DarthICE Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I say let them Decertify, then as owners I let them set as I bring in scrubs and have the league go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheZone78 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 You beat me to it. Except I was going to say "do you think we'll tell the difference?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I didn't watch scabs the last time and I won't watch them this time, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Hansen Forever Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharper802 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharper802 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I wish they would all just sit down and get this thing done already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing Man Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny4sum Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phypon Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 How about letting the fans play in place of the players? That would be a hoot! (yes, I used the word "hoot") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharper802 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Most corporations have RISK involved. The only risk the NFL owners have is if they make their franchises worthless by using lesser athletes Was there no RISK when Ralph loaned 50 grand to Rat Face Al to keep his team afloat? There was no RISK when founders of the AFL all got together to compete with the NFL? There was no RISK when the guys that started up the league and put a lot of their own money in to start the league? There's no RISK that there could be a strike and they lose all their revenue for the year? Where would GM be without all it's smart auto designers and assembly line workers? Where would the coal mine company be without the coal miners who truly do put it all on the online. yahoo and Google don't make widgets either. I don't see the big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Screw the players. They know the risks, no one forces them to be pro players and become millionares playing a game. YES the owners are Billionaires they own the team, they are the bosses it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Screw the players. They know the risks, no one forces them to be pro players and become millionares playing a game. YES the owners are Billionaires they own the team, they are the bosses it is what it is. They are the bosses who need a product ie the best football players. IF you dont have them you dont have the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Spartacus is completely correct. If the union decertifies, the ball is then in their court. They either play or strike. If the latter, the owners will put other players on the field. Once the checks stop coming in, the players will cave. They all know this. They can't bluff the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Spartacus is completely correct. If the union decertifies, the ball is then in their court. They either play or strike. If the latter, the owners will put other players on the field. Once the checks stop coming in, the players will cave. They all know this. They can't bluff the owners. decertifying means they intend to play out their current contracts and will sue if the owners refuse to let them play. No bluffing. The owners dont make the same money with scrubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. No, they won't. They get their TV money regardless of whether there is a season or not, so why would they spend cash to put a team on the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainiac72 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 They are the bosses who need a product ie the best football players. IF you dont have them you dont have the product. They don't depend on it though. They may lose money, but not that much, relatively. They did not make their money on football, and they don't need football to remain billionaires. I don't know if higher salaries will be passed on to fans in all cases, as i'm sure owners are already getting what they think they can. But owners are used to operating at a profit and will do what it takes to remain that way... so a team that makes less overall revenue, like the Bills, will have to move if this area cannot support the higher ticket prices other cities can supply to cover the higher salaries. right now Bills make profit. but what if salaries go up 50 million a year? would buffalo still be profitable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) decertifying means they intend to play out their current contracts and will sue if the owners refuse to let them play. No bluffing. The owners dont make the same money with scrubs. If they chose to play out their current contracts (and no CBA) the owners are going to let them do just that. Football continues. If they decertify, it's either play or strike. Edited September 23, 2010 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share Posted September 23, 2010 They are the bosses who need a product ie the best football players. IF you dont have them you dont have the product. Sure you do. Bring in guys that haven't played yet and let them develop and continue to draft. Fans are still going to attend games, There will still be TV contracts etc. The game will go on and in 3 years you wont be able to tell the difference between the guys on the field now an the ones that will be on the field then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 They are the bosses who need a product ie the best football players. IF you dont have them you dont have the product. Then the players keep demanding more and more money. The owners have to keep raising prices, and eventually price themselves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweatpantsjoe Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I didn't watch scabs the last time and I won't watch them this time, either. Thats good, seeing that they won't be allowed to hire scabs in the event of a lock-out...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Then the players keep demanding more and more money. The owners have to keep raising prices, and eventually price themselves out. Prices are set to maximize the amount of revenue the team can get out of the stadium capacity every Sunday. There is no reason to believe the prices would be lower if the players made 1/2 as much in salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Sure you do. Bring in guys that haven't played yet and let them develop and continue to draft. Fans are still going to attend games, There will still be TV contracts etc. The game will go on and in 3 years you wont be able to tell the difference between the guys on the field now an the ones that will be on the field then. In 3 years you wont notice no tom brady, manning, etc etc. Thats just silly. Why is everyone saying they get their TV $ even in a lockout? the details of those contracts arent released to my knowledge. The only TV $$ thats guaranteed is directv. Half of the owners revenue is based on TV contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsox Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I think it would be good for the players to hold out. They make waaaay too much money. Instead, they should be taking that money and putting it into a retirement fund or half of what they get paid goes to it. I'd love to see the scrubs play. Probably be more entertaining and the Bills might actually end up doing well if everyone is on the same playing field with the talent level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I say let them Decertify, then as owners I let them set as I bring in scrubs and have the league go on. We are already playing with scrubs. Are you sure the bills are decertifying the union or did the union ask the bills to leave as they are so embarrassing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Screw the players. They know the risks, no one forces them to be pro players and become millionares playing a game. YES the owners are Billionaires they own the team, they are the bosses it is what it is. You took to the indoctrination very well, didn't you, ICE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 About the same I suppose. We could win the superbowl! That would be the irony, wouldn't it? The Bills win the Superbowl in a lockout, season-shortened year, with replacement players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I didn't watch scabs the last time and I won't watch them this time, either. For some reason I was in Buffalo during the strike in '87 and went with my dad to the Bills-Giants scab game. LT played, and the game was a real barn-burner. I think Buffalo won 6-3 in OT behind Todd Schlopy, who had missed at least one FG earlier. It was U-G-L-Y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 In 3 years you wont notice no tom brady, manning, etc etc. Thats just silly. Why is everyone saying they get their TV $ even in a lockout? the details of those contracts arent released to my knowledge. The only TV $$ thats guaranteed is directv. Half of the owners revenue is based on TV contracts. All the network money is guaranteed. However, if the games aren't played, the league eventually has to pay the money back, like a loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. Tagliabue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts