PDA

View Full Version : Football NFLPA won't agree to another extension


Pages : [1] 2 3

Mr. Laz
03-11-2011, 03:48 PM
unless owners allow full financial auditing for next 10 yrs


per espn

Chocolate Hog
03-11-2011, 03:53 PM
Blame it on the Central Bankers.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 03:55 PM
We need to get Gov Walker on this so he can bust the shit out of the players union. :)

eazyb81
03-11-2011, 03:55 PM
Good for the NFLPA.

I doubt they will be willing to miss any paychecks though.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 03:55 PM
Misleading title

Brock
03-11-2011, 03:58 PM
Schefter's outlook is gloomy.

http://twitter.com/adamschefter

Cave Johnson
03-11-2011, 03:59 PM
Deadline is 2 minutes to decert.

It's happening.

Correction, Doty's in MN. 5 PM is, in all likelihood, 5 CST.

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:00 PM
Doesn't it simply strike everybody very clearly that the owners are not doing that because they don't want it to show just how much bank they're rolling in?

And before the typical "the NFLPA has no right to ask for that" comes in, I'll break it to some of you. Yes they do.

When you're a top 5 percenter in your field (think beyond just sports. You're a top heart surgeon, attorney, etc), You can do a lot of things the rest of us can't do.

It's not fair. But it's reality.

Brock
03-11-2011, 04:02 PM
Doesn't it simply strike everybody very clearly that the owners are not doing that because they don't want it to show just how much bank they're rolling in?


Personally, I think the owners are going to end up wishing they had just extended the deal they had.

-King-
03-11-2011, 04:02 PM
It is 5:01 ET. Wonder what the decision was.

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 04:03 PM
Doesn't it simply strike everybody very clearly that the owners are not doing that because they don't want it to show just how much bank they're rolling in?

And before the typical "the NFLPA has no right to ask for that" comes in, I'll break it to some of you. Yes they do.

When you're a top 5 percenter in your field (think beyond just sports. You're a top heart surgeon, attorney, etc), You can do a lot of things the rest of us can't do.

It's not fair. But it's reality.

No.

Laz assures me that these guys are just fungible burger flippers like everyone else so they should take whatever gruel they're spooned by the NFL.

The rest of us, on the other hand, operate in reality and recognize that you can make a hell of a lot of rules when you're the best in the world at what you do.

reschief
03-11-2011, 04:03 PM
unless owners allow full financial auditing for next 10 yrs


per espn

The players union know, without a doubt, that is not a reasonable request. The owners will never agree to that and why should they? Name a privately owned company that would do such a thing. . .

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:04 PM
It is 5:01 ET. Wonder what the decision was.

Adam Schefter
RT @AndrewSiciliano: Mort reporting NFLPA decertifies in federal court in Minneapolis

Cave Johnson
03-11-2011, 04:05 PM
Personally, I think the owners are going to end up wishing they had just extended the deal they had.

Treble damages can be a b*tch.

http://www.clanram.com/forums/f58/two-minute-warning-nflpa-vs-nfl-owners-44582/

chiefqueen
03-11-2011, 04:05 PM
If they decertify IMO the owners will simply choose not to field teams until the process works its way through the courts. The big difference between now and 1987 was that once the owners open the doors to the replacement players, they had to let anyone in.

Next NFL season may not be until 2016 or 2017 I'm afraid if the case goes all the way to the Supremes.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 04:05 PM
NFLPA has decertified, per radio source in N.E.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:05 PM
Adam Schefter
RT @AndrewSiciliano: Mort reporting NFLPA decertifies in federal court in Minneapolis

Oh ****

Brock
03-11-2011, 04:06 PM
NFLPA has decertified, per radio source in N.E.

Welp. That's that.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:07 PM
Now I'm pissed.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 04:07 PM
Does this mean there's one less union in the US f'n things up?

-King-
03-11-2011, 04:08 PM
Well...shit.

Pants
03-11-2011, 04:08 PM
Doesn't it simply strike everybody very clearly that the owners are not doing that because they don't want it to show just how much bank they're rolling in?

And before the typical "the NFLPA has no right to ask for that" comes in, I'll break it to some of you. Yes they do.

When you're a top 5 percenter in your field (think beyond just sports. You're a top heart surgeon, attorney, etc), You can do a lot of things the rest of us can't do.

It's not fair. But it's reality.

100% agreed except these athletes are more like 0.01 percenters.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:10 PM
I know no one cares, but this could really **** up teams with leases that expire within the next 5 years.

morphius
03-11-2011, 04:10 PM
The players union know, without a doubt, that is not a reasonable request. The owners will never agree to that and why should they? Name a privately owned company that would do such a thing. . .
I don't know, name a private company that has contracts that split a percentage of their profits with a segment of their employee's...

I'm not really on either side of this debate, because neither side is really on the fans side.

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:11 PM
What's crazy is NFL going through this, NBA will have a lockout next year.

WTF am I going to watch sports wise?? :banghead: Unreal.

The PBA is going "YES!!!"

Dayze
03-11-2011, 04:12 PM
off to NCAA for me.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:14 PM
What's crazy is NFL going through this, NBA will have a lockout next year.

WTF am I going to watch sports wise?? :banghead: Unreal.

The PBA is going "YES!!!"

I think all 3 pro-sports besides football(NHL, MLB and NBA) all have their bargaining agreements up within the next two years.

****

Detoxing
03-11-2011, 04:14 PM
Yeah NFL/NFLPA....FUCK YOU TOO!

Time to start paying more attention to the NCAA and MMA

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:16 PM
Is anyone else having problems going to the NFLPA's site?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:16 PM
I don't know, name a private company that has contracts that split a percentage of their profits with a segment of their employee's...

I'm not really on either side of this debate, because neither side is really on the fans side.

You have to keep in mind that the NFL was protected by Anti-Trust laws, which makes them different from every other corporation in the US, save NHL, MLB, NASCAR and the NBA.

Now that the union has de-certified, they can effectively sue the NFL and if they win, will be awarded triple the damages.

Superturtle
03-11-2011, 04:16 PM
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062009/1244709959_drunken_darts.gif

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:17 PM
Yeah NFL/NFLPA....FUCK YOU TOO!

Time to start paying more attention to the NCAA and MMA

LMAO

Yeah, the NCAA - there's a fair and equitable system in place.

LMAO

SNR
03-11-2011, 04:18 PM
At least I'll be getting some work done on Sundays this fall. That's a relief

HotRoute
03-11-2011, 04:18 PM
NFLPA has decertified, per radio source in N.E.

Shit just got real

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 04:18 PM
LMAO

Yeah, the NCAA - there's a fair and equitable system in place.

LMAO

No shit.

Might as well turn to cockfighting.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:18 PM
Doesn't it simply strike everybody very clearly that the owners are not doing that because they don't want it to show just how much bank they're rolling in?

Keep in mind, it's not just about the "NFL" opening its books, it's also about team owners opening their books to other team owners.

That could potentially cause HUGE problems amongst the owners.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:20 PM
off to NCAA for me.

Good! Maybe we'll be able to recruit more "Drafturbators" into the gang.

:D

Pestilence
03-11-2011, 04:20 PM
Keep in mind, it's not just about the "NFL" opening its books, it's also about team owners opening their books to other team owners.

That could potentially cause HUGE problems amongst the owners.

After I read your post.....I envisioned a bunch of owners jumping Daniel Snyder and Al Davis in the hallway of a hotel.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:21 PM
After I read your post.....I envisioned a bunch of owners jumping Daniel Snyder and Al Davis in the hallway of a hotel.

Don't forget Jerruh.

I'd love to see Dan Rooney give him a cockpunch.

chiefqueen
03-11-2011, 04:21 PM
What's crazy is NFL going through this, NBA will have a lockout next year.

WTF am I going to watch sports wise?? :banghead: Unreal.

The PBA is going "YES!!!"

OOOPS!!! I think somebody forgot to mention that the CBAs for MLB and the NHL also expire when their current or upcoming season ends (although the MLBPA swears there is nothing to worry about re MLB).

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:22 PM
After I read your post.....I envisioned a bunch of owners jumping Daniel Snyder and Al Davis in the hallway of a hotel.

I dunno, but I'd love to see an owner mug Daniel Snyder.

Fritz88
03-11-2011, 04:22 PM
FML
Posted via Mobile Device

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:23 PM
OOOPS!!! I think somebody forgot to mention that the CBAs for MLB and the NHL also expire when their current or upcoming season ends (although the MLBPA swears there is nothing to worry about re MLB).

I posted that earlier. I think there's a better chance of the NBA having a lockout than MLB and NHL.

Superturtle
03-11-2011, 04:23 PM
Tiki Barber just got PWNED!!!!!

ElGringo
03-11-2011, 04:24 PM
I don't really get it, I thought the decertification was to prevent lockout, which means owners will have to allow the players to play. This, however, works against the union as they have no "collective" power to bargain, and therefore would become individual employees. This in turn would cause the players to play under the current contract, or go on strike, at which point we would most likely see scabs again. Please someone tell me, what did I read wrong to believe this?

MOhillbilly
03-11-2011, 04:24 PM
No shit.

Might as well turn to cockfighting.

giggle.

-King-
03-11-2011, 04:25 PM
Why is the Lawsuit in Minneapolis?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:25 PM
I don't really get it, I thought the decertification was to prevent lockout, which means owners will have to allow the players to play. This, however, works against the union as they have no "collective" power to bargain, and therefore would become individual employees. This in turn would cause the players to play under the current contract, or go on strike, at which point we would most likely see scabs again. Please someone tell me, what did I read wrong to believe this?

There IS no contract.

bowener
03-11-2011, 04:26 PM
Shit just got real shitty.

FYP

Okie_Apparition
03-11-2011, 04:26 PM
NFL Network has replaced their crew with the FOX News team. Rick Eisen is still there being the tool we all know him to be.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:27 PM
Why is the Lawsuit in Minneapolis?

That's where Doty is.

ElGringo
03-11-2011, 04:27 PM
There is no contract between the NFL and the union as there is no union, but individual players still have contracts with teams.....damn, all too confusing to me, will probably just go back to lurking and reading, hoping to gain knowledge on this.

reschief
03-11-2011, 04:28 PM
I don't know, name a private company that has contracts that split a percentage of their profits with a segment of their employee's...

I'm not really on either side of this debate, because neither side is really on the fans side.

On the one hand, one should be able to profit in the business he or she owns without having to answer to the employees about it (a.k.a "right to work state") versus the players giving up their bodies to create that profit (which goes beyond the norm for work related & physical norms of work).

Fritz88
03-11-2011, 04:30 PM
Tiki Barber just got PWNED!!!!!

ROFL
Posted via Mobile Device

Mr. Flopnuts
03-11-2011, 04:32 PM
John Mara just said the owners offered to split the difference with the players, but the players are determined to go to court.

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:33 PM
John Mara just said the owners offered to split the difference with the players, but the players are determined to go to court.

Did he report anything on the 18 game issue?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 04:33 PM
unless owners allow full financial auditing for next 10 yrs


per espn

God forbid the owners actually open up their books.

Cave Johnson
03-11-2011, 04:33 PM
John Mara just said the owners offered to split the difference with the players, but the players are determined to go to court.

The players never budged one iota. LOL

Pestilence
03-11-2011, 04:34 PM
Did he report anything on the 18 game issue?

It was posted a couple of days ago on Rotoworld.com that the NFLPA refused to have an 18 game season.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-11-2011, 04:34 PM
Did he report anything on the 18 game issue?

No. He's the owner of the Giants.

chiefqueen
03-11-2011, 04:35 PM
I don't really get it, I thought the decertification was to prevent lockout, which means owners will have to allow the players to play. This, however, works against the union as they have no "collective" power to bargain, and therefore would become individual employees. This in turn would cause the players to play under the current contract, or go on strike, at which point we would most likely see scabs again. Please someone tell me, what did I read wrong to believe this?

I think the deal was in 1987 the union decertified after the owners hired the replacement players, so once the union decertified and crossed the line, the owners basically had to let the players back because they were "essentially" open for business. A new labor deal was not struck until 1993 after the players won in court, reorganized their union, and hammered out a new-CBA.

I get the sense this time some owners (enough to block any CBA ratification) would rather not play football while all of this is going on. In the late 80s it took six years and we are much more legalistic society now.

I HOPE I'M WRONG.

reschief
03-11-2011, 04:35 PM
John Mara just said the owners offered to split the difference with the players, but the players are determined to go to court.

The players apparently trust their ability to win before Doty more than splitting the difference with the owners.

ElGringo
03-11-2011, 04:35 PM
Once again, pointing out my own idiocy, but why wouldn't the owners open the books if they have nothing to hide. Their hard line stance against it, makes me like them less, and also makes me feel there is some shady dealings somewhere.

oaklandhater
03-11-2011, 04:35 PM
I don't know, name a private company that has contracts that split a percentage of their profits with a segment of their employee's...

I'm not really on either side of this debate, because neither side is really on the fans side.

Damm right Screw them and Screw the Writers union actors union and all other Rich @holes who want more money from other rich @holes in all cases no one gives a crap about the fan's.

Which neither side would be rich with out them.

DeezNutz
03-11-2011, 04:35 PM
Owner propaganda alert on ESPN.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-11-2011, 04:35 PM
Jeff Pash is lighting the fucking players up on NFLN.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 04:36 PM
John Mara just said the owners offered to split the difference with the players, but the players are determined to go to court.

Owners: "We want a billion dollars per year back."
Players: "We'll go 200 million. Anything more, you need to show us the books to verify your money problems".
Owners: "We're not showing you the books"

Owners: "Ok, we'll split the difference. Give us $600 million back"
Players: "Show us the books"
Owners: "We're not showing you the books"

Owners: "The players aren't being reasonable!"

ROFL


Tough be be more blatantly full of shit than the owners have been on this.

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 04:37 PM
John Mara just said the owners offered to split the difference with the players, but the players are determined to go to court.

"Oh c'mon, just let us rape you a little bit...."

"Uh...no thanks. We'll take our chances with the judge that just slapped you down."

It's funny that the owners are acting surprised by this. They're the ones that changed the rules and pulled the rug out. Perhaps they should've prepared for the possibility that the NFLPA isn't full of feckless pussies.

(So there's probably a sign on the clubhouse that says "No Cassel's Allowed...)

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 04:37 PM
I'd have more sympathy for the owners if it wasn't the easiest business in the fucking world to run.

They should consider themselves lucky that they draw the profit they do. Christ, Al Davis can run a profitable franchise, FFS.

DeezNutz
03-11-2011, 04:37 PM
Impressively disingenuous bullshit on ESPN right now.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Jeff Pash is lighting the fucking players up on NFLN.

I'm fucking stunned that the NFLN is having someone on who sides with the owners.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Why is the Lawsuit in Minneapolis?

Because of Reggie White.

He filed for Free Agency back in the 1993 when there was no CBA between the NFL and the players. They had decertified in 1987.

He filed his case in Minnesota and before he made a ruling, the NFL and the players settled, reformed the union and created a CBA. The settlement of the that case is embedded within the CBA. That means that as long as this CBA is in effect, Doty is charged with enforcing the settlement and making sure the CBA adheres to it.

The CBA and the settlement include a provision that states that either side can appeal what it feels are violations of the agreement to a special master. If they don’t like what the special master tells them, they can then appeal that decision to Judge Doty.

The players union needed to file plans to decertify as a union and seek relief from Judge Doty before the CBA expires, which originally was set as March 4th but was extended for one week to March 11th.

If the CBA expired, the provision providing relief from his court can no longer be sought or applied.

So as of right now, this whole ordeal will land in Doty's court and in the past, he's always sided with the players, not the owners.

This could get really ugly for the owners.

kstater
03-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Once again, pointing out my own idiocy, but why wouldn't the owners open the books if they have nothing to hide. Their hard line stance against it, makes me like them less, and also makes me feel there is some shady dealings somewhere.

Because regardless of what their profit margin is, the raw number would be enough to be a PR nightmare.

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:38 PM
I'm sure we'll see a lot of propaganda coming out over the next day or so from both sides trying to say "Hey we're not the bad guys."

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 04:39 PM
Jeff Pash is lighting the ****ing players up on NFLN.

This is partly on Pash.

When he decided to conduct an empty chair interview after the negotiations ended yesterday and essentially shit on the leadership of the NFLPA, the negotiations were all but over.

The owners seem to have hired a very shitty lead negotiator.

Valiant
03-11-2011, 04:39 PM
The only reason why I can't see the owners giving up their books is if they are lying.

And for others saying the owners should not have to. No other business does. I agree with above, no other business already shares their money like the nfl does either. There is no comparison to the nfl.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:39 PM
Jeff Pash is lighting the ****ing players up on NFLN.

Watching right now. I'm not on one side or another, I just want ****ing football in 2011.

Cave Johnson
03-11-2011, 04:40 PM
Jeff Pash is lighting the ****ing players up on NFLN.

Just throwing bombs.

That guy, I'm sure, was an incredible dick behind the scenes.

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:40 PM
Where's the XFL when you need it? They missed their window. :p

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:40 PM
Once again, pointing out my own idiocy, but why wouldn't the owners open the books if they have nothing to hide. Their hard line stance against it, makes me like them less, and also makes me feel there is some shady dealings somewhere.

Once again, it's not all about owners versus players but Owners versus Owners.

How would Ralph Wilson feel is it was revealed that Jerry Jones was earning $100 million more dollars per year with income that's not shared?

It's a HUGE can of worms for the owners to share their financial data amongst themselves, especially for those owners that earn significantly more income.

chiefqueen
03-11-2011, 04:40 PM
This is from CNN.com:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/03/11/whatnext/index.html

Ebolapox
03-11-2011, 04:40 PM
f*ck both of them.

DeezNutz
03-11-2011, 04:41 PM
Vonnie Holliday not interested in "low-hanging fruit."

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 04:41 PM
This could get really ugly for the owners.

As it should. Fuck them.

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 04:41 PM
Because of Reggie White.

He filed for Free Agency back in the 1993 when there was no CBA between the NFL and the players. They had decertified in 1987.

He filed his case in Minnesota and before he made a ruling, the NFL and the players settled, reformed the union and created a CBA. The settlement of the that case is embedded within the CBA. That means that as long as this CBA is in effect, Doty is charged with enforcing the settlement and making sure the CBA adheres to it.

The CBA and the settlement include a provision that states that either side can appeal what it feels are violations of the agreement to a special master. If they don’t like what the special master tells them, they can then appeal that decision to Judge Doty.

The players union needed to file plans to decertify as a union and seek relief from Judge Doty before the CBA expires, which originally was set as March 4th but was extended for one week to March 11th.

If the CBA expired, the provision providing relief from his court can no longer be sought or applied.

So as of right now, this whole ordeal will land in Doty's court and in the past, he's always sided with the players, not the owners.

This could get really ugly for the owners.

Hey Dane -

If it makes you feel any better - federal arbitration and anti-trust stuff is well beyond my purview. So I'm probably just gonna sit these out.

The floor is yours.... ;)

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:42 PM
As it should. **** them.

I agree with that, but there's a shit load of revenue that cities will lose if there is no football in 2011. And I really do not want the Rams to relocate.

DJ's left nut
03-11-2011, 04:43 PM
So, how ya feel about the couple hundred million y'all gave to Clark Hunt, Jackson County taxpayers?

That empty stadium while you're floating a sales tax increase has gotta bite the big one, doesn't it?

Seriously - the owners can eat a big heaping bowl of dicks on this one.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:44 PM
I'd have more sympathy for the owners if it wasn't the easiest business in the fucking world to run.

They should consider themselves lucky that they draw the profit they do. Christ, Al Davis can run a profitable franchise, FFS.

It's fucking ridiculous.

Lamar Hunt invested $25 THOUSAND DOLLARS fifty years ago and that's been parlayed into BILLIONS.

If someone can tell me what business I can dump $25k into and have it turn into hundreds of millions, if not billions, in a few short decades, fucking sign me UP!

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:44 PM
Jim Quinn for the NFLPA is on the NFLN.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:44 PM
Hey Dane -

If it makes you feel any better - federal arbitration and anti-trust stuff is well beyond my purview. So I'm probably just gonna sit these out.

The floor is yours.... ;)

LMAO

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 04:44 PM
You have to keep in mind that the NFL was protected by Anti-Trust laws, which makes them different from every other corporation in the US, save NHL, MLB, NASCAR and the NBA.

Now that the union has de-certified, they can effectively sue the NFL and if they win, will be awarded triple the damages.

ok, again, this isn't exactly correct...

They basically have a few very very limited exemptions... by decertifying the players will be able to sue IF the owners pursue a lockout... but it's not a very cut and dried situation...

