I see that the Bills players agree to decertify the Union

[DarthICE]

I say let them Decertify, then as owners I let them set as I bring in scrubs and have the league go on.

[spartacus]

I say let them Decertify, then as owners I let them set as I bring in scrubs and have the league go on.

 

there will be no lockout

 

 

the owners will bargain to an impasse and then impose the final proposal

 

the players then will have to decide if they want to play- under a union or on their own.

 

chances are they will cave sooner rather than later- as they always do

 

 

 

 

 

[TheZone78]

I say let them Decertify, then as owners I let them set as I bring in scrubs and have the league go on.

 

Hey do you think the new Bills scrub team would be better than this bunch of schmoes??? HA!!! Somebody had to say it.

[UpperDeck]

You beat me to it. Except I was going to say "do you think we'll tell the difference?"

[boyst]

I would love it if there was a lock out. The NFL could still get scrubs and college players, I mean there is not a real alternative. They could than allow a new union to be formed, if at all needed.

 

The current players do not need more money, they need less. The Revis', Evans' and all the highly paid athletes make way too much while the bottom feeders get little. If they want to be fair than there should be a pro-rated union payment to provide that player and all other players care in the future. That should be set up through the union, not the league. Of course, many of the self absorbed players will not want to share so that begs the question, why be in the union? They should simply learn to care for themselves and save like the rest of the world.

[The Dean]

I didn't watch scabs the last time and I won't watch them this time, either.

[Phil Hansen Forever]

Hey do you think the new Bills scrub team would be better than this bunch of schmoes??? HA!!! Somebody had to say it.

About the same I suppose. We could win the superbowl!

[lets_go_bills]

The owners WILL lockout the players if they don't agree to the owners' terms. The player's will hold out til the bitter end but at the 11th hour a deal will get done and the player's will make concessions, including a rookie pay scale.

[birdog1960]

About the same I suppose. We could win the superbowl!

we would be outbid for the top scrubs who wouldn't want to play in buffalo

[sharper802]

You can't lockout only the current players. A lock-out would involve all players and there will be no games. If the players striked then the owners could hire players that would cross the union line.

As has been written in many articles, decertifying the union is just a legal maneuver. I believe it allows the players to sue the owners more quickly in the event there is a lock-out. If the union still existed then there is some sort of waiting period. It has nothing to do with solidarity and nothing to do with scab football games.

Please try reading a real article in the news instead of just blogs....

[spartacus]

You can't lockout only the current players.  A lock-out would involve all players and there will be no games.  If the players striked then the owners could hire players that would cross the union line.

As has been written in many articles, decertifying the union is just a legal maneuver.  I believe it allows the players to sue the owners more quickly in the event there is a lock-out.  If the union still existed then there is some sort of waiting period.  It has nothing to do with solidarity and nothing to do with scab football games.

Please try reading a real article in the news instead of just blogs....

 

anti-trust laws prohibit a union from suing the employer while collectively bargaining.

 

 

Thus, the union would de-certify to allow players to sue the NFL for anti-trust violations and restraint of trade caused by free agency and the draft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no good reason for the NFL to lock-out the players -as you state there would no games.

 

The NFL will bargain to an impasse and then impose the last proposal for use in the next season.

 

The players would then have to choose to strike or play.

 

Since no lock-out, the players would have to make their own decisons to give up huge amount of money to play a kid's game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sharper802]

anti-trust laws prohibit a union from suing the employer while collectively bargaining.

 

 

Thus, the union would de-certify to allow players to sue the NFL for anti-trust violations and restraint of trade caused by free agency and the draft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no good reason for the NFL to lock-out the players -as you state there would no games.

 

The NFL will bargain to an impasse and then impose the last proposal for use in the next season.

 

The players would then have to choose to strike or play.

 

Since no lock-out, the players would have to make their own decisons to give up huge amount of money to play a kid's game.

Isn't that what I said?

I am not an anti-trust lawyer but I would suspect that they can't declare an impasse if there is no union to negotiate with. There also is a very very good reaosn why there will be no games. In the last TV deal the owners get paid in 2011 whether there are games or not. Fat bastard Peter King has written about this quite a bit. Therefore there is no reason to play any games and risk losing money when the TV money is guaranteed. This is a huge issue for the union and players. They will argue the owners are not negotiating in good faith because they get TV money even if there are no games and they will argue the owners planned a lockout all along.

 

I hope both sides come to their collective senses and make a good deal that won't kill the golden goose. The deal will need a rookie wage scale, 18 games, a salary cap, and decent revenue sharing if the Bills are going to survive.

Edited September 23, 2010 by sharper802

[Maddog69]

I wish they would all just sit down and get this thing done already

[reddogblitz]

I didn't watch scabs the last time and I won't watch them this time, either.

I watched scabs the last time and I will watch them this time too.

 

The players make enough as it is. If you raise their salaries again it's just going to get passed on to us working schmoes again. Ticket prices will climb higher. Sunday ticket, regalia, parking, food at the stadium, everything. Put in a rookie wage cap and definitely don't do anything Jerry Jones and Snyder want to do.

 

The stupid NFL thinks ticket sales are down because people would rather watch on the TV. The real reason is because the prices (because of exorbinant player salaries) has priced the average Joe/Joanna out.

[Wing Man]

There will be a lockout or a strike in 2011. The owners will bring in replacement players, and like last time, the games will be a joke. The owners get their television money anyway and the players get nothing. The two sides are recalcitrant, particularly the subset of owners who are hard liners and want a wholesale change in the revenue pie. Now that Gene Upshaw has died, the owners sense weakness in the union. This impasse will last as long as the players can reasonably hold out. The owners have the upper hand the longer this plays out. Don't look for any players to cross the picket line. As always, the fans are the losers and will view both sides with contempt. Never-the-less, the players vote today was inevitable and will be repeated through the league. We're talking about a huge sum of money being divided and the owners' demands are prohibitive.

[The Dean]

 

The players make enough as it is.

 

 

The owners don't? The owners are billionaires, for the most part. They have invested in a can't-lose business, that they bought as a toy...for prestige. They don't risk ANYTHING. NFL teams never lose money. But if they did, and the owner took a bath, they still have their main businesses and fortunes in tact.

 

The players, on the other hand, risk almost EVERYTHING. Most have done little except prepare to for this job for most of their lives. This is the one thing they are trained for that doesn't pay $10/hour. If they get hurt, they lose it all. If they are lucky and have a long career, they are likely to end up physical screwed. Many doomed to die at an early age.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting the players deserve more money, they make plenty. But the owners make plenty more. And you know as well as I the owners aren't going to lower ticket prices, because they are greedy, too. They might lower prices for a time while SCABS play, but if/when they can fill the stadium at $100 a seat, they WILL charge it, because that's the way the business is run.

 

I watch the NFL to watch the BEST athletes play. If I'm going to watch bums, I'll watch some local semi-pro team, or the Bills.

[Vinny4sum]

The owners don't? The owners are billionaires, for the most part. They have invested in a can't-lose business, that they bought as a toy...for prestige. They don't risk ANYTHING. NFL teams never lose money. But if they did, and the owner took a bath, they still have their main businesses and fortunes in tact.

 

The players, on the other hand, risk almost EVERYTHING. Most have done little except prepare to for this job for most of their lives. This is the one thing they are trained for that doesn't pay $10/hour. If they get hurt, they lose it all. If they are lucky and have a long career, they are likely to end up physical screwed. Many doomed to die at an early age.

Now, I'm not suggesting the players deserve more money, they make plenty. But the owners make plenty more. And you know as well as I the owners aren't going to lower ticket prices, because they are greedy, too. They might lower prices for a time while SCABS play, but if/when they can fill the stadium at $100 a seat, they WILL charge it, because that's the way the business is run.

 

I watch the NFL to watch the BEST athletes play. If I'm going to watch bums, I'll watch some local semi-pro team, or the Bills.

 

 

I agree the players put a lot on the line, but because we live in this great country nobody put a gun to their head and said you must play football. They know the trade off for the big payday. No different than I could have chosen to go to trade school instead of college. I could also decide I am not happy with my contract, I can walk or demand more from my employer, but they can replace me with another employee and they have every right to continue to sell their product. Or if I was in a union and the union decided to strike my employer would be able to bring in new workers to continue to make widgets.

 

The owners own the league no different than GE owns light bulbs. The NFL already "shares" more revenue with employees than most corporations.

[The Dean]

I agree the players put a lot on the line, but because we live in this great country nobody put a gun to their head and said you must play football. They know the trade off for the big payday. No different than I could have chosen to go to trade school instead of college. I could also decide I am not happy with my contract, I can walk or demand more from my employer, but they can replace me with another employee and they have every right to continue to sell their product. Or if I was in a union and the union decided to strike my employer would be able to bring in new workers to continue to make widgets.

 

The owners own the league no different than GE owns light bulbs. The NFL already "shares" more revenue with employees than most corporations.

 

 

Most corporations have RISK involved. The only risk the NFL owners have is if they make their franchises worthless by using lesser athletes. The NFL doesn't make widgets, nor does it simply hold football games. It is what it is because of the enormous talent of the athletes it employees.

 

Yes the players made their choice. So did the owners when they invested in a (can't miss) professional sports franchise that pays start athletes millions to play.

 

My point is, there isn't a "good guy" in this scenario. But I'll take the worker, who actually has something to lose, over the corporate billionaire if I'm forced to choose.

[phypon]

How about letting the fans play in place of the players? That would be a hoot! (yes, I used the word "hoot")

[sharper802]

There will be a lockout or a strike in 2011. The owners will bring in replacement players, and like last time, the games will be a joke. The owners get their television money anyway and the players get nothing. The two sides are recalcitrant, particularly the subset of owners who are hard liners and want a wholesale change in the revenue pie. Now that Gene Upshaw has died, the owners sense weakness in the union. This impasse will last as long as the players can reasonably hold out. The owners have the upper hand the longer this plays out. Don't look for any players to cross the picket line. As always, the fans are the losers and will view both sides with contempt. Never-the-less, the players vote today was inevitable and will be repeated through the league. We're talking about a huge sum of money being divided and the owners' demands are prohibitive.

What have you been reading? Upshaw was almost ousted for being too close and friendly with Goodell. If he had lived it was almost certain he was going to be voted out of his job.