PDA

View Full Version : Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson rules in favor of players



Ryfo18
04-25-2011, 06:51 PM
Just saw this tweet from Chris Mortensen:

"Filed to ESPN: Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson has ruled for players, lifting lockout, per sources. Owners will seek immediate stay."

It's obvious the owners will try to appeal, but for the time being, the players have "won." What does this mean? I'm not exactly sure...haha, but another tweet I saw shortly after said:

"Sounds like all hell is about to break loose. Get ready, folks." - Jim Trotter, Sports Illustrated

Ryfo18
04-25-2011, 07:05 PM
And now the bad news from Jason La Canfora:

"The decision by Judge Nelson is not surprising. The appeals court may take a more conservative view of the case. That process could take months."

matthewschiefs
04-25-2011, 07:05 PM
I just hope the appeal that the owners will file fails. That will be the quickest way to get a new agreement done. If there appeal does work then I will be worried about missing games. If the courts uphold this choice by the judge then the owners will have to give in more then what they have been this whole time.

Ryfo18
04-25-2011, 07:10 PM
So basically at this point the owners are preventing football from being played....

honda522
04-25-2011, 10:15 PM
Lets roll up on training camp now.

chief31
04-25-2011, 11:32 PM
So basically at this point the owners are preventing football from being played....
That's been the case the whole time. Two judges have made decisions during the whole matter, and both judged against the owners.

Here we have a judge who has told the owners that they have been cheating the whole process (again) and to get back to work, and yet these owners are now going to fight against the courts to keep the lockout going.

But the majority of fans will continue to point at the players, no matter how many judges decide that the owners are the problem.

Jasper
04-26-2011, 03:30 AM
Just as Courts already decided Owners weren't bargaining in good faith, and their TV Contract money was held up, to this 2nd Court it was clear the Owners are just being greedy asking the Players to take a 33% Cut (18% less of their 55%-57%) and play 2 more games to boot.
After a year in which 18 of the 20 best-ratings TV shows were NFL games, the players should be asking for a raise!
But they're not. All this is for basically no reason other than the Owners want to make more. They claim possible downside to their enterprise, but won't show the books in any meaningful way, and planned (for several years) to have access to the full TV contract money during the lockout. To mention nothing of the Owners asking the Players to play 2 more games.
And did you know the Players get $400 each for Preseason games and none of that savings is passed on to you?!?
That's right, preseason prices have always been just extra cash for the Owners... your full-priced parking, your full-priced beer... None of that major fan complaint is at the Players feet.

Owners are walking a tightrope now, as further courts may have owners release financial statements for auditing so we can get to the heart of the matter. They've fought this idea for years, saying the union has enough information to understand their bargaining position. So far they've only agreed to release profit figures (with no accounting for expenses) for the whole league — without giving a team-by-team breakdown of gains and losses.
Giving up real data would undo not just their negotiation position with the union, it would undo the united owners front that keeps the peace throughout the league. I'd like to see the courts force the owners to share ALL their financial data, which will be embarrassing as well as destabilizing.
Hey I understand the "Players get paid way too much" argument, but their salary is not a % in proportion to MY job, it's a % in proportion to the NFL Television contract! End of story.
Jerry Jones and his ilk are gonna take this as far as they can... they have the bank for it and feel they have nothing to lose. They know how hooked we are, look at the plans to watch the draft for a season that likely won't even happen, and even if it does they believe we'll watch anybody in their uniforms. The TV money, the concessions, the parking, the jerseys, the Billion Dollars off the top, to the owners it's a Money Machine and they know a good percentage of folks are mad at the players anyway.
So even though this Judge didn't stay the "unlock" order during appeal, the owners will get it appealed and not put any rules in place to allow anything to go forward in the meantime.
Basically, get ready to enjoy some College football.

Chiefster
04-26-2011, 03:37 AM
I don't care who wins; I just want to get back to football ASAP.

OPLookn
04-26-2011, 01:06 PM
My overall problem with all this has become the rallying cry of many. A bunch of billionaires fighting with millionaires about who should get another billion. Sorry, let me take about 9 to 10 zero's off that number so I can think about that amount in numbers I understand.

My problem with this all is the principals that this country started on and were based upon. No I'm not going to go into a diatribe about all that but more so capitalism. The owners are rich, guess what so are the players. But the players put themselves at risk! So do numerous other employees that work at numerous other companies and they don't get paid near as well as a football player.

The next argument is that players do what no one else can do. To that I say yeah right. Tom Brady was just some guy that got drafted in the 7th round and yeah that might never happen again but what I'm saying is that talent can show up anywhere and when the players went on strike back in the day and scrubs were brought in people still came to watch football because it's about the sport, the atmosphere and the love of the game than any one player. Anyone can be replaced, plain and simple...anyone! I don't care who's played what, where and for how long there's someone that can step up and fill that role.

My biggest problem with all this is that these players are employees, I don't care how you want to word it they're employees. They don't own any part of the company and they're in a union the same way that GM employees, Ford employees, airline employees, etc are. If we're ruling in the favor of these unions and they want more we might as well hand the keys over to them. Because where does it end? People are always going to want more it's been that way since humans acquired their first possession.

In the end I just want football but this has concerned me because it's setting a precedent. If someone who owns the company doesn't want to negotiate with employees the courts can tell the owner/s that to bad, negotiate and give in. How long til that trickles down? In a day where someone can sue a company because their coffee was hot and they dropped it on themselves and win where does it stop?

There, I've said my piece and I'm done.

70 chiefsfan70
04-26-2011, 01:24 PM
I don't care who wins; I just want to get back to football ASAP.


In the end they both win, they can't loose. Only us, the fans can loose.

Why are they in court anyways, what happened to free market, no wonder theres no jobs, the courts are telling business what they have to pay their employees, its a sad day for America. Watch the NFL move to Mexico too.

matthewschiefs
04-26-2011, 02:09 PM
My overall problem with all this has become the rallying cry of many. A bunch of billionaires fighting with millionaires about who should get another billion. Sorry, let me take about 9 to 10 zero's off that number so I can think about that amount in numbers I understand.

My problem with this all is the principals that this country started on and were based upon. No I'm not going to go into a diatribe about all that but more so capitalism. The owners are rich, guess what so are the players. But the players put themselves at risk! So do numerous other employees that work at numerous other companies and they don't get paid near as well as a football player.

The next argument is that players do what no one else can do. To that I say yeah right. Tom Brady was just some guy that got drafted in the 7th round and yeah that might never happen again but what I'm saying is that talent can show up anywhere and when the players went on strike back in the day and scrubs were brought in people still came to watch football because it's about the sport, the atmosphere and the love of the game than any one player. Anyone can be replaced, plain and simple...anyone! I don't care who's played what, where and for how long there's someone that can step up and fill that role.

My biggest problem with all this is that these players are employees, I don't care how you want to word it they're employees. They don't own any part of the company and they're in a union the same way that GM employees, Ford employees, airline employees, etc are. If we're ruling in the favor of these unions and they want more we might as well hand the keys over to them. Because where does it end? People are always going to want more it's been that way since humans acquired their first possession.

In the end I just want football but this has concerned me because it's setting a precedent. If someone who owns the company doesn't want to negotiate with employees the courts can tell the owner/s that to bad, negotiate and give in. How long til that trickles down? In a day where someone can sue a company because their coffee was hot and they dropped it on themselves and win where does it stop?

There, I've said my piece and I'm done.

While I am hoping that the owners appeal is not granted I agree with what you have said.

I just want to see this whole mess solved and fixed. If either side really wanted to or was truly thinking of the fan they would have a deal done now. Even the worse owners offer the players would still be making A LOT more money then our armed forces who don't get and offseason who have been in warzones. And even the players worst offer to the players the owners would be making gobs of money and would not be hurting in the wallet at all. Both sides seems to think they have an ace up there sleeve and there not going to give in till they are forced to.

chief31
04-26-2011, 03:07 PM
If someone who owns the company doesn't want to negotiate with employees the courts can tell the owner/s that to bad, negotiate and give in.


That is not what happened.




Why are they in court anyways, what happened to free market, no wonder theres no jobs, the courts are telling business what they have to pay their employees, its a sad day for America. Watch the NFL move to Mexico too.

They are in court because the owners are violating about every player contract there is.

Without a union, the owners are locking out players who have a signed agreement, which the owners are not honoring.

It is not about the courts telling the free market what to do.

It's about the courts telling the owners that they are going to be liable if they continue the lockout.

Ryfo18
04-26-2011, 03:13 PM
The next argument is that players do what no one else can do. To that I say yeah right. Tom Brady was just some guy that got drafted in the 7th round and yeah that might never happen again but what I'm saying is that talent can show up anywhere and when the players went on strike back in the day and scrubs were brought in people still came to watch football because it's about the sport, the atmosphere and the love of the game than any one player. Anyone can be replaced, plain and simple...anyone! I don't care who's played what, where and for how long there's someone that can step up and fill that role.

If you're implying replacement players, they've tried that before in the '80's and it was awful. If you're ok with having your product tainted w/ a bunch of scrubs, well then there is always the UFL/CFL/whatever other league can't hold a candle to the NFL.


My biggest problem with all this is that these players are employees, I don't care how you want to word it they're employees. They don't own any part of the company and they're in a union the same way that GM employees, Ford employees, airline employees, etc are. If we're ruling in the favor of these unions and they want more we might as well hand the keys over to them. Because where does it end? People are always going to want more it's been that way since humans acquired their first possession.

Actually the judge simply ruled in favor of the players, the employees. There is no union right now.

pojote
04-26-2011, 04:05 PM
The only thing that was at stake was if the NFL can act as an association while there is no union to represent players for a CBA.
The ruling means that every team should act independently and can sign anyone they want to perform players activities.
Right now, a team can sign someone like me (in my dreams) to play next season, for a salary that we arrange. But they can sign anyone they want. Obviously they should sign whoever is better for the job. If they don't do that, it is discrimination.

OPLookn
04-26-2011, 04:49 PM
That is not what happened.


If someone who owns the company doesn't want to negotiate with employees the courts can tell the owner/s that to bad, negotiate and give in.

They are in court because the owners are violating about every player contract there is.

Without a union, the owners are locking out players who have a signed agreement, which the owners are not honoring.

It is not about the courts telling the free market what to do.

It's about the courts telling the owners that they are going to be liable if they continue the lockout.



That's exactly what's happening, the owners are following guide lines that were constructed under the NFLPA which negotiated the CBA. The owners canceled the remaining year of the CBA and the NFLPA disbanded which means that in effect any players contract is null and void. They can go play with anyone they want to and when the lockout is lifted hopefully it's under a new CBA with a reconstituted NFLPA. If not it's basically baseball...you can afford a team of all stars...cool. You can't? Well...sorry. If that's not the way it works then I'd be happy to know how it does but to me what I've just said seems more logical than not.


If you're implying replacement players, they've tried that before in the '80's and it was awful. If you're ok with having your product tainted w/ a bunch of scrubs, well then there is always the UFL/CFL/whatever other league can't hold a candle to the NFL.


I'm saying show the players that go ahead and do what you wanna do, we'll make money without you until you have to come back. Which all but the richest players will have to do. According to wikipedia (not the end all be all I know but the fastest I could find) "Final television revenues were down by about 20%, a smaller drop than the networks had expected." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_NFL_season#cite_note-1)1987 NFL season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So I don't think it was quite as horrible as what you're implying. Maybe I'm wrong but I wasn't old enough to really pay attention to that stuff when it happened and would never claim to be an expert.

Ryfo18
04-26-2011, 05:07 PM
I'm saying show the players that go ahead and do what you wanna do, we'll make money without you until you have to come back. Which all but the richest players will have to do. According to wikipedia (not the end all be all I know but the fastest I could find) "Final television revenues were down by about 20%, a smaller drop than the networks had expected." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_NFL_season#cite_note-1)1987 NFL season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_NFL_season) So I don't think it was quite as horrible as what you're implying. Maybe I'm wrong but I wasn't old enough to really pay attention to that stuff when it happened and would never claim to be an expert.

I hear your point, but as greedy as the owners are do you really think they would be satisfied offering an inferior product with replacement players while probably struggling to make what they do now? What if the Peyton Manning's, Tom Brady's, Jamaal Charles' of the league went to the UFL. Which would you watch?

OPLookn
04-26-2011, 05:30 PM
I hear your point, but as greedy as the owners are do you really think they would be satisfied offering an inferior product with replacement players while probably struggling to make what they do now? What if the Peyton Manning's, Tom Brady's, Jamaal Charles' of the league went to the UFL. Which would you watch?

I'd think they'd be extremely happy with that. Making 80% of what they did before but giving 0% of that to the NFLPA. What would happen is that some players would cross the picket lines or be hired by other teams. Some would go to to the UFL, CFL or some initial followed by an FL or just go to FL and retire. But they'd never be what they are in the NFL because it takes a great team around them to win. You can have the greatest QB ever to play the game but if the WR can't catch the ball, they fumble, the other team's offense is just plain better overall they'd still lose. It'd also get tiring to that QB and he'd either retire or suck it up and go back to the NFL and play there. Putting a competitor of that type will never make them happy until they play against the best. Would it ever be the same, absolutely not. But I'd almost guarantee the owners would make as much if not more.

tornadospotter
04-26-2011, 05:52 PM
It still comes down to who losses the most, and it is us, the fans. There will, I believe an NFL Season. Who will be playing, may very well depend on individual players. Who knows what that might mean to the quality of the game. I think that the game will be just as inspiring and fans will still root for there team. I will, but if there is any game canceled, then I will boycott any Product that has the NFL endorsement, per fan strike, except actual games. I will always want to attend a Chiefs Game at Arrowhead, and will if have the opportunity and affordability. I will watch the Chiefs on TV in always no matter who is playing. You put that much loved Red Helmet with the Kc Arrowhead on each side! You better believe, I will be watching and rooting for CHIEFS TO WIN!

matthewschiefs
04-26-2011, 06:26 PM
I hear your point, but as greedy as the owners are do you really think they would be satisfied offering an inferior product with replacement players while probably struggling to make what they do now? What if the Peyton Manning's, Tom Brady's, Jamaal Charles' of the league went to the UFL. Which would you watch?


As greedy and selfish as the owners are as long as there making money yes I think the owners would be satisfied with an inferior product. But I think the players would be to greedy and selfish to go to the UFL simply because the UFL can't give them the money that the NFL can. The Ironic thing is That I think all the greed from the two sides is going to be the thing that gets a deal done in late June early July. Neither side is going to want to miss a game check.

Ryfo18
04-26-2011, 06:41 PM
As greedy and selfish as the owners are as long as there making money yes I think the owners would be satisfied with an inferior product. But I think the players would be to greedy and selfish to go to the UFL simply because the UFL can't give them the money that the NFL can. The Ironic thing is That I think all the greed from the two sides is going to be the thing that gets a deal done in late June early July. Neither side is going to want to miss a game check.

I guess this is where I differ from everyone...I see the two bolded statements as conflicting. So much of the revenue will be based on who has the better product. If the better players flee to the UFL, I guarantee a lot of fans follow...More revenue streams, opportunities for TV contracts...Don't think it's possible? Look at what happened when the AFL started getting their hands on better players via the draft. The NFL had to eventually merge w/ them.

I agree that some (including myself) would stay and follow their favorite team, but if you have minor league baseball vs. major league baseball, which are you going to watch in the long run? The UFL could expand to more cities (i.e. Kansas City) and "steal" Chiefs fans. Where would fans put their money? We already here people complaining "I can't afford to take my family to a football game anymore." Well you definitely aren't going to take your family to games for 2 teams. I'd be willing to bet the majority puts their money towards the games with better players. Just b/c you are a well known entity like the NFL doesn't mean you can be replaced if you get careless (see GM, Ford, Yahoo!, Circuit City, and even Microsoft to some extent).

This is all hypothetical and likely won't happen, but if the owners continue to not lift the lockout, who knows. At this point it's up to the owners to give in b/c they have been told by a judge to lift the lockout. Instead they are appealing to the 8th circuit court, which could take until July for a decision (i.e. already cutting into training camp). Thus we as fans do not have football. We do not have free agency. We do not have trading. All we have is a draft taking place in 2 days for a season that the owners are refusing to allow be played to this point. If you want to side w/ them b/c of the "precedent" this will set, by all means you're allowed to do that. But the NFL is so unique and should not be mistakenly compared w/ other owner/union situations.

matthewschiefs
04-26-2011, 06:52 PM
I guess this is where I differ from everyone...I see the two bolded statements as conflicting. So much of the revenue will be based on who has the better product. If the better players flee to the UFL, I guarantee a lot of fans follow...More revenue streams, opportunities for TV contracts...Don't think it's possible? Look at what happened when the AFL started getting their hands on better players via the draft. The NFL had to eventually merge w/ them.

I don't disagree with this at all. But I do think the players would have to take a pay cut at first simply because right now the UFL can't offer the money. If they would move and the UFL would have the better product then the money would get there. But they would have to be willing to take less at first IMO.



At this point it's up to the owners to give in b/c they have been told by a judge to lift the lockout.

I disagree with this. The owners have just the right to fight for there rights as the players do. I hope they fail in there attempt to get the ruling overturned but they have every right to fight just as hard as the players did.

Ryfo18
04-26-2011, 07:07 PM
I disagree with this. The owners have just the right to fight for there rights as the players do. I hope they fail in there attempt to get the ruling overturned but they have every right to fight just as hard as the players did.

You are correct. But choosing this route does not put them in a good light in my eyes b/c I just want football. This choice does not give me football...Selfish me.

tornadospotter
04-26-2011, 11:00 PM
I guess this is where I differ from everyone...I see the two bolded statements as conflicting. So much of the revenue will be based on who has the better product. If the better players flee to the UFL, I guarantee a lot of fans follow...More revenue streams, opportunities for TV contracts...Don't think it's possible? Look at what happened when the AFL started getting their hands on better players via the draft. The NFL had to eventually merge w/ them.

I agree that some (including myself) would stay and follow their favorite team, but if you have minor league baseball vs. major league baseball, which are you going to watch in the long run? The UFL could expand to more cities (i.e. Kansas City) and "steal" Chiefs fans. Where would fans put their money? We already here people complaining "I can't afford to take my family to a football game anymore." Well you definitely aren't going to take your family to games for 2 teams. I'd be willing to bet the majority puts their money towards the games with better players. Just b/c you are a well known entity like the NFL doesn't mean you can be replaced if you get careless (see GM, Ford, Yahoo!, Circuit City, and even Microsoft to some extent).

This is all hypothetical and likely won't happen, but if the owners continue to not lift the lockout, who knows. At this point it's up to the owners to give in b/c they have been told by a judge to lift the lockout. Instead they are appealing to the 8th circuit court, which could take until July for a decision (i.e. already cutting into training camp). Thus we as fans do not have football. We do not have free agency. We do not have trading. All we have is a draft taking place in 2 days for a season that the owners are refusing to allow be played to this point. If you want to side w/ them b/c of the "precedent" this will set, by all means you're allowed to do that. But the NFL is so unique and should not be mistakenly compared w/ other owner/union situations.
There is no place for players to go and make anywhere near the money that the NFL can and does pay. How can the players get the money and injury treatment other than the NFL. Income, where will any other league get the income to pay salaries, and pay for needed medical treatments, for injuries? How can a league with stadiums that hold any less than an any NFL team, expect to generate the income to pay for what the expect salary of these players? UFL? Omaha Nighthalks? They are already broke, after one season.

What it comes done to, is simple, get it done, both sides. I am not for or against the players, but I am leaning to favor of the owners.

Jasper
04-27-2011, 01:05 AM
What ending the lockout really does is open the door for the Anti-Trust lawsuit the players have pending to move forward, and as part of the pre-trial discovery, the owner's books will be audited and the audits published.
Once those facts are on the table, maybe it'll be easier to understand what "supporting the owners" really means. Right now, all we have access to is what the players make. Maybe once we see ownership's profit we'll understand how sinister it is that they're willing to use the whole "I'll watch whoever is in an arrowhead helmet..." idea to try and force the players to take 30% less, and play more for it. It's exactly because they can "afford" to, both monetarily and because guys like us "just want to watch football".

In contrast, an NFL Player's Salary, unlike any other major league, is NOT guaranteed. Get injured and can't play? You're simply done, and your contract void. And yet the players aren't asking for more money... they're only trying to not take 30% less.
I don't see how we can think asking players to take 30% less for more games with no guarantee is anything like a good idea for them and they should just take it so we can watch and cheer and spend more to line the pockets of the "Can't lose" set like Jerry Jones.
I'm glad Courts see ownership's ploy for what it is and players aren't yet forced to settle for this. But I do think ownership will keep appealing because they don't believe they have anything to lose (they've got tons of money and they think fans will watch and go and just maybe blame the players no matter what they do), and as a result we all better just bookmark a link to the College Football Schedule.

tornadospotter
04-27-2011, 02:07 AM
What ending the lockout really does is open the door for the Anti-Trust lawsuit the players have pending to move forward, and as part of the pre-trial discovery, the owner's books will be audited and the audits published.
Once those facts are on the table, maybe it'll be easier to understand what "supporting the owners" really means. Right now, all we have access to is what the players make. Maybe once we see ownership's profit we'll understand how sinister it is that they're willing to use the whole "I'll watch whoever is in an arrowhead helmet..." idea to try and force the players to take 30% less, and play more for it. It's exactly because they can "afford" to, both monetarily and because guys like us "just want to watch football".

In contrast, an NFL Player's Salary, unlike any other major league, is NOT guaranteed. Get injured and can't play? You're simply done, and your contract void. And yet the players aren't asking for more money... they're only trying to not take 30% less.
I don't see how we can think asking players to take 30% less for more games with no guarantee is anything like a good idea for them and they should just take it so we can watch and cheer and spend more to line the pockets of the "Can't lose" set like Jerry Jones.
I'm glad Courts see ownership's ploy for what it is and players aren't yet forced to settle for this. But I do think ownership will keep appealing because they don't believe they have anything to lose (they've got tons of money and they think fans will watch and go and just maybe blame the players no matter what they do), and as a result we all better just bookmark a link to the College Football Schedule.
Wrong, I do not for one minute believe this.

Canada
04-27-2011, 07:58 AM
In contrast, an NFL Player's Salary, unlike any other major league, is NOT guaranteed. Get injured and can't play? You're simply done, and your contract void.
Isnt pretty much every job like that?

Ryfo18
04-27-2011, 11:51 AM
In contrast, an NFL Player's Salary, unlike any other major league, is NOT guaranteed. Get injured and can't play? You're simply done, and your contract void. And yet the players aren't asking for more money... they're only trying to not take 30% less.

If you get placed on IR, you get paid the rest of the season. After that, the team is free to pretty much void your contract (of course if you had guaranteed money in there you would get that).

Another interesting "did you know" in the old CBA, rookie players made $700 per preseason game, while vets made $1000. The owners took the rest of the revenue from these games...

OPLookn
04-27-2011, 12:16 PM
If you get placed on IR, you get paid the rest of the season. After that, the team is free to pretty much void your contract (of course if you had guaranteed money in there you would get that).

Another interesting "did you know" in the old CBA, rookie players made $700 per preseason game, while vets made $1000. The owners took the rest of the revenue from these games...

Not to mention that for season tickets preseason games got lumped in with regular season games a few years back so they cost more which the owners pocketed that too. Good times.

Canada
04-27-2011, 12:27 PM
If you get placed on IR, you get paid the rest of the season. After that, the team is free to pretty much void your contract (of course if you had guaranteed money in there you would get that).

Another interesting "did you know" in the old CBA, rookie players made $700 per preseason game, while vets made $1000. The owners took the rest of the revenue from these games...

I dont see the problem. The players get paid to be there (be honest, vets hardly play in pre season) And oh no...the owners made money on the product they put out there. How much do preseason tix cost anyways? $9?? I doubt they "pocketed" millions from preseason.

Ryfo18
04-27-2011, 12:31 PM
I dont see the problem. The players get paid to be there (be honest, vets hardly play in pre season) And oh no...the owners made money on the product they put out there. How much do preseason tix cost anyways? $9?? I doubt they "pocketed" millions from preseason.

Well they get full price on season tickets...

I'm not opposed to them making this money either, simply pointing out that the players make concessions in the existing CBA (which the owners opted out of) that benefit the owners.

chief31
04-27-2011, 12:42 PM
That's exactly what's happening, the owners are following guide lines that were constructed under the NFLPA which negotiated the CBA. The owners canceled the remaining year of the CBA and the NFLPA disbanded which means that in effect any players contract is null and void. They can go play with anyone they want to and when the lockout is lifted hopefully it's under a new CBA with a reconstituted NFLPA. If not it's basically baseball...you can afford a team of all stars...cool. You can't? Well...sorry. If that's not the way it works then I'd be happy to know how it does but to me what I've just said seems more logical than not.

Well, seems to me that a federal judge just told you that it does not work like that.

But make no doubt about it, if this meant that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were no longer under contract, then a deal would have gotten done.

Having those contracts voided would be the worst news that the owners could receive.

In the meantime... some owners should be taken into custody and held until the judge can see them for their Contempt charges.

They were not granted a stay. They are now criminals for disobeying a court order.

All in the name of keeping the players from going back to work.

The owners have fought against the players to stop the game from going on. The are now fighting the US justice Department to keep Football from happening. And they have been fighting the fans every step of the way.

Let's all blame somebody other than them, shall we?

matthewschiefs
04-27-2011, 01:09 PM
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Black"]They were not granted a stay. They are now criminals for disobeying a court order.

We don't know if they will get the stay are not yet the judge has not ruled. They are waiting for the ruling to come down. This is not disobeying the courts it's taking there right to appeal the ruling. Witch I hope they fail.




The owners have fought against the players to stop the game from going on. The are now fighting the US justice Department to keep Football from happening. And they have been fighting the fans every step of the way.

The owners are fighting for there rights Just like the players did. I don't understand this players should fight for there rights but the owners shouldn't. I do hope they fail because that will lead to a quicker agreement but they have every right to appeal the ruling.

OPLookn
04-27-2011, 02:16 PM
Well, seems to me that a federal judge just told you that it does not work like that.

But make no doubt about it, if this meant that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were no longer under contract, then a deal would have gotten done.

Having those contracts voided would be the worst news that the owners could receive.

In the meantime... some owners should be taken into custody and held until the judge can see them for their Contempt charges.

They were not granted a stay. They are now criminals for disobeying a court order.

All in the name of keeping the players from going back to work.

The owners have fought against the players to stop the game from going on. The are now fighting the US justice Department to keep Football from happening. And they have been fighting the fans every step of the way.

Let's all blame somebody other than them, shall we?

And we never see cases overturned or sent back to court once a judge makes a ruling do we?

The owners are playing the game in the same way the players are. As matthewsChief said too I'm kinda hoping the judges do make the owners open things up and get back to football because this stuff in the end is some b.s. If it were up to me split it 50/50 in all respects...and I do mean all, if the owners have to pony up 150 million for stadium renovations guess what players 75 million of that is yours.

I'm not quite sure why the owners have become darth vader and the players are some kind of luke skywalker to you. You seem to have a pro union idealism which is cool but don't think that unions aren't as dirty as some of these owners are.

Ryfo18
04-27-2011, 02:39 PM
And we never see cases overturned or sent back to court once a judge makes a ruling do we?

The owners are playing the game in the same way the players are. As matthewsChief said too I'm kinda hoping the judges do make the owners open things up and get back to football because this stuff in the end is some b.s. If it were up to me split it 50/50 in all respects...and I do mean all, if the owners have to pony up 150 million for stadium renovations guess what players 75 million of that is yours.

I'm not quite sure why the owners have become darth vader and the players are some kind of luke skywalker to you. You seem to have a pro union idealism which is cool but don't think that unions aren't as dirty as some of these owners are.

So the players should have to chip in for Jerry Jones' $1.2 billion stadium (or what's not covered by taxpayers)? C'mon that's an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

matthewschiefs
04-27-2011, 02:44 PM
So the players should have to chip in for Jerry Jones' $1.2 billion stadium (or what's not covered by taxpayers)? C'mon that's an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

Now this I can agree with. I don't think that there are to many people who would want to pay for the building they work in.

OPLookn
04-27-2011, 03:05 PM
So the players should have to chip in for Jerry Jones' $1.2 billion stadium (or what's not covered by taxpayers)? C'mon that's an absolutely ridiculous proposition.


Now this I can agree with. I don't think that there are to many people who would want to pay for the building they work in.

There seem to be two camps from what I've seen. One is that the players union and owners are equals and want just as much as the owners. The other side is that the players are employees and the owners are the bosses.

If you subscribe to the first then absolutely yes pay for half of the renovations. If you're asking for half of the profits you pay for half of the expenses...it's called being a business partner and that's what you get when you're equals in the same business. Some will say but players are asking for less...money maybe, overall compensation they're asking for half. So yes, you want half you pay for half.

If they're employees then this half and half argument goes out the door but then again so does the notion that employees should be asking for their employers books and getting half of what is made.

Can't have it both ways.

Ryfo18
04-27-2011, 03:12 PM
There seem to be two camps here. One is that the players union and owners are equals and want just as much as the owners. The other side is that the players are employees and the owners are the bosses.

If you subscribe to the first then absolutely yes pay for half of the renovations. Some will say the players are asking for less...money maybe, overall compensation they're asking for half. So yes, you want half you pay for half.

If they're employees then this half and half argument goes out the door but then again so does the notion that employees should be asking for their employers books and getting half of what is made.

Can't have it both ways.

Let's lay this out:

1.) They are employees, who were in a system that was fine.
2.) The owners are trying to take money away from them by opting out of the current CBA (which is fine, they were entitled to do that).
3.) Both sides tried to negotiate for a new CBA, the owners wanted an extra $1 billion off the top, play 2 extra games, etc....ridiculous demands.
4.) The players took them to court b/c of these ridiculous demands, and the court agreed that the players were right. Also in the 89-page court documents were concerns that "the lockout is not good for the fans." It wasn't worded exactly like that, but this judge made a ruling that she was in the best interest of all parties involved, including US as fans.
5.) The owners are now delaying the process, threatening not having football, by appealing. Fine, that's their right.

But at the end of the day, I cannot in any way side w/ the owners on this. Especially when there was a sufficient system in place that both sides made a lot of money off of. Read this Op-Ed in the WSJ from Roger Goodell: Roger Goodell: Football's Future If the Players Win - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html)

He continuously talks about the great things a CBA has done for this league. If it's so great, then why opt out in the first place?

Ryfo18
04-27-2011, 03:39 PM
From Judge Nelson's ruling:



There was another party that Nelson considered in her ruling that isn’t listed as a plaintiff: the “public interest.”


“On an economic level, the public has an interest in the enforcement of the Sherman Act, which, by seeking to ensure healthy competition in the market, has a broad impact beyond the immediate parties to this dispute,” Nelson wrote. “Moreover, the public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws. Professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales. And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football — who have a strong investment in the 2011 season — is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout.

“In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation.”


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


All I've heard on this forum for the last 2 months is "screw the owners and the players, where do the fans have their say?" We have a ruling from a judge IN THE INTEREST OF THE FANS and people still want to back the owners...Unreal.

pojote
04-27-2011, 03:40 PM
Read this Op-Ed in the WSJ from Roger Goodell: Roger Goodell: Football's Future If the Players Win - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html)

He continuously talks about the great things a CBA has done for this league. If it's so great, then why opt out in the first place?

Wow!!! This is a misleading article. Goodell is saying that the players has to be blamed on this work stoppage. This is ridiculous.
I think a CBA is very good to keep a sport balance between teams, also very productive in terms of giving benefits to role players, and protection to retired. But it wasn't the players who opted out of current CBA, it wasn't the players who made TV contracts preparing to lockout and finally wasn't the players who actually lockou football.
I don't think the players want to be in a no CBA NFL, they just don't want to get this abusive kind of CBA.

OPLookn
04-27-2011, 03:51 PM
Let's lay this out:

1.) They are employees, who were in a system that was fine.
2.) The owners are trying to take money away from them by opting out of the current CBA (which is fine, they were entitled to do that).
3.) Both sides tried to negotiate for a new CBA, the owners wanted an extra $1 billion off the top, play 2 extra games, etc....ridiculous demands.
4.) The players took them to court b/c of these ridiculous demands, and the court agreed that the players were right. Also in the 89-page court documents were concerns that "the lockout is not good for the fans." It wasn't worded exactly like that, but this judge made a ruling that she was in the best interest of all parties involved, including US as fans.
5.) The owners are now delaying the process, threatening not having football, by appealing. Fine, that's their right.

But at the end of the day, I cannot in any way side w/ the owners on this. Especially when there was a sufficient system in place that both sides made a lot of money off of. Read this Op-Ed in the WSJ from Roger Goodell: Roger Goodell: Football's Future If the Players Win - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html)

He continuously talks about the great things a CBA has done for this league. If it's so great, then why opt out in the first place?

It's a good read, thx for submitting that. I'm done debating things I don't have any control over. Both sides are evil because they make tons more money than me.

:lol:

Just get this stupid thing over with and have some semblance of the game that I remember last year. Oh and when they're drawing up the contracts put every good player in the league on the Chiefs...too much?

Ryfo18
04-27-2011, 04:04 PM
Just get this stupid thing over with and have some semblance of the game that I remember last year. Oh and when they're drawing up the contracts put every good player in the league on the Chiefs...too much?

THIS

Thanks for the discussion...boards have been kind of dead lately...I'd much rather discuss things not pertaining to the lockout, but sadly that's about all we have right now.

matthewschiefs
04-27-2011, 05:12 PM
Wow!!! This is a misleading article. Goodell is saying that the players has to be blamed on this work stoppage. This is ridiculous.
I think a CBA is very good to keep a sport balance between teams, also very productive in terms of giving benefits to role players, and protection to retired. But it wasn't the players who opted out of current CBA, it wasn't the players who made TV contracts preparing to lockout and finally wasn't the players who actually lockou football.
I don't think the players want to be in a no CBA NFL, they just don't want to get this abusive kind of CBA.

While it wasn't the players who did what you stated there are still some things that I just can't help to bring up. It wasn't the owners who took this to court. It wasn't the owners who planned to take this to court before last season even began. And for those who say it can't be done then how is it that the NBA players did it AFTER THE REGULAR season. It wasn't the owners who filed court work with an hour to go in a mediation session. That says to me the players were there just to say see we where here. Sorry just a pet peve of mine to see only one side called out for there BS:lol: . Theres a lot both sides should be ashamed of IMO.

I do 100% agree that the CBA good for balance. If football becomes baseball then I will most likely stop watching. I am a Cleveland Indian fan and it's very upsetting to see players the Indians devolped playing for new york boston and Philly every year in the postseason. Simply because they can't afford to give them the money that those teams can.


3.) Both sides tried to negotiate for a new CBA, the owners wanted an extra $1 billion off the top, play 2 extra games, etc....ridiculous demands.


I 100% agree about those demands being ridiculous

Maybe someone can send me a link or maybe they have heard this but while the players would talk about fighting for more benfits for themselfs and former players (no problem with that) what were they going to give for those benfits. I have yet to here one thing they were going to give for those. From what I have heard both sided were wanting something for nothing. But maybe someone heard more.

Ryfo18
04-27-2011, 05:58 PM
Maybe someone can send me a link or maybe they have heard this but while the players would talk about fighting for more benfits for themselfs and former players (no problem with that) what were they going to give for those benfits. I have yet to here one thing they were going to give for those. From what I have heard both sided were wanting something for nothing. But maybe someone heard more.

I believe that portions of the savings from a rookie salary scale would have gone towards retired player benefits, but I'm not 100% sure of that.

matthewschiefs
04-27-2011, 06:06 PM
I believe that portions of the savings from a rookie salary scale would have gone towards retired player benefits, but I'm not 100% sure of that.

My understanding was that the rookie scale was to get the vets more money. With the rookies not taking so much it would lead to more cap room. Maybe that would save them enough to do both seeing how out of hand rookie salarys got

chief31
04-28-2011, 10:38 AM
We don't know if they will get the stay are not yet the judge has not ruled.
They are waiting for the ruling to come down. This is not disobeying the courts it's taking there right to appeal the ruling. Witch I hope they fail.

The judge did rule, and specifically omitted a stay.

Until the appeal, or they are able to get a stay granted, they are in contempt.




The owners are fighting for there rights Just like the players did. I don't understand this players should fight for there rights but the owners shouldn't. I do hope they fail because that will lead to a quicker agreement but they have every right to appeal the ruling.

They are no longer fighting for their rights. They are just trying to delay the decision, so they can get a deal done before having to open up shop with no salary cap, and all of the other problems that would occur from starting back up without a CBA.


And we never see cases overturned or sent back to court once a judge makes a ruling do we?
Irrelevant. Until they do get a stay granted, or an appeal conducted, they are in contempt and that is a crime.

The owners, for deliberately breaking a court order, are now criminals.

And, if you or I did that, there would be a bench warrant out for our arrest.


The owners are playing the game in the same way the players are. As matthewsChief said too I'm kinda hoping the judges do make the owners open things up and get back to football because this stuff in the end is some b.s. If it were up to me split it 50/50 in all respects...and I do mean all, if the owners have to pony up 150 million for stadium renovations guess what players 75 million of that is yours.

I'm not quite sure why the owners have become darth vader and the players are some kind of luke skywalker to you. You seem to have a pro union idealism which is cool but don't think that unions aren't as dirty as some of these owners are.

The owners have become Darth Vader because they picked this fight, and were caught with brass-knuckles to start the fight. Now, they have been told that they have been breaking the law, and they refuse to stop, even with a court order.

The criminals in the matter will generally be the "Darth Vader".


It wasn't the owners who took this to court. It wasn't the owners who planned to take this to court before last season even began. It wasn't the owners who filed court work with an hour to go in a mediation session. That says to me the players were there just to say see we where here. Sorry just a pet peve of mine to see only one side called out for there BS:lol: . Theres a lot both sides should be ashamed of IMO.



It wasn't the owners who took this to court, or planned ahead to take it to court..... It was the owners who broke the law, and planned to break the law.

You are blaming the players for not allowing them to cheat?

You hold that against them if you want.

Perhaps they used some dirty tactics.

But, when one guy starts a fight with you, and he is cheating from the get-go...... I can't blame the other guy for playing the game the way his opponent wants to play it.

At least not by comparison I can't.

The owners had a terrible intent from the start. And I think they made a huge mistake in trying to cheat this fight.

Unless they have some cards left up their sleeves, I think the owners are at the mercy of the players in this deal.

Well deserved punishment. I bet the players don't do them half as bad as they could.

matthewschiefs
04-28-2011, 01:32 PM
It wasn't the owners who took this to court, or planned ahead to take it to court..... It was the owners who broke the law, and planned to break the law.

You are blaming the players for not allowing them to cheat?

You hold that against them if you want.

Perhaps they used some dirty tactics.

But, when one guy starts a fight with you, and he is cheating from the get-go...... I can't blame the other guy for playing the game the way his opponent wants to play it.

At least not by comparison I can't.

The owners had a terrible intent from the start. And I think they made a huge mistake in trying to cheat this fight.

Unless they have some cards left up their sleeves, I think the owners are at the mercy of the players in this deal.

Well deserved punishment. I bet the players don't do them half as bad as they could.[/COLOR][/FONT]

While I 100% agree that the owners had a terrible intent from the start. I blame the players because they also didn't really try to reach a deal they also planned to do something that would force the owners to give in. Let me ask you this what if anything have you seen or heard that the players were willing to give up? I have yet to here one thing. If you have heard or seen something post it here. It might have taken the owners losing all the money they had worked out to just outlast the players but they did give in on some things. Like the 18 game season until the players agreed to have 18 games. And they did offer more benfits for the players. They at least moved the players from what I have heard have not. I might have missed something but I have yet to here one thing the players have given up.

The "best offer" from the players that 50/50 offer would have kept things about where they are now.
NFLLabor.com Veteran football writer Tom Curran had it right last week: “NFLPA’s 50-50 offer isn’t what it seems” « (http://nfllabor.com/2011/02/16/veteran-football-writer-tom-curran-had-it-right-last-week-%E2%80%9Cnflpas-50-50-offer-isnt-what-it-seems%E2%80%9D/)
If you and i are working on a deal you reject it and i come back with a deal that would have been the same thing would you say I am negotiating?

I still say the owners are 75% to blame for this whole mess and the owners did start this fight. I do blame the players for there 25% because there hurting the situation.

chief31
04-30-2011, 04:48 AM
While I 100% agree that the owners had a terrible intent from the start. I blame the players because they also didn't really try to reach a deal they also planned to do something that would force the owners to give in. Let me ask you this what if anything have you seen or heard that the players were willing to give up? I have yet to here one thing. If you have heard or seen something post it here. It might have taken the owners losing all the money they had worked out to just outlast the players but they did give in on some things. Like the 18 game season until the players agreed to have 18 games. And they did offer more benfits for the players. They at least moved the players from what I have heard have not. I might have missed something but I have yet to here one thing the players have given up.

The "best offer" from the players that 50/50 offer would have kept things about where they are now.
NFLLabor.com Veteran football writer Tom Curran had it right last week: “NFLPA’s 50-50 offer isn’t what it seems” « (http://nfllabor.com/2011/02/16/veteran-football-writer-tom-curran-had-it-right-last-week-%E2%80%9Cnflpas-50-50-offer-isnt-what-it-seems%E2%80%9D/)
If you and i are working on a deal you reject it and i come back with a deal that would have been the same thing would you say I am negotiating?

I still say the owners are 75% to blame for this whole mess and the owners did start this fight. I do blame the players for there 25% because there hurting the situation.

If I came with an offer that was "almost the same as the contract you just opted out of", then I would say I was definitely offering a whole lot.


I made zero effort to claim anything more than what I had before..... And that is from the get-go.


Usually, if what I want is twenty dollars, I start negotiations asking for fifty or a hundred, so that the compromise lands in the area I want it at.


As far as what the players have offered to lose, there was a thread here that had the players offering 80% of what the owners were demanding early on. But I don't have time to search right now. And any of those claims can easily be dismissed anyway, as there is always some undehanded s**t in those offers, that doesn't get the attention that what they are "giving" gets.


Like the owners' offer where they suggested that they "gave" on every last issue, but, after further examination, one notices that the wording actually didn't match what the claims were.


But, regardless of what "poison pills" the players might have had in that offer from early in the fight, I bet the owners are wishing they had that offer back, right about now.


They sure seem to be getting the s**t beat out of them of late.

And, when you start a fight and hit someone with a cheap shot, I will not feel bad if your opponent retaliates with a cheap shot.


I love to see a bully get what he has coming.