With the recent concessions by the league today... if the union takes this to court, I am perfectly happy to see the current crop of players go straight to hell and never take the field again. Fuck them.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 04:45 PM
So, how ya feel about the couple hundred million y'all gave to Clark Hunt, Jackson County taxpayers?

That empty stadium while you're floating a sales tax increase has gotta bite the big one, doesn't it?

Seriously - the owners can eat a big heaping bowl of dicks on this one.

One of the ridiculous positions of the owners is that, essentially, they've got to screw the players because they won't be able to screw the taxpayers for publicly funded stadiums anymore.

See, it's really the fault of the politicians and taxpayers if football isn't played in 2011.

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:46 PM
It's ****ing ridiculous.

Lamar Hunt invested $25 THOUSAND DOLLARS fifty years ago and that's been parlayed into BILLIONS.

If someone can tell me what business I can dump $25k into and have it turn into hundreds of millions, if not billions, in a few short decades, ****ing sign me UP!

Exactly.

Plus they're not shortening their lives doing their jobs unlike the players.

The players kill their bodies and only have a few years to earn their keep for damaging themselves.

The owners have their entire lives to sit back and print money.

It's ridiculous.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:47 PM
ok, again, this isn't exactly correct...

They basically have a few very very limited exemptions... by decertifying the players will be able to sue IF the owners pursue a lockout... but it's not a very cut and dried situation...

With the recent concessions by the league today... if the union takes this to court, I am perfectly happy to see the current crop of players go straight to hell and never take the field again. Fuck them.

They actually don't need a lockout to sue. What happens next is entirely up to Judge David Doty, as mentioned earlier. It's a provision that was included in the 1993 ruling.

ElGringo
03-11-2011, 04:48 PM
I have done my best to not takes sides, aside from the side of fans wanting football in 2011, through all of this. I am starting to believe I am on the players side at this point. I understand the owners don't even want to open the books to each other, more so than the players, but if profit is "shared", there should be nothing to hide, if team x is making more than team y, maybe owner x should talk to owner y and figure out how to make more.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:50 PM
This is from NFLPA.com:

http://i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx111/simon123_photo/NFLPA.jpg

KurtCobain
03-11-2011, 04:50 PM
TEN FUCKING MINUTES

Valiant
03-11-2011, 04:51 PM
Once again, it's not all about owners versus players but Owners versus Owners.

How would Ralph Wilson feel is it was revealed that Jerry Jones was earning $100 million more dollars per year with income that's not shared?

It's a HUGE can of worms for the owners to share their financial data amongst themselves, especially for those owners that earn significantly more income.

If that shit is not common knowledge to the owners that some make waaaay more money then they are idiots.

DeezNutz
03-11-2011, 04:51 PM
I have done my best to not takes sides, aside from the side of fans wanting football in 2011, through all of this. I am starting to believe I am on the players side at this point. I understand the owners don't even want to open the books to each other, more so than the players, but if profit is "shared", there should be nothing to hide, if team x is making more than team y, maybe owner x should talk to owner y and figure out how to make more.

Completely wrong. This is a classic owner-employee relationship. The former should be able to dictate pay, and if the latter doesn't like it, they should go find another job.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 04:52 PM
but if profit is "shared", there should be nothing to hide, if team x is making more than team y, maybe owner x should talk to owner y and figure out how to make more.

Herein lies the problem: You've got a guy like Jerry Jones, who privately financed a huge portion (if not all, I can't remember off the top of my head) and needs all available revenue sources versus, a guy with a publicly funded stadium.

JJ could argue against his fellow owners that his extra revenue is necessary to run his business successfully. But, if the owners opened their books to each other and 24 of the 32 owners didn't agree, then JJ could potentially lose a revenue stream, thus making his team less profitable and possibly putting him in a position to default on personal loans.

It's a HUGE can of worms with consequences that can't possibly be imagined at this point.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 04:52 PM
DeMaurice Smith is supposed to be on NFLN soon.

Ugly Duck
03-11-2011, 04:54 PM
if team x is making more than team y, maybe owner x should talk to owner y and figure out how to make more.

Like moving the Dallas Texans (or are they called the "Chiefs" now?) back home where they belong.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8BVcGoREYwc/R4HJ6Ubu1xI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/U4G7zGgjYCE/s320/Texans+Logo.jpg

teedubya
03-11-2011, 04:55 PM
Does this mean no draft, as well?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 04:56 PM
No, there will be a draft.

ElGringo
03-11-2011, 04:56 PM
OK, I guess I understand that with owner v owner. I am still disagreeing with them not opening books. Yes, the owners do have a right to dictate pay, but the players have a right to demand seeing those books. I guess all in all, my line of thinking results in strike, which is not good either, I just don't see this coming to a conclusion outside of the courts without the owners opening the books, and I still believe they should (even understanding the argument against).

suds79
03-11-2011, 04:57 PM
Completely wrong. This is a classic owner-employee relationship. The former should be able to dictate pay, and if the latter doesn't like it, they should go find another job.

Again that's operating under the assumption that the NFL is like any other business. It's not.

If it was like a normal business, it would be deemed a monopoly. But it's not.

If it was like a normal business, the owners would simply let the employees go and hire replacements. Again, not your normal business because there are not qualified candidates out there. They're already in the league.

Got to quit comparing it to standard business.

Cave Johnson
03-11-2011, 04:58 PM
De Smith, PIMP.

Bwana
03-11-2011, 04:59 PM
:shake:f*ck both of them.

This......Useless mother fuckers.

Oh well, if this thing doesn't happen, I'll take my NFL SUnday Ticket money and buy more shotguns shell for bird hunting and do a lot more of that.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 04:59 PM
They actually don't need a lockout to sue. What happens next is entirely up to Judge David Doty, as mentioned earlier. It's a provision that was included in the 1993 ruling.

technically, yes they can file with Doty to get an injunction to PREVENT a lockout, or they can file after the fact.. either way it will force them down the same path.

It isn't the same as them suing for damages (though that route is possible just not probable... )

I was certainly not a cheerleader for the owners before today.. but I am now.. if the NFLPA is bluffing and just trying to squeeze a bit more out of the owners.. I am ok with that... if they go to court.. I would be more than happy to see these players never play again.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:02 PM
Bullshit, Jerry Richardson, bullshit.

Valiant
03-11-2011, 05:02 PM
Or maybe some of the cities that own stadiums with current nfl teams or other nearby cities should start a rival league during lockout. Pay the players well for a while, tv contracts and such. The cities own the teams, players will eventually make their millions as the league prospers. The rest of the profit goes to the cities and viewer base for school funding and to help boost other fundings.

Only people fucked are greedy owners, especially the few or is it one that owns his stadium.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:03 PM
Or maybe some of the cities that own stadiums with current nfl teams or other nearby cities should start a rival league during lockout. Pay the players well for a while, tv contracts and such. The cities own the teams, players will eventually make their millions as the league prospers. The rest of the profit goes to the cities and viewer base for school funding and to help boost other fundings.

Only people ****ed are greedy owners, especially the few or is it one that owns his stadium.

So every team should be like the Packers?

Valiant
03-11-2011, 05:07 PM
So every team should be like the Packers?

Why not?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:08 PM
Why not?

Dude, come on. That is completely unrealistic.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:11 PM
If breaking up your union to sue someone fully intending to reinstate the union after settlement is legal it shouldn't be. That's retarded.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:12 PM
technically, yes they can file with Doty to get an injunction to PREVENT a lockout, or they can file after the fact.. either way it will force them down the same path.

It isn't the same as them suing for damages (though that route is possible just not probable... )

I was certainly not a cheerleader for the owners before today.. but I am now.. if the NFLPA is bluffing and just trying to squeeze a bit more out of the owners.. I am ok with that... if they go to court.. I would be more than happy to see these players never play again.


The players can sue the NFL and in that case, Judge Doty could then decide HOW the NFL will move forward, whether it's based on the 2006 CBA, 2009 CBA, etc.

The NFL made an extremely risky move by not coming to an agreement and allowing the union to de-certify.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:13 PM
If breaking up your union to sue someone fully intending to reinstate the union after settlement is legal it shouldn't be. That's retarded.

As mentioned, this is kinda unique legal ground... BUT the NLRB very likely could stop decertification... we won't know until mid next week if they even plan to address it though

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:13 PM
If breaking up your union to sue someone fully intending to reinstate the union after settlement is legal it shouldn't be. That's retarded.

It is if you're dealing with a corporation that has Anti-Trust exemptions.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:16 PM
It is if you're dealing with a corporation that has Anti-Trust exemptions.

I know it's a unique circumstance, but come on.

Bill Lundberg
03-11-2011, 05:16 PM
Just canceled my season tickets. I may re-up if they work this out, but I'm not forking over another $1200 for them to hold on to until this is resolved.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:18 PM
I know it's a unique circumstance, but come on.

Come on, what?

It's not like there are people waiting in line to effectively replace Drew Brees or Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

If the NFL decided to LOCKOUT the players, the owners are effectively eliminating the players from earning a living.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:18 PM
The players can sue the NFL and in that case, Judge Doty could then decide HOW the NFL will move forward, whether it's based on the 2006 CBA, 2009 CBA, etc.

The NFL made an extremely risky move by not coming to an agreement and allowing the union to de-certify.

I don't think so, I think the NFL acted in good faith and the NFLPA DID NOT.. I think the NFLPA had no intention to negotiate but was planning on going to court all along... and I sincerely hope it fucks them square in the ass by doing so.

If they ACTUALLY go to court... I would MOST LIKE to never see another one of these dirtbags take the field again, but since that is unreasonable, I would settle for the courts letting a lockout proceed and them coming back to the owners hat in hand and getting a far worse deal than what was offered today.

All of that being said, this could all be part of the process and they could back at the table Monday morning working out a deal... if that is the case then fair play to all parties involved.

Over-Head
03-11-2011, 05:19 PM
Again, not your normal business because there are not qualified candidates out there. .
How many college kids didn't get drafted last year?
Add that number to the guy's who had no intentions of playing in the NFL,( as low a number as it may be.)
Add the year before and 2 years ago.
Thgen have 32 team owners bringing back a few dozen or so more Tiki Barbers , good solid vets 1-3 years into retirement as team "ringers", offer em all say half to a mill for tthe season, then another 1-3 a piece if they win the SB, and guess what, you'll see 52 Red and white and 52 Silver and Black jerseys in Oakland and KC in 2011

And not one of you guy's or my self that wouldn't love to say we won, regardless of who threw the damn ball

And the owners look like ****en hero's as threw all the trials, and tribulations they STILL managed to bring back the Lombardie to their city.

Valiant
03-11-2011, 05:19 PM
Dude, come on. That is completely unrealistic.

It would a win for players(eventually), fans and cities. Hell most cities own the stadiums anyway.

Owners should know that some make more per year if that is their main reason for not showing the books. The only reason to not show it to the union heads/lawyers if they are lying.

So fuck the owners and start a new league, either they can sign on, compete orgo out of business.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:20 PM
I don't think so, I think the NFL acted in good faith and the NFLPA DID NOT

IF the NFL had opened their books and provided financial transparency, I'd agree.

But they did not.

kstater
03-11-2011, 05:21 PM
I don't think so, I think the NFL acted in good faith and the NFLPA DID NOT.. I think the NFLPA had no intention to negotiate but was planning on going to court all along....



Regardless of the outcome at the appellate level on this issue, I think this is a very plausible scenario.

Superturtle
03-11-2011, 05:21 PM
...........But the owners refuse to open their books.... Theres something shady about that too.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:22 PM
IF the NFL had opened their books and provided financial transparency, I'd agree.

But they did not.

The NFLPA was being COMPLETELY unreasonable in asking for fully audited books for 10 years.. that is ridiculous. The revenues are ALREADY verified through independent audit.. why THE HELL is that not good enough?

kstater
03-11-2011, 05:22 PM
...........But the owners refuse to open their books.... Theres something shady about that too.

It's a nice tidy talking point the NLFPA has created here. Not necessarily true though.

wazu
03-11-2011, 05:24 PM
Wow, whoever that NFL exec was who came out and gave the "apparently not good enough" speech was a freaking all-star. I was kind of on the side of the players, but now see them as the devil.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:25 PM
Come on, what?

It's not like there are people waiting in line to effectively replace Drew Brees or Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

If the NFL decided to LOCKOUT the players, the owners are effectively eliminating the players from earning a living.

There are MILLIONS of people waiting in line to take those guys jobs. The problem is there are only a couple people on earth that are as good as they are.

My point is if you're going to keep the union in the long run anyway, sue as a friggin union. If you're going to decertify, reforming your union later shouldn't be legal.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:25 PM
The NFLPA was being COMPLETELY unreasonable in asking for fully audited books for 10 years.. that is ridiculous. The revenues are ALREADY verified through independent audit.. why THE HELL is that not good enough?

The owners were asking for an additional $1 BILLION off the top and a reduction in the percentage shared.

In a time when the NFL is earning $9 BILLION PER YEAR in television revenue ALONE, how can the NFL ask for a reduction WITHOUT proving it's necessary?

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:26 PM
DeMaurice Smith is on the NFLN.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:26 PM
The NFLPA was being COMPLETELY unreasonable in asking for fully audited books for 10 years.. that is ridiculous. The revenues are ALREADY verified through independent audit.. why THE HELL is that not good enough?

The players look like this guy to me.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8M3DLGP4UKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:27 PM
getnickwright (http://twitter.com/#%21/getnickwright) nick wright



There will be a prolonged court battle, but during the court battle football will be played, and that's what matters.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:28 PM
There are MILLIONS of people waiting in line to take those guys jobs. The problem is there are only a couple people on earth that are as good as they are.

Which is what makes the NFL unique and worth of Anti-Trust exemptions.

My point is if you're going to keep the union in the long run anyway, sue as a friggin union. If you're going to decertify, reforming your union later shouldn't be legal.

Your "point" is valid IF and only IF the NFL loses ALL Anti-Trust exemptions.

At that point, the NFL would become 32 separate entities and the players could sue them all, not to mention the fact that their TV contract would become invalid, as would revenue sharing, etc. and so on.

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

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:28 PM
The owners were asking for an additional $1 BILLION off the top and a reduction in the percentage shared.

In a time when the NFL is earning $9 BILLION PER YEAR in television revenue ALONE, how can the NFL ask for a reduction WITHOUT proving it's necessary?

BECAUSE THEY OWN THE BUSINESS.. they don't HAVE to justify a damn thing. They aren't asking for money BACK from existing contracts.. this is a new deal and they have the right to negotiate it as they see fit... without court interference.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-11-2011, 05:28 PM
I'm fucking stunned that the NFLN is having someone on who sides with the owners.

Yeah, and then NFLN cut the lawyer for the NFLPA off when questions started. Gave him 30 seconds of airtime. They're like Fox fucking news in this situation.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:29 PM
BECAUSE THEY OWN THE BUSINESS.. they don't HAVE to justify a damn thing. They aren't asking for money BACK from existing contracts.. this is a new deal and they have the right to negotiate it as they see fit... without court interference.

I don't think you understand how Anti-Trust exemptions work.

Furthermore, without the players, the league doesn't exist and the owners "own" nothing.

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:30 PM
So...is Nick Wright...right?



getnickwright (http://twitter.com/#%21/getnickwright) nick wright



There will be a prolonged court battle, but during the court battle football will be played, and that's what matters.

59 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/#%21/getnickwright/status/46337349784846337)


»
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1264519553/lebronpeepingass_normal.jpg
getnickwright (http://twitter.com/#%21/getnickwright) nick wright



If NFL locksout the players post-decertification, the NFL is violating anti-trust laws. Thus, the decertification blocks a lockout.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:32 PM
Well, apparently Waters had one of the last words during mediation.

SPchief
03-11-2011, 05:32 PM
DeMaurice Smith is crushing the owners in this speech

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:32 PM
So...is Nick Wright...right?

No, he's wrong.

The owners would be opening themselves up for HUGE lawsuits if they don't lockout the players. This isn't 1987.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:32 PM
I don't think you understand how Anti-Trust exemptions work.

Furthermore, without the players, the league doesn't exist and the owners "own" nothing.

Not 'the' players, 'these' players is more accurate. If these guys don't want to line up and play there's no shortage of people who will.

wazu
03-11-2011, 05:32 PM
Forefathers?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 05:33 PM
I don't think so, I think the NFL acted in good faith and the NFLPA DID NOT.. I think the NFLPA had no intention to negotiate but was planning on going to court all along... and I sincerely hope it fucks them square in the ass by doing so.

If they ACTUALLY go to court... I would MOST LIKE to never see another one of these dirtbags take the field again, but since that is unreasonable, I would settle for the courts letting a lockout proceed and them coming back to the owners hat in hand and getting a far worse deal than what was offered today.

All of that being said, this could all be part of the process and they could back at the table Monday morning working out a deal... if that is the case then fair play to all parties involved.

Yeah, the owners really negotiated in good faith. So much so that they won't even make their financials transparent and they want players to play an already unbelievably brutal game 2 more times a year while an avalanche of data is coming in that shows said game has extremely deleterious health effects.

Fortunately, the owners all have to work very hard "owning" their teams, they truly bust their asses.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:33 PM
DeMaurice Smith is crushing the owners in this speech

Agreed.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:34 PM
Which is what makes the NFL unique and worth of Anti-Trust exemptions.



Your "point" is valid IF and only IF the NFL loses ALL Anti-Trust exemptions.

At that point, the NFL would become 32 separate entities and the players could sue them all, not to mention the fact that their TV contract would become invalid, as would revenue sharing, etc. and so on.

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

AHHHHHRGHH No no and more no... That is not what makes them unique and worth anti-trust exemptions... at least not in the eyes of the law. They have an anti-trust exemption in this regard simply to allow them to exist. PERIOD. It's because of the unique nature of professional sports and the lack of competing leagues. If there were 5 "NFLs" then all of this would be moot. It's massively more complicated than that... but it has nothing to do with quality of players and such.

Also, the TV exemption is a law that supersedes anti-trust regulations and has NOTHING to do with the CBA, union or anything we are talking about here...so NO they would not lose their TV contracts. It would take a separate court challenge to that specific law.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 05:34 PM
DeMaurice Smith is crushing the owners in this speech

It would be truly wonderful if he called them rat-infested cunts.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:35 PM
Not 'the' players, 'these' players is more accurate. If these guys don't want to line up and play there's no shortage of people who will.


LMAO

Because the networks will pay $9 billion per year to watch a bunch of fat, out of shape fucktards to play football.

JFC.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 05:36 PM
LMAO

Because the networks will pay $9 billion per year to watch a bunch of fat, out of shape fucktards to play football.

JFC.

Fuck man, CP is filled with guys who would have made the Top Performers list on the NFL Combine's webpage. There's no shortage of guys who are 6'5" 240 lbs who can run a 4.46. Just look at this site.

Detoxing
03-11-2011, 05:37 PM
Agreed.

what's he saying?

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:37 PM
Yeah, the owners really negotiated in good faith. So much so that they won't even make their financials transparent and they want players to play an already unbelievably brutal game 2 more times a year while an avalanche of data is coming in that shows said game has extremely deleterious health effects.

Fortunately, the owners all have to work very hard "owning" their teams, they truly bust their asses.

Gotcha.. so screw those really rich guys! We should all have their money! Workers unite!

Come'on, dude. Don't be an idiot. Just because it's not 'fair' that they get to live the life they live doesn't mean the courts should force some socialist bullshit solution on them.

The NFL owners are subject to independent revenue audits and offered major concessions today and the NFLPA didn't budge... screw them.

jjchieffan
03-11-2011, 05:38 PM
Yeah, and then NFLN cut the lawyer for the NFLPA off when questions started. Gave him 30 seconds of airtime. They're like Fox ****ing news in this situation.

Whoa there buddy? Are you saying that Fox news is more biased than the other networks? Come on, now. CNN and those other guys spin news so bad for the dems, its more like entertainment than news.

BTW, I think these posts belong in the DC forum.:evil:

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:38 PM
AHHHHHRGHH No no and more no... That is not what makes them unique and worth anti-trust exemptions... at least not in the eyes of the law. They have an anti-trust exemption in this regard simply to allow them to exist. PERIOD. It's because of the unique nature of professional sports and the lack of competing leagues. If there were 5 "NFLs" then all of this would be moot. It's massively more complicated than that... but it has nothing to do with quality of players and such.

Of course it has to do with the players. If it weren't for the players, the networks wouldn't be shelling out $9 billion per year to broadcast the games.

And they have Anti-Trust exemption to exist but if they don't exist "faithfully", they and will be sued by the players.

The bottom line is that the NFL in its current state wouldn't exist without the players.

Also, the TV exemption is a law that supersedes anti-trust regulations and has NOTHING to do with the CBA, union or anything we are talking about here...so NO they would not lose their TV contracts. It would take a separate court challenge to that specific law.

This is unequivocally untrue. David Doty ruled last week that the owners would no longer be privy to those funds.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:39 PM
LMAO

Because the networks will pay $9 billion per year to watch a bunch of fat, out of shape ****tards to play football.

JFC.

How long is the average career? The league could have all new players of equal skill in what, 3-4 years? If that long, save for a couple of the QB's maybe?

I'm sure the guys coming out of college would say, "F it, those guys that played 4 years ago didn't like how they were paid so I'm going to go play in Canada instead."

Both sides suck in this, but acting like one side is totally at fault is crazy. Ultimately, I side with the owners. Typically the owner of the company determines what the employees are paid, and if the employees don't like it they can go work somewhere else.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:39 PM
Gotcha.. so screw those really rich guys! We should all have their money! Workers unite!

Come'on, dude. Don't be an idiot. Just because it's not 'fair' that they get to live the life they live doesn't mean the courts should force some socialist bullshit solution on them.

The NFL owners are subject to independent revenue audits and offered major concessions today and the NFLPA didn't budge... screw them.

LMAO

They're PARTNERS. Without the players, the NFL doesn't exist.

If the best players in the world aren't playing in the NFL, it becomes as relevant as the UFL or the Arena League.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:39 PM
I don't think you understand how Anti-Trust exemptions work.

Furthermore, without the players, the league doesn't exist and the owners "own" nothing.

I was just about to say the same to to you...

Yet again, I think you are thinking this is baseball... the NFL's "exemptions" are far more limited than you are obviously understanding.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:40 PM
Typically the owner of the company determines what the employees are paid, and if the employees don't like it they can go work somewhere else.

Wow, you CLEARLY don't get it, AT ALL.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 05:40 PM
Gotcha.. so screw those really rich guys! We should all have their money! Workers unite!

Come'on, dude. Don't be an idiot. Just because it's not 'fair' that they get to live the life they live doesn't mean the courts should force some socialist bullshit solution on them.

The NFL owners are subject to independent revenue audits and offered major concessions today and the NFLPA didn't budge... screw them.

Yay for false dichotomies and straw men.

It has nothing to do with imposing a [red herring of] socialism upon the owners and everything to do with letting the people who actually work in the league make the money.

The owners literally do nothing. There is no risk involved with owning the business, and the profit margins are immense. I'm not going to shed a fucking tear if the greedy cocksuckers get their dicks stuck in the pickle slicer because they wanted even more revenue and even more games and now are about to get a 13" kielbasa tickling the insides of their taints.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:41 PM
Could someone please explain this to me? I get the CBA expired, but after that I don't understand anything.

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:41 PM
DeMaurice Smith did crush the NFL ROFL

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:43 PM
Yay for false dichotomies and straw men.

It has nothing to do with imposing a [red herring of] socialism upon the owners and everything to do with letting the people who actually work in the league make the money.

The owners literally do nothing. There is no risk involved with owning the business, and the profit margins are immense. I'm not going to shed a ****ing tear if the greedy one who sucks the peniss get their dicks stuck in the pickle slicer because they wanted even more revenue and even more games and now are about to get a 13" kielbasa tickling the insides of their taints.

Dude, it costs $1,000,000,000 to buy a franchise. That's not 'no risk.'

If running a billion dollar company was a no-risk, sit-on-your-ass and do nothing activity there'd be a hell of a lot more people running them. LMAO

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:43 PM
Could someone please explain this to me? I get the CBA expired, but after that I don't understand anything.

NFL: We're losing money, give us some more

NFLPA: No, prove that you're losing money

NFL: No

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:43 PM
I was just about to say the same to to you...

Yet again, I think you are thinking this is baseball... the NFL's "exemptions" are far more limited than you are obviously understanding.

So, you're claiming that the NFL doesn't have Anti-Trust exemptions?

This has already been discussed. MLB has BROAD anti-trust exemptions which are far greater than what the NFL receives but the NFL certainly has anti-trust exemptions.

And now that the union has de-certified, they've lost those exemption and can be sued.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:43 PM
Okay, Waters said the last words to the owners.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:44 PM
Of course it has to do with the players. If it weren't for the players, the networks wouldn't be shelling out $9 billion per year to broadcast the games.

And they have Anti-Trust exemption to exist but if they don't exist "faithfully", they and will be sued by the players.

The bottom line is that the NFL in its current state wouldn't exist without the players.



This is unequivocally untrue. David Doty ruled last week that the owners would no longer be privy to those funds.


OMG, dude, I really like you and you are generally one of the brighter guys here... but you are so far off on your understanding of the law in this.... it's bad...

The Doty ruling (which could easily get overturned) has nothing to do with the 1960 law I am referencing... you are mixing legal apples and oranges here.

Unfortunately, my understanding of the law here is not good enough to explain it better to you ... can we get an anti-trust lawyer up in here please?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:44 PM
Dude, it costs $1,000,000,000 to buy a franchise. That's not 'no risk.'

If running a billion dollar company was a no-risk, sit-on-your-ass and do nothing activity there'd be a hell of a lot more people running them. LMAO

And how many owners purchased franchises when the cost was far less?

Owning an NFL team is guaranteed money, especially with the television contracts in place.

tomahawk kid
03-11-2011, 05:44 PM
NFL: We're losing money, give us some more

NFLPA: No, prove that you're losing money

NFL: No

ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 05:45 PM
Dude, it costs $1,000,000,000 to buy a franchise. That's not 'no risk.'

If running a billion dollar company was a no-risk, sit-on-your-ass and do nothing activity there'd be a hell of a lot more people running them. LMAO

No, it's pretty much a no-risk investment. Buy a team and you are guaranteed profit. You are also guaranteed an investment that does nothing but escalate in value.

Name one NFL team that was ever sold for less than what it cost to buy. Ever.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:45 PM
OMG, dude, I really like you and you are generally one of the brighter guys here... but you are so far off on your understanding of the law in this.... it's bad...


No, I'm not.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/03/11/whatnext/index.html?eref=sihp

Now that the NFL Players Association has decided to decertify, here's a road map of what might happen next.

1. The NFL will immediately file a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in an attempt to block the decertification. The NFL will argue that the NFLPA is acting in bad faith and that the NFLPA's true goal is to get the NFL exposed to antitrust litigation as a way of grabbing owners' money.

2. The NLRB takes no immediate action on the NFL's grievance over the weekend as its offices will be closed. The NFLPA proceeds as if it has decertified. Monday comes along and the NLRB schedules a hearing, possibly for later in the week, to review the NFLPA's decertification.

3. In addition to the NFL's NLRB grievance, the NFLPA will file a request for a temporary restraining order with U.S. District Judge David Doty in an attempt to block the NFL from executing a lockout. The NFLPA, with Tom Brady and Peyton Manning as named plaintiffs, will argue that the lockout would violate players' employment contracts with NFL teams and would constitute a group boycott under federal antitrust law, which it can now turn to since the NFLPA has decertified. Federal antitrust law is very threatening, as damages in a successful antitrust lawsuit are automatically multiplied by three.

4. I believe Judge Doty would grant the NFLPA's temporary injunction on the condition that the NFLPA temporarily withdraw its decertification papers, thus temporarily removing the NLRB from the situation, and that he hears substantive arguments from both parties in the following week or two concerning the legality of the NFL's proposed lockout.

5. The NFL then files papers for emergency appeal of Judge Doty's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which can review Judge Doty. The NFL states that it does not trust Doty's objectivity and will offer legal arguments that the NFLPA has no law to support blocking a lockout.

6. The NFL's emergency appeal attempt will be unlikely to work; appellate courts normally don't take them absent compelling circumstances. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit took the Clarett v. NFL case on emergency appeal after Clarett won before U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin and was temporarily eligible for the 2004 NFL Draft.

7. Assuming 8th Circuit does not reverse Judge Doty, he then informs the NFL and NFLPA to prepare arguments before his court. His doing so gives the NFL and NFLPA more time to bargain before Doty's hearing. During this time, the expired CBA would still have legal effect and NFL business would proceed as normal -- free agency signings still happen, consistent with current CBA rules, teams continue to prepare for 2011 NFL Draft etc. A week or two after the hearing, Doty makes his decision on whether an NFL lockout would be legal. Possible twist: NFL and NFLPA reach a deal in the interim (unlikely).

8. Assuming there is no deal between NFL and NFLPA and assuming Judge Doty rules in favor of NFL -- meaning the lockout would be given the green light -- league operations would then stop and the players would then continue their decertification. The NLRB would then conduct a hearing on the decertification. NFLPA would likely win that NLRB hearing since bad faith will be hard for NFL to show.

Assuming NFLPA wins the NLRB hearing, the nuclear outcome would emerge: no union, no bargaining (since decertification removes the NFLPA's power to collectively bargain) and no football. Such a stalemate could go on potentially for years, but that would not necessarily mean no football the whole time. If the owners wanted to restore football, they could end their lockout while the NFLPA was decertified and NFL players and teams would operate as if the expired CBA was still in effect. The NFLPA could then be recertified when NFL players were ready to strike a new CBA with the owners. This is what happened in the late '80s/early '90s, with games played in spite of an expired CBA and a decertified NFLPA.

The risk for the players is if the NFLPA decertifies (and assuming NFL fails to block that) and if the owners commence a lockout (and assuming NFLPA fails to block that), then the players better be prepared for the owners not restoring football and just waiting out the players to see if they capitulate and walk back to the bargaining table almost like beggars, offering to recertify and take whatever offer the NFL gives them.

9. Assuming there is no deal between NFL and NFLPA and assuming Judge Doty rules in favor of NFLPA -- meaning the lockout would be given the red light -- players would obtain tremendous leverage in negotiations. They could decertify and bring antitrust lawsuits and the league wouldn't be able to block those lawsuits. The players, however, would likely not decertify in this situation (or, if already decertified, they would recertify), since they are reasonably comfortable with the terms of the current CBA and it would remain in effect until a new CBA is reached. In this scenario, NFL teams would operate as normal and the 2011 season would be restored -- at least until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reviews Doty's decision.

10. Whether the NFL or NFLPA win before Judge Doty regarding the legality of the NFL's lockout, his decision would be subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and potentially (though unlikely) the United States Supreme Court. If the 8th Circuit reverses in favor of the NFL, the players would then return to the decertification route and there would be no football and no negotiations. If the 8th Circuit reverses in favor of the NFLPA, the owners cannot execute a lockout and the players obtain leverage in negotiating a new CBA and probably don't decertify.

The loser in this could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court rejects approximately 98 or 99% of writs, with accepted ones usually involving splits in authority among federal circuits (not applicable here) or other novel questions of law (possibly applicable here).

11. It's also possible that after all this, the NFL's proposed lockout could be deemed illegal and the NFLPA's proposed decertification could also be deemed illegal, meaning the parties would then have to negotiate.

It's not unfathomable to think that President Obama would eventually get involved, not by forcing any action by the NFL or NFLPA, but by using the power of the Presidency to pressure both parties to stop being so selfish. He could end up playing a huge role here, and with the 2012 re-election campaign gearing up, the timing may be ripe for that.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:46 PM
And how many owners purchased franchises when the cost was far less?

Maybe one of us can go ahead and give the Hunts $25,000 and buy the Chiefs today?

If they bought when it was far cheaper they made a good investment. LMAO

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 05:46 PM
NFL: We're losing money, give us some more

NFLPA: No, prove that you're losing money

NFL: No this can't be right. how could the players give the owners more money? Who writes the checks?
Posted via Mobile Device

Mr. Laz
03-11-2011, 05:46 PM
NFLPA no longer regulating agents
March 11 3/11/2011 5:36:49 PM

The NFL Players Association informed agents in a memo that it's no longer in the business of regulating contract advisors according to Aaron Wilson of the National Football Post.

Here's a copy of that memo:

MEMORANDUM

To: Contract Advisors

From: NFLPA Legal Department

Re: Renunciation of Bargaining Rights

Date: March 11, 2011
===============================
By now you are aware that members of the National Football League Players Association renounced the NFLPA’s status as the collective bargaining agent for NFL Players. Going forward, the NFLPA will instead be operating as a professional association committed to promoting, protecting and enhancing the careers of professional football players – past, present and future.

By becoming a professional association, the NFLPA has changed its relationship with agents who represent NFL players. Since the NFLPA no longer is the collective bargaining representative of NFL players for wages, hours and working conditions, it is no longer a requirement that Contract Advisors be certified by the NFLPA in order to represent players in individual contract negotiations with NFL clubs. In other words, the NFLPA is discontinuing its agent regulation system.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call any member of the NFLPA Legal Department.
======================================

Don't forget to follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/theredzoneorg

jjchieffan
03-11-2011, 05:47 PM
Funny that Hamas and Dane seem to be taking the side that most of the rest of CP is against. That alone is enough to make me believe that the owners are right and will end up winning.LMAO

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 05:47 PM
this can't be right. how could the players give the owners more money? Who writes the checks?
Posted via Mobile Device

The owners get the first billion of all TV revenue to themselves. After that, the rest is split at a 58/42 rate.

The owners wanted two billion to themselves, and then a subsequent split.

That's the money they were talking about.

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:48 PM
this can't be right. how could the players give the owners more money? Who writes the checks?
Posted via Mobile Device

NFL: We're losing money, instead of giving you $X, let's give you a few hundred million less...

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 05:48 PM
Funny that Hamas and Dane seem to be taking the side that most of the rest of CP is against.

You are really, really fucking stupid.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2011, 05:48 PM
this can't be right. how could the players give the owners more money? Who writes the checks?
Posted via Mobile Device
exactly

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:49 PM
Funny that Hamas and Dane seem to be taking the side that most of the rest of CP is against. That alone is enough to make me believe that the owners are right and will end up winning.LMAO

:spock: Who's against the players? It's fucking obvious that the owners are in the wrong. If not, they'd gladly prove that they're losing money.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 05:50 PM
And how the fuck can von miller sue the nfl over a rookie wage scale?
He isn't even IN the nfl. If you don't like it don't enter the draft.
I would also assume he wasn't a member of the union.
Posted via Mobile Device

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:50 PM
:spock: Who's against the players? It's ****ing obvious that the owners are in the wrong. If not, they'd gladly prove that they're losing money.

This is all because of money and greed.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:51 PM
You are really, really ****ing stupid.

LMAO

I think he's looking for you and Dane to fill in for Mecca? Or something like that....

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:51 PM
OMG, dude, I really like you and you are generally one of the brighter guys here... but you are so far off on your understanding of the law in this.... it's bad...

And here's more:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_17512842?nclick_check=1

Judge sides with NFL players in TV dispute
Minneapolis ruling over $4.078 billion could influence labor talks

The NFL violated the collective bargaining agreement with its players by renegotiating $4.078 billion in television rights fees for team owners to tap during a lockout even if no games are played in 2011, a federal judge in Minneapolis ruled Tuesday.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge David S. Doty was a blow to the NFL and could influence contract negotiations between the league and Players Association.

With billions of dollars worth of leverage at stake, the league's collective bargaining agreement is scheduled to expire at 11 p.m. Thursday.

Owners have vowed to lock out the players unless a new deal is reached, which would shatter more than 23 years of labor peace in North America's most popular sport.

Doty ruled that the NFL breached its contract with the union by accepting below-market TV deals for 2011 that produced less revenue to share with the players in exchange for the networks paying their rights fees during a lockout.

"The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players," Doty wrote in his 28-page decision.

He overruled a special master's decision that sided with the NFL on the matter and ordered another hearing to determine whether the league's violation entitles the union to monetary damages or a court order blocking owners from collecting the TV money.

The Players Association wants Doty to issue an injunction and place the money in escrow pending a new labor agreement to prevent the 32 clubs from using the broadcast revenue as lockout insurance.

"This ruling means there is irrefutable evidence that owners had a premeditated plan to lock out players and fans for more than two years," George Atallah, assistant executive director of external affairs, said in a statement. "The players want to play football. That is the only goal we are focused on."

The NFL countered with a statement playing down the significance of Doty's decision on federally mediated labor talks, which continued Tuesday in Washington, D.C.

"As we have frequently said, our clubs are prepared for any contingency, this decision included," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. "Today's ruling will have no effect on our efforts to negotiate a new, balanced labor agreement."

The NFL has deals with NBC, FOX, CBS and ESPN through the 2013 season and DirecTV through 2014. In 2010, the NFL earned more than $9 billion in revenue it shared with the players — half of which came from its TV deals, according to the union.

NFL attorney Gregg Levy argued in a hearing before Doty last week that the league renegotiated the agreements to broaden distribution and secure more digital revenue. Levy also cautioned Doty that the union wants him to issue an injunction to "put a thumb on the scales of the collective bargaining process," which would be "repugnant" to federal labor laws designed to protect unions and businesses from court intervention.

This month, Special Master Stephen Burbank rejected the union's claim and ruled the NFL used "sound business judgment" in renegotiating its TV contracts, which require the league to repay the networks rights fees with interest if games are canceled.

Desperate to prevent owners from using the $4.078 billion to finance a work stoppage, the union appealed Burbank's decision to Doty, who has overseen the collective bargaining agreement since brokering the 1993 Reggie White settlement that established modern free agency and the salary cap.

Doty said Burbank erred by failing to recognize that the labor agreement requires the NFL to maximize its television contracts for the joint benefit of the league and Players Association.

Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, did rule that the NFL violated parts of the collective bargaining agreement in renegotiating specific deals with ESPN and NBC and awarded the NFLPA $6.9 million in damages.

But it was a pittance compared to the $60 million the union sought and the $4.078 billion earmarked for owners next fall while the locked-out players face life without paychecks.

Doty ordered both sides to file legal arguments regarding damages and a possible injunction but did not schedule a hearing date.

The NFL twice has attempted but failed to remove Doty from his stewardship over collective bargaining. The most recent dustup involved Doty's 2008 decision allowing Michael Vick to retain $20 million in bonuses from the Atlanta Falcons after Burbank ruled the quarterback violated his contract when he was convicted of fronting an illegal dog-fighting ring.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 05:51 PM
I get that hamas.....

who writes the checks?
The owners get the first billion of all TV revenue to themselves. After that, the rest is split at a 58/42 rate.

The owners wanted two billion to themselves, and then a subsequent split.

That's the money they were talking about.
Posted via Mobile Device

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:51 PM
So, you're claiming that the NFL doesn't have Anti-Trust exemptions?

This has already been discussed. MLB has BROAD anti-trust exemptions which are far greater than what the NFL receives but the NFL certainly has anti-trust exemptions.

And now that the union has de-certified, they've lost those exemption and can be sued.

No, I'm claiming that their exemptions are so so so much more limited than what you seem to think.

There are TWO big exemptions... one is the 1960 LAW that handles the ability to negotiate TV deals collectively the other is the very right to exist since they don't have any competition. (obviously, if we had the USFL, NFL, AFL, XFL... it could easily be argued that they don't hold a monopoly.. ) Various court rulings have given the NFL a de facto right to exist but have NOT given them sweeping anti-trust exemptions... the most recent ruling (1993) predicated that right to exist upon the current CBA and existence of the NFLPA union.

The players can now file a class action law suit (6 months from now actually.. it was in the 1993 ruling) but won't likely get anywhere. The NFL owners still pretty much hold all the cards... and deservedly so.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:52 PM
And how the fuck can von miller sue the nfl over a rookie wage scale?
He isn't even IN the nfl. If you don't like it don't enter the draft.
I would also assume he wasn't a member of the union.
Posted via Mobile Device

He's not suing over the rookie wage scale.

:facepalm:

He's suing to have the right to play football and earn a living.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:53 PM
The owners get the first billion of all TV revenue to themselves. After that, the rest is split at a 58/42 rate.

The owners wanted two billion to themselves, and then a subsequent split.

That's the money they were talking about.

When all this settles the owners will get about $1.25-$1.5B and then split. Both sides are reaching for the moon right now. Well, considering the owners offered a number a lot closer to $1.5B today I'd say they're not reaching as high as the players are...

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Holy shit

Source: Free agency could start at midnight
Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2011, 6:31 PM EST


As the league scrambles to process the meaning of the union’s decision to decertify, a high-level source with one team tells PFT that the league is preparing for the possibility that free agency could begin soon.

As in at midnight.

Per the source, the league is bracing for the possibility of a ruling from Judge David Doty that would force the doors to remain open, compelling the league to allow player movement and trades as soon as 12:01 a.m. Saturday.

Thus, by tomorrow at this time, Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha could (key word . . . “could”) have a new team.

Though no one knows for sure whether that will happen, there’s a fear/belief that it could, and teams are preparing for the possibility.

Holy crap, this could get very interesting.

chiefqueen
03-11-2011, 05:54 PM
Per Adam Schletter the NFLPA decertified at 5:02 PM, however, the deadline to decertify was at 5:00 PM. I know it is only 2 min but in the legal world (where all i's must be dotted and t's crossed) this could be huge, It could mean their petition could get tossed out and they could not attempt decertification again until mid-Sept.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:54 PM
The players can now file a class action law suit (6 months from now actually.. it was in the 1993 ruling) but won't likely get anywhere. The NFL owners still pretty much hold all the cards... and deservedly so.

You actually think the owners should be allowed to "own all the cards"?

Wow.

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:54 PM
Holy shit

R

kstater
03-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Per Adam Schletter the NFLPA decertified at 5:02 PM, however, the deadline to decertify was at 5:00 PM. I know it is only 2 min but in the legal world (where all i's must be dotted and t's crossed) this could be huge, It could mean their petition could get tossed out and they could not attempt decertification again until mid-Sept.

Holy Shit

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:55 PM
I get that hamas.....

who writes the checks?

Posted via Mobile Device

The networks and the fans.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Per Adam Schletter the NFLPA decertified at 5:02 PM, however, the deadline to decertify was at 5:00 PM. I know it is only 2 min but in the legal world (where all i's must be dotted and t's crossed) this could be huge, It could mean their petition could get tossed out and they could not attempt decertification again until mid-Sept.

This is where you sue your attorney for a SHITLOAD of money. LMAO

Rams Fan
03-11-2011, 05:56 PM
Per Adam Schletter the NFLPA decertified at 5:02 PM, however, the deadline to decertify was at 5:00 PM. I know it is only 2 min but in the legal world (where all i's must be dotted and t's crossed) this could be huge, It could mean their petition could get tossed out and they could not attempt decertification again until mid-Sept.

This is going to be interesting...

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:57 PM
Per Adam Schletter the NFLPA decertified at 5:02 PM, however, the deadline to decertify was at 5:00 PM. I know it is only 2 min but in the legal world (where all i's must be dotted and t's crossed) this could be huge, It could mean their petition could get tossed out and they could not attempt decertification again until mid-Sept.

This is not listed on Schefter's Twitter account.

Where did you see this information?

Superturtle
03-11-2011, 05:57 PM
Jesus, who fucked that one up?

-King-
03-11-2011, 05:58 PM
@CBSSportsNFL (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://twitter.com/CBSSportsNFL&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Hrd6TdX5GcmRgQfJg6XbBw&ved=0CEkQsQcwBQ&q=5:02&usg=AFQjCNE6vVFXc-AxpvIlyW7V_zO1pImllA): George Atallah says union filed at 5:02. But DeMaurice Smith's letter says "as of 4:00 pm eastern time today" ....
Twitter - 45 minutes ago (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://twitter.com/tylerhasty/status/46347919686762496&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Hrd6TdX5GcmRgQfJg6XbBw&ved=0CEoQrwcwBQ&q=5:02&usg=AFQjCNEFHQTH_4g2d2oerqRP4O3orBVrng)

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 05:58 PM
Jesus, who fucked that one up?

I can't find confirmation ANYWHERE that it actually occurred.

CaliforniaChief
03-11-2011, 05:59 PM
They should have used legalzoom.com instead.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 05:59 PM
And here's more:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_17512842?nclick_check=1


Dude, just stop... that ruling has to do with the money from the deals which has to do with the CBA... NOT THE DEALS THEMSELVES... the NFL can strike any deal(s) it wants... to the CBA dictates (or used to) what they do with the money after the fact...

The CBA was in place at the time the current deal was struck so any revenue would still be subject to the old CBA (according to Doty)... the TV contract itself would NOT be invalid and it would NOT prevent the NFL from negotiating future contracts.

On a side note: Now that the union is gone... it's likely that the Doty ruling could be set aside.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2011, 05:59 PM
:spock: Who's against the players? It's ****ing obvious that the owners are in the wrong. If not, they'd gladly prove that they're losing money.

1. every NFL fan should be against the players ... the more money the players make the higher the tickets,parking,t.v and other cost relative to the NFL business are going to be.

2. It's the Owner gawd dam money and they shouldn't have to prove anything. The players can fuck off and die if they don't like the salary they are offered.

I hope the owners blow the whole thing up before they let the players use the courts to blackmail them into a financial agreement.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 06:00 PM
@CBSSportsNFL (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://twitter.com/CBSSportsNFL&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Hrd6TdX5GcmRgQfJg6XbBw&ved=0CEkQsQcwBQ&q=5:02&usg=AFQjCNE6vVFXc-AxpvIlyW7V_zO1pImllA): George Atallah says union filed at 5:02. But DeMaurice Smith's letter says "as of 4:00 pm eastern time today" ....
Twitter - 45 minutes ago (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://twitter.com/tylerhasty/status/46347919686762496&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Hrd6TdX5GcmRgQfJg6XbBw&ved=0CEoQrwcwBQ&q=5:02&usg=AFQjCNEFHQTH_4g2d2oerqRP4O3orBVrng)


http://twitter.com/#!/CBSSportsNFL/status/46345775210430464

That links to said tweet.

chiefqueen
03-11-2011, 06:00 PM
This is not listed on Schefter's Twitter account.

Where did you see this information?

ON ESPN on SportsCenter

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:02 PM
Dude, just stop... that ruling has to do with the money from the deals which has to do with the CBA... NOT THE DEALS THEMSELVES... the NFL can strike any deal(s) it wants to the CBA dictates what they do with the money after the fact...

The CBA was in place at the time the current deal was struck so any revenue would still be subject to the old CBA (according to Doty)... the TV contract itself would NOT be invalid and it would NOT prevent the NFL from negotiating future contracts.

On a side note: Now that the union is gone... it's likely that the Doty ruling could be set aside.

There's no "reason" to stop: The owners can't tap into $4 billion dollars that would have otherwise helped them stay afloat if there's no football in 2011 or 2012. That's HUGE.

CaliforniaChief
03-11-2011, 06:03 PM
1. every NFL fan should be against the players ... the more money the players make the higher the tickets,parking,t.v and other cost relative to the NFL business are going to be.

2. It's the Owner gawd dam money and they shouldn't have to prove anything. The players can fuck off and die if they don't like the salary they are offered.

I hope the owners blow the whole thing up before they let the players use the courts to blackmail them into a financial agreement.

Maybe if the books were opened up a little bit we would all see how badly owners are gouging the fans.

Also, it's not the owners' money...it's our money. And if they blow up the whole thing or bring in replacements they won't have as much of our money anymore.

It's a partnership. The owners and players are interdependent. Unfortunately, a work stoppage really only screws people whose livelihoods are dependent on the NFL doing business as usual.

Also, it was not blackmail by the players. The owners are the ones who voided the CBA, right?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:03 PM
ON ESPN on SportsCenter

If the letter faxed states 4:00pm and every news outlet, including the NFL Network, reported that it was faxed before the 5:00pm deadline, I seriously doubt it'll be a legal issue.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 06:05 PM
There's no "reason" to stop: The owners can't tap into $4 billion dollars that would have otherwise helped them stay afloat if there's no football in 2011 or 2012. That's HUGE.

yes it is huge... but has NOTHING to do with the legality of them negotiating TV deals.. it would be the same if this was a merchandise deal or any other revenue stream that they had a pre-existing contract regarding.

...of course now that the union no longer exists... it's kinda hard for the Doty ruling to be upheld... as a matter of fact, I would fully expect the NFL to have it set aside.

kstater
03-11-2011, 06:06 PM
Maybe if the books were opened up a little bit we would all see how badly owners are gouging the fans.



You have no clue as to what financial reports the owners offered the players. Don't pretend that they're sitting there offering nothing in that regards. It's reported that they've offered as much information to the players as they have in the history of the league.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:06 PM
Also, the TV exemption is a law that supersedes anti-trust regulations and has NOTHING to do with the CBA, union or anything we are talking about here...so NO they would not lose their TV contracts. It would take a separate court challenge to that specific law.

No offense but you're crazy to think that ESPN would pay $2 billion a year for scab players.

ESPN, Fox, CBS and NBC would immediately sue the owners if the owners didn't provide the specified product.

Those TV contracts would be ruled invalid almost immediately.

Detoxing
03-11-2011, 06:09 PM
Per Adam Schletter the NFLPA decertified at 5:02 PM, however, the deadline to decertify was at 5:00 PM. I know it is only 2 min but in the legal world (where all i's must be dotted and t's crossed) this could be huge, It could mean their petition could get tossed out and they could not attempt decertification again until mid-Sept.

Who is Adam Schletter?

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 06:09 PM
Maybe if the books were opened up a little bit we would all see how badly owners are gouging the fans.

Also, it's not the owners' money...it's our money. And if they blow up the whole thing or bring in replacements they won't have as much of our money anymore.

It's a partnership. The owners and players are interdependent. Unfortunately, a work stoppage really only screws people whose livelihoods are dependent on the NFL doing business as usual.

Also, it was not blackmail by the players. The owners are the ones who voided the CBA, right?

Spoken like a true Californian... It ceases to be our money once we pay for the product. Can I go to a movie, pay for my ticket, wacth the feature then claim that I own the theatre? Come'on... it's the owners' money, plain and simple.

It's our FUTURE money that they are risking, true... but we'll pay, we always do.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:11 PM
Sorry but thats NOT what it says on tv.

says von miley is part of the lawsuit regarding potential rookie salary cap in upcoming draft. Per espn.He's not suing over the rookie wage scale.

:facepalm:

He's suing to have the right to play football and earn a living.
Posted via Mobile Device

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 06:11 PM
No offense but you're crazy to think that ESPN would pay $2 billion a year for scab players.

ESPN, Fox, CBS and NBC would immediately sue the owners if the owners didn't provide the specified product.

Those TV contracts would be ruled invalid almost immediately.

NO they wouldn't since there are specific clauses in place for this VERY REASON... no chance they COULD or WOULD sue. The contracts SPECIFY that the NFL gets paid regardless of games played... it's all spelled out. The NFL owners aren't idiots.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:12 PM
Okay, Waters said the last words to the owners.
Obviously you didn't understand what he was saying.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:13 PM
NO they wouldn't since there are specific clauses in place for this VERY REASON... no chance they COULD or WOULD sue. The contracts SPECIFY that the NFL gets paid regardless of games played... it's all spelled out. The NFL owners aren't idiots.

That was NOT my understanding, whatsoever.

The only contract that would remain intact was the Direct TV contract, which specifically stated that they'd have to pay the NFL owners regardless of the product or in the event of a canceled season.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:14 PM
The networks and the fans.

Yep and those checks are cashed by the owners. When did you pay a player?
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:15 PM
Sorry but thats NOT what it says on tv.

says von miley is part of the lawsuit regarding potential rookie salary cap in upcoming draft. Per espn.
Posted via Mobile Device

Manning, Brady, Brees are among 9 plaintifffs who have filed antitrust claims in 8th Circuit Court - includes Tex A&M rookie Von Miller.

http://twitter.com/#!/mortreport

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:15 PM
Yep and those checks are cashed by the owners. When did you pay a player?
Posted via Mobile Device

The bottom line is that the league would cease to exist without the players.

End of story.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:18 PM
Yep and von millers antitrust claim had to do with the wage scale.

That's the problem with 140 characters sometimes things are left out.Manning, Brady, Brees are among 9 plaintifffs who have filed antitrust claims in 8th Circuit Court - includes Tex A&M rookie Von Miller.

http://twitter.com/#!/mortreport
Posted via Mobile Device

DA_T_84
03-11-2011, 06:18 PM
Manning, Brady, Brees are among 9 plaintifffs who have filed antitrust claims in 8th Circuit Court - includes Tex A&M rookie Von Miller.

http://twitter.com/#!/mortreport

Missed this, and started a thread.

my bad.

Von Dumbass
03-11-2011, 06:19 PM
If the season is lost Denver will get the number 2 pick again next year. :)

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:19 PM
Yep and von millers antitrust claim had to do with the wage scale.

That's the problem with 140 characters sometimes things are left out.
Posted via Mobile Device

MVP Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are among the players who filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL on Friday to prevent a lockout.

Just after the players' union decertified, the star quarterbacks and seven other players filed suit against the NFL in U.S. District Court, seeking class-action against the league. They also filed a request for an injunction that would keep the NFL and the teams from engaging in a lockout.

The collective bargaining agreement with the league expires at the end of Friday.

Also involved in bringing the lawsuit: San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson, Minnesota linebacker Ben Leber and defensive end Brian Robison, New England guard Logan Mankins, New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora, Kansas City linebacker Mike Vrabel, and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year's draft.

"The torch has been passed to a young Aggie who has decided to put his name on a lawsuit," Smith said.

Manning, Jackson and Mankins are free agents. The Colts tagged Manning as a franchise player, while the Chargers did the same with Jackson and the Patriots with Mankins. The union is disputing the validity of those tags.

The players allege that the NFL conspired to deny the players' ability to market their services.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/11/players.file.antitrust.ap/index.html#ixzz1GL8nEFye

-------------------------------------

No mention on SI.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:22 PM
If the season is lost Denver will get the number 2 pick again next year. :)

Based on what info? There won't be a draft in 2012 if there's no CBA with the players and no one knows what will be included in the next CBA.

CaliforniaChief
03-11-2011, 06:22 PM
Spoken like a true Californian... It ceases to be our money once we pay for the product. Can I go to a movie, pay for my ticket, wacth the feature then claim that I own the theatre? Come'on... it's the owners' money, plain and simple.

It's our FUTURE money that they are risking, true... but we'll pay, we always do.

Other than insulting my state (easy target), you pretty much summed up what I was trying to say. We are (along with advertisers), the revenue source. So to say that it's their money is only true as long as we're paying them.

BTW, I'm a borderline Ron Swansonesque libertarian. Not all of us are liberal.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:23 PM
Look on espn dane. Its there. I am not making it up.

Von miller is involved over the rookie wage scale per espn.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:25 PM
Look on espn dane. Its there. I am not making it up.

Von miller is involved over the rookie wage scale per espn.
Posted via Mobile Device

Please explain how it's possible to sue over something that doesn't exist?

There is no rookie wage scale because there is no agreement between the players and the owners.

Von Dumbass
03-11-2011, 06:25 PM
Based on what info? There won't be a draft in 2012 if there's no CBA with the players and no one knows what will be included in the next CBA.

It has been reported a couple of times by a couple of Broncos writers that the draft order would stay the same if a lockout happened.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 06:26 PM
I get that hamas.....

who writes the checks?

Posted via Mobile Device

If you want to play reductio ad absurdum, we do.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 06:27 PM
Other than insulting my state (easy target), you pretty much summed up what I was trying to say. We are (along with advertisers), the revenue source. So to say that it's their money is only true as long as we're paying them.

BTW, I'm a borderline Ron Swansonesque libertarian. Not all of us are liberal.

HAHA, yeah I couldn't resist the potshot at Cali... after my recent adventures living out there... I am just slightly jaded :D

I would have no problem with boycotts and whatnot IF I felt the owners were the bad guys..I TRULY don't think they are here (this time)... of course NONE of us knows for sure.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:27 PM
Hell of I know. Obviously none of us REALLY know what us going on. Not even you. Sorry.again on espn it said miller is involved over a rookie wage scale. Please explain how it's possible to sue over something that doesn't exist?

There is no rookie wage scale because there is no agreement between the players and the owners.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:28 PM
HAHA, yeah I couldn't resist the potshot at Cali... after my recent adventures living out there... I am just slightly jaded :D

I would have no problem with boycotts and whatnot IF I felt the owners were the bad guys..I TRULY don't think they are here (this time)... of course NONE of us knows for sure.

If they had provided financial transparency and the union rejected their offer, the players would be "the bad guys" in this scenario.

They didn't and now no one knows what comes next.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:29 PM
If you want to play reductio ad absurdum, we do.

Ok I'll ask you too...
When did you write a player a payroll check?
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:31 PM
How do you know how much info they gave out today?

Where you there?If they had provided financial transparency and the union rejected their offer, the players would be "the bad guys" in this scenario.

They didn't and now no one knows what comes next.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:31 PM
Hell of I know. Obviously none of us REALLY know what us going on. Not even you. Sorry.again on espn it said miller is involved over a rookie wage scale.
Posted via Mobile Device

Then either ESPN is wrong (and it's NOT on their site) or you heard incorrectly.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to sue someone for something that doesn't exist. Period. End of story.

I can't take you to court and sue you because you failed to put a water powered engine that gets 1,000 miles per one gallon of water, because IT DOESN'T exist.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 06:31 PM
If they had provided financial transparency and the union rejected their offer, the players would be "the bad guys" in this scenario.

They didn't and now no one knows what comes next.

IMO full transparency is asking FAR FAR FAR too much. Explain to me why independent auditing of revenue isn't enough? Do you honestly feel the players have a RIGHT to know exact profits/figures? Because that's simply ridiculous.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:31 PM
How do you know how much info they gave out today?

Where you there?
Posted via Mobile Device

LMAO

Are you not keeping up with the complete story, Jason?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 06:33 PM
Ok I'll ask you too...
When did you write a player a payroll check?
Posted via Mobile Device

The last 6 years when I forked over thousands of dollars for tickets. Every time I bought a coke and nachos at Arrowhead, and whenever I paid for my (now completely worthless) LJ jersey.

But you're right, Sauto, you're the one who pays your employees, it's not your customers who provide a revenue stream so that you even have a business to operate. Without your customers, you're just another guy in a garage with a hobby.

kstater
03-11-2011, 06:33 PM
If they had provided financial transparency and the union rejected their offer, the players would be "the bad guys" in this scenario.

They didn't and now no one knows what comes next.

Again, we don't know what financial statements the owners offered. We do know they players demanded 10 years of full audited reports. The owners have said they've given as much financial information to players as they ever have.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:34 PM
IMO full transparency is asking FAR FAR FAR too much. Explain to me why independent auditing of revenue isn't enough? Do you honestly feel the players have a RIGHT to know exact profits/figures? Because that's simply ridiculous.

They asked for 10 years and no, I don't think it's too much.

It's a partnership between the players and the owners. If the owners are asking for significant reductions in salary was well as an additional $1 billion off the top (making it $2 billion before earnings are calculated and distributed), why is it unfeasible for the players to ask, "Why"?

Why, in a time when the owners have $9 billion in television revenues alone, should they ask the players to take less money?

Why?

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:34 PM
Ok TURN ON ESPN NEWS AND READ THE SCROLL ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN.Then either ESPN is wrong (and it's NOT on their site) or you heard incorrectly.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to sue someone for something that doesn't exist. Period. End of story.

I can't take you to court and sue you because you failed to put a water powered engine that gets 1,000 miles per one gallon of water, because IT DOESN'T exist.
Posted via Mobile Device

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 06:34 PM
Again, we don't know what financial statements the owners offered. We do know they players demanded 10 years of full audited reports. The owners have said they've given as much financial information to players as they ever have.

Does as much = enough or transparent?

kstater
03-11-2011, 06:35 PM
Does as much = enough or transparent?

It equals we don't know what they offered. For all we know they could have offered the last 2 years expenses/revenues.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:36 PM
You're right. But I decide what to do with that money.

Those customers aren't paying my employees directly. I am, just like an nfl ownerThe last 6 years when I forked over thousands of dollars for tickets. Every time I bought a coke and nachos at Arrowhead, and whenever I paid for my (now completely worthless) LJ jersey.

But you're right, Sauto, you're the one who pays your employees, it's not your customers who provide a revenue stream so that you even have a business to operate. Without your customers, you're just another guy in a garage with a hobby.
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:37 PM
It equals we don't know what they offered. For all we know they could have offered the last 2 years expenses/revenues.

Thank you.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:43 PM
Ok TURN ON ESPN NEWS AND READ THE SCROLL ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN.
Posted via Mobile Device

Back to all caps, Jason?

LMAO

I just read it but that's incorrect.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 06:45 PM
Back to all caps, Jason?

LMAO

I just read it but that's incorrect.

Thought I may need to call on my inner dane mccloud.
And it could also be right. We will see.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:45 PM
Again, we don't know what financial statements the owners offered. We do know they players demanded 10 years of full audited reports. The owners have said they've given as much financial information to players as they ever have.

They supposedly offered five years of statements but their NLFPA's advisers rejected it because it was too restricted.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 06:46 PM
Back to all caps, Jason?

LMAO

I just read it but that's incorrect.

Unfortunately, most of what we read TODAY will be speculation...