Mr. WEO Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 That was hastily typed ... should have been the NFLPA (and every major media outlet) not the owners. The owners get 5 Billion dollars in 2010 whether or not there's a game played. 1 Billion of that, from Direct TV is theirs scott free. There's far more motivation for the owners to lock players out than ever before. It is actually good business sense. But in case you'd like to see some, these are just pulled from random: Uno Dos C Yeah, I don't see why the owners would lock out either. Let the players deny the world of their football--that's likely their (owners) stance. If the owners don't lock out the players have to either strike or show up for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah, I don't see why the owners would lock out either. Let the players deny the world of their football--that's likely their (owners) stance. If the owners don't lock out the players have to either strike or show up for work. They will lock the players out to force them to renegotiate the CBA. I'm not sure about this, maybe someone who knows the situation better can tell us, but if the owners don't lock the players out -- the season could go on without a CBA in place. Right? So the only way to force a new CBA is for one side to either lock out or strike. And since the players want things to remain the same and the owners want change ... right? I could be totally off with this paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 That was hastily typed ... should have been the NFLPA (and every major media outlet) not the owners. The owners get 5 Billion dollars in 2010 whether or not there's a game played. 1 Billion of that, from Direct TV is theirs scott free. There's far more motivation for the owners to lock players out than ever before. It is actually good business sense. But in case you'd like to see some, these are just pulled from random: Uno Dos C hastily typed my but -- you were just intentionally distorting reality to support your position. the owners have no need to pro-actively lock out the players and take the PR hit for causing the work stoppage- they can get a better answer by bargaining to an impass (which they may already be at) and imposing their last offer The owners know the players don't have the stones to strike on their own for any period of time - so why should the owners make the decision for the players. The union's whole strategy is hoping that the league locks them out - because they don't stand a chance if they have to de-certify and individually choose to not work. you also fail to note that the TV money they get in 2011 is just a loan if there are no games. However, if there are games, even scab games, my guess is most of that money does not need to be paid back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 hastily typed my but -- you were just intentionally distorting reality to support your position. the owners have no need to pro-actively lock out the players and take the PR hit for causing the work stoppage- they can get a better answer by bargaining to an impass (which they may already be at) and imposing their last offer The owners know the players don't have the stones to strike on their own for any period of time - so why should the owners make the decision for the players. The union's whole strategy is hoping that the league locks them out - because they don't stand a chance if they have to de-certify and individually choose to not work. you also fail to note that the TV money they get in 2011 is just a loan if there are no games. However, if there are games, even scab games, my guess is most of that money does not need to be paid back That's not true (on any level). The 1b from Direct TV doesn't need to be paid back. It's theirs free and clear. The network money does have to be paid back (with interest) but not until games resume. Meaning they can leverage the 7+ Billion however they like to withstand the work stoppage. Also, the owners don't give a rat's ass about the PR war in terms of a work stoppage. Why would they? They know their product is the golden goose. This country is addicted to football. It's a ratings monster. Baseball and the NBA, both far less popular, survived worse and more contentious work stoppages in the past decade plus. The Owners know the NFL can, and will, do the same. Also, like I said above, I'm not sure the legalities of it but I think the owners have to lock the players out -- otherwise the existing CBA remains in effect until a new one is reached. But I'd love for someone who knows about the situation to explain that because I'm not sure how it works. Still, I'll bet you an avatar for a month that there's a lockout ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts