Captain Caveman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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. There is a very good reason for the lockout to happen. The NFL's TV contracts promise full payment in the event of a work stoppage. That means the teams don't have to pay player salaries, but still get a huge chunk of their income. This is going to get ugly, and only legal action (or the threat of legal action) or a complete collapse by the players will prevent a lockout. 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. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810 Meanwhile, thanks to the terms of the extensions to the lucrative TV deals the league has with DirecTV and several broadcast networks, the owners would continue to receive payments during a lockout – though the money would eventually have to be repaid via credits for future games. 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? If the games don't take place they have to pay the $ back. It'd be interesting to find out if they still have to pay it back if the games are played with replacement players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 There is a very good reason for the lockout to happen. The NFL's TV contracts promise full payment in the event of a work stoppage. That means the teams don't have to pay player salaries, but still get a huge chunk of their income. This is going to get ugly, and only legal action (or the threat of legal action) or a complete collapse by the players will prevent a lockout. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810 If the games don't take place they have to pay the $ back. It'd be interesting to find out if they still have to pay it back if the games are played with replacement players. The money would have to be repaid. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81892564/printable/nflpa-tv-deal-intended-to-benefit-owners-during-possible-lockout So the money they get to hold them over during a lockout is only a loan. that has to be repaid. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/11/1685682/richardson-in-familiar-role-as.html And ive only seen confirmation that Directv still pays during a work stoppage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 The money would have to be repaid. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81892564/printable/nflpa-tv-deal-intended-to-benefit-owners-during-possible-lockout So the money they get to hold them over during a lockout is only a loan. that has to be repaid. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/11/1685682/richardson-in-familiar-role-as.html And ive only seen confirmation that Directv still pays during a work stoppage. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/06/nflpa-asks-arbitrator-to-put-nfls-tv-money-in-escrow-in-event-of-2011-lockout/1 The league has acknowledged that the TV contracts with NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV continue to pay even in the event of a lockout. But NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in February such payments constitute a loan and must be repaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) Thats good, seeing that they won't be allowed to hire scabs in the event of a lock-out...... If the union decertifies, I would guess that the owners can move forward with whatever players they would like. Edited September 23, 2010 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 There is no point to decertifying if they don't plan on striking. If they strike they don't have much of a case for a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 If the games don't take place they have to pay the $ back. It'd be interesting to find out if they still have to pay it back if the games are played with replacement players. Thanks for the correction, I had bad info. Ad revenue would be much much lower, attendance would be way down...I still don't see a reason to pay a bunch of players, train them, feed them, equip them, mend them etc. Replacement games make no sense to me. NFL careers average somewhere around 3.5-4 years? Most of those guys (not the super stars) simply cannot afford to give up a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 There is no point to decertifying if they don't plan on striking. If they strike they don't have much of a case for a suit. There's no talk at all of a strike. The talk is of a lockout. A strike is instigated by the players, a lockout by the owners. The players would decertify to be able to file legal action against the owners in the event of a lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKelso'sHelmet 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. Good man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share Posted September 23, 2010 Hey its football and I would rather watch scabs that play for the love of the game than some jerk whining because 5 mill per year isn't enough to feed his family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I pick scabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Hey its football and I would rather watch scabs that play for the love of the game than some jerk whining because 5 mill per year isn't enough to feed his family Except it would be a lockout not a strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 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 yeah.... "always" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Can someone explain exactly what this means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) Can someone explain exactly what this means? 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. This Edited September 23, 2010 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 This Thank you....i sorta lost it amost the whole thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts