said in your first post.

Minor issue that they could have had without along for money back.
Posted via Mobile Device

That's because I was responding to a different post than I was in the first one.

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:29 PM
:LOL:

What are the players asking for in addition to what they already have?

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:29 PM
Sure, the union would have negotiated just to keep the owners from setting a scale arbitrarily, but most vetran players agree with the belief that a rookie wage scale is necessary.
that's not what I have read. I will say that ut has been a little while though.

Vets wanted it to stay the same to set the bar for them.
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:30 PM
That's because I was responding to a different post than I was in the first one.

My first post? Huh.ok nm.brock I'm done here
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:31 PM
My first post? Huh.ok nm.brock I'm done here
Posted via Mobile Device

Probably a good idea.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 07:31 PM
When have any of those teams been in the top 5, top 10 of the draft in the last 10 years.

Well, the Patriots drafted Seymour and the Steelers drafted Roethlisberger. Seymour went #6, Roethlisberger went #11. FWIW, the Colts got Freeney at #11 in 2002. So, one in the top 6 and all three in the top 11.


BTW, My post regarding those 3 teams was just in response to Jason's erroneous point about every team getting bitten. It's just not the case.

The Bad Guy
03-01-2011, 07:32 PM
Oh great, just yet another thread that people have to spell out the reality of a situation for Laz.

I think Laz's intellectual limit ends at Larry the Cable Guy jokes.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:32 PM
It's called bargaining. If the rookie wage scale was important to the owners, they should have to give up something for it.
it's funny how you act like the players and owners are somehow co-owners in this.

the union doesn't own shit, they are employees who use the court system to blackmail the owners into paying more.

hey ... it works. Hooray for the lawyers.

One man walks up to another man:

first man "what's worse than 100 lawyers laying dead at the bottom of a river?"

second man "what?"

First man "99 lawyers laying dead at the bottom of a river!!!"

ROFLROFL

:spock:

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:33 PM
Good lord, you are just making shit up as you go.

There isn't a single person here that thinks the players should get whatever they can grab.
wanna bet?

ask Brock

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:34 PM
Oh great, just yet another thread that people have to spell out the reality of a situation for Laz.

I think Laz's intellectual limit ends at Larry the Cable Guy jokes.

It is a little sad and disappointing. He's kind of like these wannabe republicans who oppose an inheritance tax like it's something they'll ever have to worry about.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:34 PM
Oh great, just yet another thread that people have to spell out the reality of a situation for Laz.

I think Laz's intellectual limit ends at Larry the Cable Guy jokes.
smart enough to help your moron ass fix your computer


:hmmm:

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:34 PM
wanna bet?

ask Brock

ask me what? You're just building straw men to knock them down as if it means anything.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:35 PM
ask me what? You're just building straw men to knock them down as if it means anything.
you think the NFLPA should get whatever they can get

true or false?

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:36 PM
you think the NFLPA should get whatever they can get

true or false?

False, of course. Is that a serious question?

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:38 PM
ok sorry jpb MOST TEAMS HAVE BEEN BITTEN.

B Iut will take small sample size ftw on those three buddyWell, the Patriots drafted Seymour and the Steelers drafted Roethlisberger. Seymour went #6, Roethlisberger went #11. FWIW, the Colts got Freeney at #11 in 2002. So, one in the top 6 and all three in the top 11.


BTW, My post regarding those 3 teams was just in response to Jason's erroneous point about every team getting bitten. It's just not the case.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:39 PM
it's funny how you act like the players and owners are somehow co-owners in this.

the union doesn't own shit, they are employees who use the court system to blackmail the owners into paying more.

hey ... it works. Hooray for the lawyers.

One man walks up to another man:

first man "what's worse than 100 lawyers laying dead at the bottom of a river?"

second man "what?"

First man "99 lawyers laying dead at the bottom of a river!!!"

ROFLROFL

:spock:

Your point is absolutely invalid due to the fact that the NFL has ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION.

JFC, are really this big of a goddamned moron?

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:39 PM
False, of course. Is that a serious question?
as far as i can tell you think the Union should get as much as they can.

don't tell me you are actually going to try and lie and say "the union is only asking to keep what they already have ..." or some bullshit like that?

This is about whether the owners have a right to control their own business or not.

Superturtle
03-01-2011, 07:41 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NY64meMb7-s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:42 PM
Probably a good idea.

Yeah whatever your first response to me. Look it up.

You said the wage scale was minor and the owners could have had that without asking for 20%.

I agreed. I said the % had nothing g to do with what I was talking about.

I realize the owners could have probably gotten a rws just by giving retired players more benefits.

I UNDERSTAND HOW TO BARGAIN, AND HOW A NEGOTIATION WORKS.

Ok now my question to you is why you brought up the % change in response to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:43 PM
as far as i can tell you think the Union should get as much as they can.

don't tell me you are actually going to try and lie and say "the union is only asking to keep what they already have ..." or some bullshit like that?

This is about whether the owners have a right to control their own business or not.

What you can tell about me is irrelevant. It's just an excuse to mischaracterize my opinion in lieu of fashioning your own convincing argument. The union is trying to keep what they already have. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, feel free to tell me why you think different. Lastly, it's been pointed out about one hundred times in this thread: Anti trust exemption. Look it up.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:43 PM
I'll dumb this down for retards like Laz:

1. The NFLPA was happy with the last CBA. If the owners had offered to extend it, there wouldn't be an issue today.
2. The owners claim they're losing money but won't allow the union access to their financial records.
3. The owners want to skim money off the top of the pot for stadium issues.
4. The owners want to reduce the current split of 60/40 in favor of the players to 50/50 AFTER they've skimmed off the top.
5. The owners want to extend the current 16 game season to 18 games in order to earn more television revenue.
6. The owners want to institute a "rookie wage scale".

And those are just some of the issues that need to be worked out before a new CBA can be ratified.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:44 PM
This is about whether the owners have a right to control their own business or not.

Take away their Anti-Trust exemption and I'm all for their "rights".

In the meantime, they need to get their shit together before the Federal Government gets involved.

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:45 PM
Ok now my question to you is why you brought up the % change in response to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

It's kind of sad when I have to explain a simple rhetorical point to you, Jason.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:47 PM
Yeah whatever your first response to me. Look it up.

You said the wage scale was minor and the owners could have had that without asking for 20%.

I agreed. I said the % had nothing g to do with what I was talking about.

I realize the owners could have probably gotten a rws just by giving retired players more benefits.

I UNDERSTAND HOW TO BARGAIN, AND HOW A NEGOTIATION WORKS.

Ok now my question to you is why you brought up the % change in response to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

Jason, the idea of a "wage scale" is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion because that is simply "slicing the pie" in a different manner. No new money is involved, so it's basically a change in league rules as to how the money will be split.

Furthermore, I think the impact of a Rookie Wage Scale will be minimal because it ALWAYS comes down to player evaluation, whether it's through the draft or free agency.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:49 PM
Your point is absolutely invalid due to the fact that the NFL has ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION.

JFC, are really this big of a goddamned moron?
don't you belong to some kind of hollywood writer's union or something?

i think the monopoly,anti-trust and unfair business practices is just bullshit in this situation. Nothing is stopping the players from making a living. The owners don't OWE them a job.

If the players don't like it then go play in the arena league or go use your athletic skills in another sport. Go be an announcer on Espn. Go work for Hog farmer ... i bet an NFL quarterback could jackoff swine at a pro bowl rate.

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:50 PM
It's kind of sad when I have to explain a simple rhetorical point to you, Jason.
Brock I don't get what the fuck you are trying too do here.

I said that imo the owners need a rws. You said they could have gotten that without asking for a% back when a% was no where in my post.

I would be ok with them just reupping the old deal with a rws.
I would even think its fair to give retired players more benefits due to getting a rws.

I fail to see why you pick what I said and ask something that had nothing to do with my post.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:51 PM
i think the monopoly,anti-trust and unfair business practices is just bullshit in this situation. Nothing is stopping the players from making a living. The owners don't OWE them a job.

If the players don't like it then go play in the arena league or go use your athletic skills in another sport. Go be an announcer on Espn. Go work for Hog farmer ... i bet an NFL quarterback could jackoff swine at a pro bowl rate.

Obviously, you don't understand what an Anti-Trust Exemption means to a corporation.

Your opinion is baseless and irrelevant because clearly, you don't understand the rules of the game.

Rams Fan
03-01-2011, 07:52 PM
of course you don't agree with that, because you believe the union are the good guys and should get whatever they can grab and that the owners are the bad guys and they should be controlled by the courts.

Where did Brock ever say that?

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:52 PM
don't you belong to some kind of hollywood writer's union or something?



No. I'm am not and have never been affiliated with a union of any type.

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:53 PM
Not irrelevant. Its part of the cba, or it will have to be part of the next one. I was just saying I wouldn't be cool.with reupping the deal without one. If one was there I would have just reupped had I been an owner.Jason, the idea of a "wage scale" is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion because that is simply "slicing the pie" in a different manner. No new money is involved, so it's basically a change in league rules as to how the money will be split.

Furthermore, I think the impact of a Rookie Wage Scale will be minimal because it ALWAYS comes down to player evaluation, whether it's through the draft or free agency.
Posted via Mobile Device

Huffman83
03-01-2011, 07:53 PM
So........is there going to be football next fall?

milkman
03-01-2011, 07:53 PM
Obviously, you don't understand what an Anti-Trust Exemption means to a corporation.

Your opinion is baseless and irrelevant because clearly, you don't understand the rules of the game.

Fankly, I don't understand the anti trust exemption.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:54 PM
I would be ok with them just reupping the old deal with a rws.
Posted via Mobile Device

You'd be okay with it, Jason?

LMAO

The Union has absolutely nothing to do with the expiration of the CBA. It's the OWNERS that want massive change in the revenue sharing structure.

It's THAT simple.

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:54 PM
I fail to see why you pick what I said and ask something that had nothing to do with my post.
Posted via Mobile Device

It had something to do with your post because it is another one of the negotiating points of the dispute, Jason. They are related. I don't understand why you're having trouble with that.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:54 PM
Take away their Anti-Trust exemption and I'm all for their "rights".

In the meantime, they need to get their shit together before the Federal Government gets involved.
well you guys should be happy as shit because i'm almost positive that if the NFL owners don't give up the federal government will get involved. Then it will be like the courts handling a divorce, the Union(woman) will get everything they want.

when the prices of tickets,parking,t.v.,concession and everything else goes up ... remember that you approved.

When the salary cap disappears and the chiefs become the royals ... remember that you approved.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 07:55 PM
ok sorry jpb MOST TEAMS HAVE BEEN BITTEN.

B Iut will take small sample size ftw on those three buddy
Posted via Mobile Device

First, just to lay it out there as a reminder: There's already a rookie cap, although it's obviously flawed. Now, on to a direct response.

Bad teams end up with top picks. Bad teams often have bad drafting as a major part of the problem. That's why the same teams are drafting high time and again. Nobody put a gun to Al Davis' head and made him draft JaMarcus Russell. He could have drafted Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas or Adrian Peterson. There's not a whole lot of griping that those players are overpaid and are killing the league's salary structure.

The root problem isn't high salaries at the top. The root problem is shitty drafting at the top (there is the occasional terrible draft at the top which requires paying lesser players at the rates of the current rookie cap, but that'll be there no matter what salary structure is in place). It's not that the salaries couldn't stand being adjusted, but it's been given far more weight and attention than it merits.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:55 PM
Obviously, you don't understand what an Anti-Trust Exemption means to a corporation.

Your opinion is baseless and irrelevant because clearly, you don't understand the rules of the game.
i don't understand or i don't agree?

JASONSAUTO
03-01-2011, 07:55 PM
Yep if I was an owner I would be ok with it. You'd be okay with it, Jason?

LMAO

The Union has absolutely nothing to do with the expiration of the CBA. It's the OWNERS that want massive change in the revenue sharing structure.

It's THAT simple.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 07:55 PM
Not irrelevant. Its part of the cba, or it will have to be part of the next one. I was just saying I wouldn't be cool.with reupping the deal without one. If one was there I would have just reupped had I been an owner.
Posted via Mobile Device

Um, no you wouldn't have because as an owner, you'd be unified with the other 31 owners that claim that they've been losing money since the CBA was extended in 2006.

I don't think you understand all of the facts.

Okie_Apparition
03-01-2011, 07:56 PM
My understanding of the problem was:
Old
-the owners skimmed 1 billion off the top. Then split it 50/50.

New
-the owners want 2 billion off the top..and then things fell apart.

Rams Fan
03-01-2011, 07:57 PM
when the prices of tickets,parking,t.v.,concession and everything else goes up ... remember that you approved.

When the salary cap disappears and the chiefs become the royals ... remember that you approved.

There wasn't a cap this year. And look at the teams that have spent money on FAs. How have they turned out? How amazing are the Redskins? Look at the Steelers, Colts and Packers. They've signed maybe a handful of FAs over the years.

Brock
03-01-2011, 07:57 PM
well you guys should be happy as shit because i'm almost positive that if the NFL owners don't give up the federal government will get involved. Then it will be like the courts handling a divorce, the Union(woman) will get everything they want.

when the prices of tickets,parking,t.v.,concession and everything else goes up ... remember that you approved.

When the salary cap disappears and the chiefs become the royals ... remember that you approved.

The salary cap isn't going anywhere, or if it does, it will be because Jerry Jones and the rest of the haves don't want to have one. And as I've alluded to already, the price of a ticket is dependent on one thing and one thing only: The maximum amount people in a given market will pay for it. Nothing more.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 07:58 PM
My understanding of the problem was:
Old
-the owners skimmed 1 billion off the top. Then split it 50/50.

New
-the owners want 2 billion off the top..and then things fell apart.
that seems to be the biggest "money part" of the situation.

although the players want internet sales,parking cost and virtually everything else added into the initial money "pie"

milkman
03-01-2011, 07:59 PM
well you guys should be happy as shit because i'm almost positive that if the NFL owners don't give up the federal government will get involved. Then it will be like the courts handling a divorce, the Union(woman) will get everything they want.

when the prices of tickets,parking,t.v.,concession and everything else goes up ... remember that you approved.

When the salary cap disappears and the chiefs become the royals ... remember that you approved.

When the players start asking for the things that you keep bringing up, they will be issues.

But right now. you're creating an argument that has nothing to do with these negotiations.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 08:00 PM
Fankly, I don't understand the anti trust exemption.

In short, if the NFL's anti-trust exemption were stripped, the players (any player) could sue the NFL and it's 32 teams individually for anything, including insurance, wages lost, etc.

IF the player's union decertifies, the NFL would lose its exemption and every player could sue every team. It would be a legal nightmare that would drag out in the courts for years.

The solution is simple: The owners must meet halfway with the NFLPA or face losing their Anti-Trust exemption, which would open them up to a shit ton of liability and expenses.

Oh and one more thing: Without the Anti-Trust Exemption, the NFL Draft would be deemed unconstitutional.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 08:00 PM
well you guys should be happy as shit because i'm almost positive that if the NFL owners don't give up the federal government will get involved. Then it will be like the courts handling a divorce, the Union(woman) will get everything they want.

The Federal government is already involved. It's given the NFL a limited anti-trust exemption, for example.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:00 PM
There wasn't a cap this year. And look at the teams that have spent money on FAs. How have they turned out? How amazing are the Redskins? Look at the Steelers, Colts and Packers. They've signed maybe a handful of FAs over the years.
because the owners "colluded" to keep it that way

If the NFL continues without a salary cap you can bet your ass the the NFLPA will sue the owners for collusion just the the player in MLB did in baseball.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 08:05 PM
because the owners "colluded" to keep it that way

If the NFL continues without a salary cap you can bet your ass the the NFLPA will sue the owners for collusion just the the player in MLB did in baseball.

JFC.

The Union and the Owners agreed that if the current CBA expired, that 2010 would be an UNCAPPED year and the draft would still take place in 2011.

This was ALL previously negotiated by BOTH sides.

If there's no 2011 season and there isn't a new CBA in place by the end of April 2012, there will be no NFL draft.

The Bad Guy
03-01-2011, 08:05 PM
smart enough to help your moron ass fix your computer


:hmmm:

I appreciated that help, so thank you for that.

However, I said intellectual. Clearly, you need someone to break down the entire senario to you before you understand.

The NFLPA would right now be in favor of merely extending the current deal they have. THe owners in no way want that same deal.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:07 PM
When the players start asking for the things that you keep bringing up, they will be issues.

But right now. you're creating an argument that has nothing to do with these negotiations.
No, i'm anticipating what's going to come next because the same thing happened in the MLB.

With every victory the MLBPA got braver and more demanding. When the courts got involved and basically told the MLB owners that they were siding completely with the players the MLB owners basically had to bend over and take it up the shorts.

end of the story ..... Royals used have a payroll similar to the yankees and competed head-to-head. Since then the Yankees payroll has shot up to 200 million and the Royals are a farm team.

You can bet your ass that if the NFLPA starts winning that the NFL salary cap is history.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:08 PM
I appreciated that help, so thank you for that.

However, I said intellectual. Clearly, you need someone to break down the entire senario to you before you understand.

The NFLPA would right now be in favor of merely extending the current deal they have. THe owners in no way want that same deal.
You're welcome

I do understand i just don't agree or like it.

This is almost exactly what happened in major league baseball. I've seen where this road ends up.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 08:10 PM
No, i'm anticipating what's going to come next because the same thing happened in the MLB.

With every victory the MLBPA got braver and more demanding. When the courts got involved and basically told the MLB owners that they were siding completely with the players the MLB owners basically had to bend over and take it up the shorts.

end of the story ..... Royals used have a payroll similar to the yankees and competed head-to-head. Since then the Yankees payroll has shot up to 200 million and the Royals are a farm team.

You can bet your ass that if the NFLPA starts winning that the NFL salary cap is history.

Until the NFL abolishes revenue sharing, your fears are completely unwarranted and of course, irrelevant.

BigMeatballDave
03-01-2011, 08:12 PM
This is almost exactly what happened in major league baseball. I've seen where this road ends up.I dont think so. Seems to me the players just want to keep what they have.

milkman
03-01-2011, 08:13 PM
In short, if the NFL's anti-trust exemption were stripped, the players (any player) could sue the NFL and it's 32 teams individually for anything, including insurance, wages lost, etc.

IF the player's union decertifies, the NFL would lose its exemption and every player could sue every team. It would be a legal nightmare that would drag out in the courts for years.

The solution is simple: The owners must meet halfway with the NFLPA or face losing their Anti-Trust exemption, which would open them up to a shit ton of liability and expenses.

Oh and one more thing: Without the Anti-Trust Exemption, the NFL Draft would be deemed unconstitutional.

Is Baseball protected by the same exemption?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2011, 08:15 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will side with the right of billionaires to fuck other people over.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2011, 08:15 PM
Is Baseball protected by the same exemption?

Yes.

DeezNutz
03-01-2011, 08:17 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will side with the right of billionaires to **** other people over.

About 80%.

WV
03-01-2011, 08:18 PM
My understanding of the problem was:
Old
-the owners skimmed 1 billion off the top. Then split it 50/50.

New
-the owners want 2 billion off the top..and then things fell apart.

No I believe the old agreement was a 60/40 split with the owners getting 1 billion off the top before the split.

The owners want to now increase their initial take to 2 billion off the top and the NFLPA is countering with a straight 50/50 split that's taken without the owners taking off their portion from the top. The math is almost the same, but the players come out a little better in the end than what they get now.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:19 PM
Former MLBPA executive director Marvin Miller thinks NFLPA should go on the offensive
Posted by Mike Florio on February 19, 2011, 9:16 AM EST

“I would go on the offensive (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-18/marvin-miller-says-nfl-s-company-union-needs-to-play-offense-in-talks.html),” Miller recently told Aaron Kuriloff of Bloomberg News. “I would demand the end of the salary cap now and in the future and go from there.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/19/marvin-miller-thinks-nflpa-should-go-on-the-offensive/

WV
03-01-2011, 08:20 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will side with the right of billionaires to fuck other people over.

It's not as black and white as it's made out to be. But in the end yes it's Millionaires fighting with Billionaires with both wanting the same thing. More $$ that in the end we'll probably end up paying for.

It's gotten out of hand on both sides.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2011, 08:22 PM
About 80%.

Manufacturing Consent, FTW.

AustinChief
03-01-2011, 08:27 PM
Is Baseball protected by the same exemption?

Actually no... I'm not sure where the myth of the NFL 's anti-trust exemption comes from...

Baseball is the ONLY sport with a true anti-trust exemption. Period.

The NFL and other sports are given certain "special" considerations in regards to anti-trust issues... but they are NOT exempt.

For example, the NFL was found to be in violation of anti-trust laws when negotiating television broadcasting rights... so instead of getting an exemption, the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 was passed to supersede the ruling. So, they do have a few De Facto "exemptions" but nothing official like MLB has.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 08:30 PM
No, i'm anticipating what's going to come next because the same thing happened in the MLB.

With every victory the MLBPA got braver and more demanding. When the courts got involved and basically told the MLB owners that they were siding completely with the players the MLB owners basically had to bend over and take it up the shorts.

end of the story ..... Royals used have a payroll similar to the yankees and competed head-to-head. Since then the Yankees payroll has shot up to 200 million and the Royals are a farm team.

You can bet your ass that if the NFLPA starts winning that the NFL salary cap is history.

There have been 9 different World Series winners in the last 10 years. That's more different champions than any of the other 4 major U.S. sports during that span. Even going back to 15 years only puts baseball even with the NFL, and still ahead of the NHL and NBA.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 08:35 PM
Actually no... I'm not sure where the myth of the NFL 's anti-trust exemption comes from...

Baseball is the ONLY sport with a true anti-trust exemption. Period.

The NFL and other sports are given certain "special" considerations in regards to anti-trust issues... but they are NOT exempt.



The NFL doesn't have "Broad Anti-Trust Exemptions" but they are covered by Anti-Trust laws.

If the union decertifies, the NFL loses their exemption and then can be sued by any and all NFL players.

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:37 PM
Until the NFL abolishes revenue sharing, your fears are completely unwarranted and of course, irrelevant.
Don't be shy now ... you consider every opinion opposite of yours irrelevant.

If you think it would take more than a season or two for the big market teams to bail on revenue sharing, once that salary cap is gone, you're smoking crack.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 08:38 PM
Don't be shy now ... you consider every opinion opposite of yours irrelevant.

If you think it would take more than a season or two for the big market teams to bail on revenue sharing, once that salary cap is gone, you're smoking crack.

MLB has no salary cap. MLB has revenue sharing.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 08:38 PM
Don't be shy now ... you consider every opinion opposite of yours irrelevant.

If you think it would take more than a season or two for the big market teams to bail on revenue sharing, once that salary cap is gone, you're smoking crack.

Oh, you mean like in 2010?

:rolleyes:

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:40 PM
There have been 9 different World Series winners in the last 10 years. That's more different champions than any of the other 4 major U.S. sports during that span. Even going back to 15 years only puts baseball even with the NFL, and still ahead of the NHL and NBA.
and every world series winner but one was in the top 15 in payroll

the marlins(25th) were ranked outside of 15.

money wins

i posted every WS winner, with their rank, in the last Union argument thread

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:44 PM
Oh, you mean like in 2010?

:rolleyes:
omg, you're a douchebag supreme :banghead:

one gawd dam season WITH policies in place for free agency etc ... and WITH the owners clearly already having discussion(*cough*collusion*cough*) about spending etc.

you lose the salary cap for good and all that changes ... Jerry Jones(and others) already doesn't like revenue sharing as it is

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 08:44 PM
Is Baseball protected by the same exemption?

No. Baseball's protection came about via a 1922 Supreme Court ruling, and its antitrust exemption is far more extensive than that of the 3 other sports. As a note of trivia

In 1998, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act, which partially repealed the antitrust exemption to give the Players Association the same rights as the unions in the other major sports. Congress specifically stated that the exemption was still intact with respect to relocation, the reserve clause, the minor leagues, and broadcasting contracts. This Act also had the effect of writing the antitrust exemption into law, ensuring that a full repeal will only come from Congress, and not the Supreme Court.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1286

Mr. Laz
03-01-2011, 08:46 PM
MLB has no salary cap. MLB has revenue sharing.
MLB has a salary tax and the teams spending difference still range from 50-200 million.

AustinChief
03-01-2011, 08:47 PM
The NFL doesn't have "Broad Anti-Trust Exemptions" but they are covered by Anti-Trust laws.

If the union decertifies, the NFL loses their exemption and then can be sued by any and all NFL players.

They can be sued now. By decertifying they substantially increase the odds of lawsuits being more effective... but it's not like MLB, these are mostly ASSUMPTIONS since it's not clearly defined.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2011, 08:48 PM
All the major sports have anti-trust exemptions, so it is true. It just so happens that baseball's is more broad due to previous legislation. But for all intents and purposes, all major American sports have that exemption, which is one of the reasons why draftees cannot choose their team, as Dane alluded to.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 08:50 PM
and every world series winner but one was in the top 15 in payroll

the marlins(25th) were ranked outside of 15.

money wins

i posted every WS winner, with their rank, in the last Union argument thread

Payroll is not revenue, FYI.

Just Passin' By
03-01-2011, 08:51 PM
MLB has a salary tax and the teams spending difference still range from 50-200 million.

I guess I need to repeat myself, since you can't seem to grasp the obvious when it comes to this stuff:

Your post

Don't be shy now ... you consider every opinion opposite of yours irrelevant.

If you think it would take more than a season or two for the big market teams to bail on revenue sharing, once that salary cap is gone, you're smoking crack.


MLB has no salary cap. MLB has revenue sharing.

Bowser
03-01-2011, 08:54 PM
What the hell is going on in here?

One tiny, simple question -

Yes or no, it was the owners that CHOSE to end the current CBA, not the NFLPA?

AustinChief
03-01-2011, 08:56 PM
All the major sports have anti-trust exemptions, so it is true. It just so happens that baseball's is more broad due to previous legislation. But for all intents and purposes, all major American sports have that exemption, which is one of the reasons why draftees cannot choose their team, as Dane alluded to.

As I said, they all have certain de facto exemptions (except baseball) but since they are not spelled out ... all we can do is make assumptions as to how effective decertification of the union will be.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 09:44 PM
omg, you're a douchebag supreme :banghead:

one gawd dam season WITH policies in place for free agency etc ... and WITH the owners clearly already having discussion(*cough*collusion*cough*) about spending etc.

you lose the salary cap for good and all that changes ... Jerry Jones(and others) already doesn't like revenue sharing as it is

I'm a douchebag because you're a fucking idiot?

Nice logic, Laz.

First off, your supposition is fucking stupid. The NFL owners are claiming that they're losing money and want a higher percentage of the revenue to operate at a profit.

What makes you think that "big market" owners would suddenly spend MORE money than they're currently spending and WHICH owners are you referring to with this little leap of nonsense you've made?

Jerry Jones isn't a "big market" owner. Furthermore, the guy is leveraged out his cock because of the new stadium and existing debt. He isn't going to suddenly spend 50% more on free agents than all the other teams.

The Bears, Giants, Jets, Dolphins and 49ers, all of which would be considered "large market teams" typically don't overpay for free agents, so again, your point is moot.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 09:45 PM
What the hell is going on in here?

One tiny, simple question -

Yes or no, it was the owners that CHOSE to end the current CBA, not the NFLPA?

The owners chose to end the current CBA, not the players.

If an agreement isn't reached by March 4th, the owners will lockout the players UNLESS all 32 teams vote to de-certify, which in that case, the players can sue the NFL for locking them out.

Bowser
03-01-2011, 10:04 PM
The owners chose to end the current CBA, not the players.

If an agreement isn't reached by March 4th, the owners will lockout the players UNLESS all 32 teams vote to de-certify, which in that case, the players can sue the NFL for locking them out.

Heh, it was rhetorical.

If the owners truly ARE losing money hand over fist, they need to prove it by letting the NFLPA look at the books. Until then, it's all just bullshit posturing and a great big greedy grab by the owners.

DaneMcCloud
03-01-2011, 10:35 PM
and every world series winner but one was in the top 15 in payroll

the marlins(25th) were ranked outside of 15.

money wins

i posted every WS winner, with their rank, in the last Union argument thread

Let us know when there's no revenue sharing in the NFL and then MAYBE your bullshit might be relevant.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2011, 10:37 PM
With the current TV contract, it would be almost impossible for any team to lose money in this league. You'd need to draw dick and you'd have to have a Dallas-level payroll.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 05:55 AM
The owners have a poor record in court.

They should be motivated to negotiate in good faith, because they really don't have a chance at winning in court if the players file a lawsuit.

My understanding is that the NFL has had the same judge to deal with since 1993, and he's pro-union. Bad luck for them.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 06:05 AM
There wasn't a cap this year. And look at the teams that have spent money on FAs. How have they turned out? How amazing are the Redskins? Look at the Steelers, Colts and Packers. They've signed maybe a handful of FAs over the years.

Not much of an argument, really.

1. small sample size.

2. many teams feared to really spend in 2010 because they were fairly convinced that a cap would be reinstituted in 2011 and whatever (over)spending was done in 2010 might somehow be penalized going forward.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 06:13 AM
Until the NFL abolishes revenue sharing, your fears are completely unwarranted and of course, irrelevant.

That's true, but if the owners can't have reasonably guaranteed fixed costs, it may well turn out to be more of an every man for himself scenario, in which case revenue sharing might go out the door. The NFL, comprised of incredibly wealthy capitalists, has decided to run a socialist system for many years, which in this case has worked out much to everyone's benefit.

I think there are certainly many things about the NFL that wouldn't lead to the gross revenue disparities that we see in baseball. It's unlikely, for example, that the NFL could do the individualized television contracts that the teams in baseball do, which is one of, if not THE most significant source of revenue disparity in baseball.

Dave Lane
03-02-2011, 06:16 AM
What are the players asking for in addition to what they already have?http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/smilies/evil.gif

Word comprehension on anything that involves "people" getting more money and corporations possibly getting less is complete fail with Vail.

Dave Lane
03-02-2011, 06:17 AM
I think he should volunteer 20% of his salary back to his employer just because.

Cave Johnson
03-02-2011, 02:31 PM
First, just to lay it out there as a reminder: There's already a rookie cap, although it's obviously flawed. Now, on to a direct response.

Bad teams end up with top picks. Bad teams often have bad drafting as a major part of the problem. That's why the same teams are drafting high time and again. Nobody put a gun to Al Davis' head and made him draft JaMarcus Russell. He could have drafted Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas or Adrian Peterson. There's not a whole lot of griping that those players are overpaid and are killing the league's salary structure.

The root problem isn't high salaries at the top. The root problem is shitty drafting at the top (there is the occasional terrible draft at the top which requires paying lesser players at the rates of the current rookie cap, but that'll be there no matter what salary structure is in place). It's not that the salaries couldn't stand being adjusted, but it's been given far more weight and attention than it merits.

Which, to some extent, a rookie wage scale addresses. Teams that make shitty picks at 1-7 will face less of a salary cap hit from their busts.

All things being equal, it will increase "parody" in the league.

Just Passin' By
03-02-2011, 02:36 PM
Which, to some extent, a rookie wage scale addresses. Teams that make shitty picks at 1-7 will face less of a salary cap hit from their busts.

All things being equal, it will increase "parody" in the league.

Adjusting the rookie cap would address it too, as would teams deciding not to circumvent the spirit of the cap in the first place. I don't see those on the table, though.

And, frankly, if the Lions want to take WRs with a top 10 pick 4 times in 5 years, and screw it up with 3 of those 4 picks, why should they not get punished for that sort of stupidity?

Cave Johnson
03-02-2011, 02:36 PM
DirecTv needs to run into an AIDS tree

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2011/03/ksk-meast-of-the-week-special-cba-edition.html#more-35116

We don’t typically bestow our pointless awards during the off-season, but sometimes extraordinary circumstances force us to action. In this case, the action of celebrating things that please us.

With that awkward preface out of the way, your Meast for this week is U.S. District Judge David Doty, who yesterday struck down an earlier, shittier court decision that would have allowed the fat, stupid asshole NFL owners to sit on a $4 billion war chest of funds acquired through questionable agreements with the television networks. While this certainly doesn’t eliminate the chance that a lockout will be imposed later this week, it does mean that the owners now actually have an incentive to get a deal done some time before next year now that their precious lockout insurance has been swept out from under them.

So you go, crusty old white guy. This next ginger snap is in your honor. After all, I can say without qualm that this towering feat of jurisprudence is more significant than Brown v. the Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio and Loving v. Virginia combined.

That is, it would be, if only it weren’t carried out by the most impartial labor advocate on the federal bench. PK will tell you. ACTIVIST JUDGE! ACTIVIST JUDGE! ACTIVIST JUDGE!

[tweets omitted]

Yes, the fact that we need to tailor the Constitution so that Goodell’s supreme executive power can no longer be undermined by the courts. NOBODY ELECTED YOU, DOTY. GOODELL WAS ELECTED BY A UNANIMOUS 32-0 TALLY BY THE OWNERS IN 2006. WITH THAT KIND OF MANDATE, HE IS FREE TO STEAMROLL THE PLAYERS UNION AT HIS WHIM!

Your Least for this week is THE NETWORKS! You goddamn enabling little shits. Despite misgivings over the NFL’s intent, each signed off on deals that would have provided the league its broadcasting money even in the event on a lockout throughout the 2011 season. Sure, most of the networks would get the money paid back to them in full and a lower overall price, but why is it worth taking that hit? Even in the best of conditions, each network loses millions broadcasting the NFL. Why let the league ride roughshod over you like that?

DirecTV was the worst offender of all. According to the deal they signed with the NFL in 2008, 42 percent of their fees for the 2011 season were nonrefundable, EVEN IF THE 2011 SEASON NEVER HAPPENS. Worse still, the company would have to pay up to a nine percent premium if the season in canceled. The fuck is that? How has the CEO not been fired? I realize Sunday Ticket is a huge part of their appeal for drawing new customers. That must be why a subscription costs about as much as a semester in college, seeing as how the company is comfortable giving away half its huge yearly commitment to the NFL for NOTHING. REFUND ME HALF MY BILL, YOU MISMANAGED FUCKS.

Cave Johnson
03-02-2011, 02:45 PM
Adjusting the rookie cap would address it too, as would teams deciding not to circumvent the spirit of the cap in the first place. I don't see those on the table, though.

And, frankly, if the Lions want to take WRs with a top 10 pick 4 times in 5 years, and screw it up with 3 of those 4 picks, why should they not get punished for that sort of stupidity?

Those alternatives could very well be on the table and we're just not privy to the negotiating positions.

Re the Lions, they're already punished by missing on players that would improve the team. FWIW, I don't see reducing the rookie cap (or whatever method transfers more revenue from rookies to vets) having a meaningful impact on competitiveness. Good teams will still manage their cap efficiently, keeping most quality FAs off the market.

It's more of an equity issue.

Chocolate Hog
03-02-2011, 02:47 PM
Not much of an argument, really.

1. small sample size.

2. many teams feared to really spend in 2010 because they were fairly convinced that a cap would be reinstituted in 2011 and whatever (over)spending was done in 2010 might somehow be penalized going forward.

I disagree. It looks like the owners have had their mind made up for sometime on what they were going to do with the CBA.

Cave Johnson
03-02-2011, 03:18 PM
For Laz et. al.

http://deadspin.com/#!5774550/without-good-faith-explaining-the-critical-ruling-against-the-nfl

kcfanXIII
03-02-2011, 05:13 PM
Laz, Im gonna be your boss for a second here. I know when you were hired we had an agreement that i would pay you X amount. Now I understand you have made me more money in the past few years then an average person makes in a lifetime. And i know your career expectancy is only about as long as most people spend in college and when you retire you have a lifetime of arthritis and pain to look forward to. See i don't like our agreement, and even though i own a private jet i can't afford to fly anywhere. So you and all your coworkers are gonna take a 20% paycut.

You would take my ass to court too.