BuffaloFan68 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Perhaps we could get JP Losman for QB. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 So, does all this mean that an NFL without the nflpa (or any union) can never exist? Then how did the NFL play with replacement players back in 1987? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the nflpa decertify (that is, desolve or cease to exist) back in 1987 too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 honestly theres not a lot in the way of options here. neither side is starting a new league. you are looking at either a new CBA being reached, or a court decision. how long that takes is anyones guess, and who ends up on top is uncertain, but odds are the owners get a little bit back, just a matter of how much. there are ways they might be able to play without a final outcome being reached, but that would be same owners, same players, same rules. there really isnt a nuclear option on the table anywhere. the most radical plays have already been made with the decert, and lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Excuse me? Since when does making an investment entitle you to a return? "Wiser, More Profitable investment?" Like What? The reason the franchises are worth Billions, is because they are money printing machines with little to no risk. The owners bought into a sure thing. If anything the players have shown more entrepreneurial spirit, but working extremely hard and sacrificing their time to hone their craft and sell it to the highest bidder. I'm not disagreeing with you or agreeing with you, but I'd suggest looking into the situation a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) I'm not disagreeing with you or agreeing with you, but I'd suggest looking into the situation a bit more. Since I've been looking into the situation for the last 2 years, during which any one paying attention could see the owners had no intention of negotiating. They wanedt a lock out and a season off to scare the players to accepting a deal on their terms. The players can't withstand a year without paychecks, the owners can. The owners are looking long term and want the Billions in their pockets not the players. They also know the fans will come back, they always do. That's why the TV money ruling is actually a big deal. The owners were banking on that money to pay the Bills during the lockout season. Now that they might not be able to collect it, it changes the owners options. They may not be so gung-ho to "take their league back" without CBS and FOX paying their Bills. Go ahead and enlighten me if you think there is something I missed. Edited March 16, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Since I've been looking into the situation for the last 2 years, during which any one paying attention could see the owners had no intention of negotiating. They wanedt a lock out and a season off to scare the players to accepting a deal on their terms. The players can't withstand a year without paychecks, the owners can. The owners are looking long term and want the Billions in their pockets not the players. They also know the fans will come back, they always do. That's why the TV money ruling is actually a big deal. The owners were banking on that money to pay the Bills during the lockout season. Now that they might not be able to collect it, it changes the owners options. They may not be so gung-ho to "take their league back" without CBS and FOX paying their Bills. Go ahead and enlighten me if you think there is something I missed. Well said. Its amazing how people who obviously have not been following the situation or cant grasp the issues are continuing to spout nonsense on here about the issues regarding the lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 The NFL is not exempt from anti-trust laws, only MLB is. The last ruling on it was back in May, 2010: American Needle vs NFL I believe the NFLPA is suing them under the anti-trust laws, so this is going to get ugly and take some time to wend its way through the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akm0404 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the players. They are not in any way shape or form partners with the owners. They are employees, albeit high priced ones. Guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder, who truly are the kind of guys I wouldn't want my daughter to marry, have invested huge sums in their teams. They could have chosen wiser, more profitable investments, but chose football. They are entitled to a return on their investments and expecting one does not in and of itself make them greedy. The players are truly fortunate that there are owners who have made these incredibly huge investments so that they can get paid, handsomely in somne cases, to play a game (and let's not forget that it is a game) that they love. They are not victims simply because the owners make money from their efforts. The owners' collective investments have provided them with their opportunity to pursue their dreams. This is not about being pro or anti union. Instead, it is about a group of young men who have been given the opportunity to continue to do something that they love. How can anyone possibly suggest that going to work every day to a job that you love is in some way akin to bein used and abused. If it is, we should all be so lucky. Most men would give up plenty to have a job/career/avocation they love instead of one that they are trapped in with no way out. Ahh the old and tired "they should feel lucky to make so much money playing a game" line. It is a business with employees who have collective bargaining rights. The business makes a ton of money off of the efforts of it's employees. Both are entitled to compensation. This isn't a game of tag on the playground. The players don't view their careers, with their insanely short duration, as some hobby. This is their livelihood. Just because you think it's a hobby and you are jealous of their riches, leave that out of a big-boy analysis of the business climate and the legal ramifications of this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Ahh the old and tired "they should feel lucky to make so much money playing a game" line. It is a business with employees who have collective bargaining rights. The business makes a ton of money off of the efforts of it's employees. Both are entitled to compensation. This isn't a game of tag on the playground. The players don't view their careers, with their insanely short duration, as some hobby. This is their livelihood. Just because you think it's a hobby and you are jealous of their riches, leave that out of a big-boy analysis of the business climate and the legal ramifications of this situation. Normally I wouldn't nitpick but the players no longer have collective bargaining rights. It's the crux of their suit against the league. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Since I've been looking into the situation for the last 2 years, during which any one paying attention could see the owners had no intention of negotiating. They wanedt a lock out and a season off to scare the players to accepting a deal on their terms. The players can't withstand a year without paychecks, the owners can. The owners are looking long term and want the Billions in their pockets not the players. They also know the fans will come back, they always do. That's why the TV money ruling is actually a big deal. The owners were banking on that money to pay the Bills during the lockout season. Now that they might not be able to collect it, it changes the owners options. They may not be so gung-ho to "take their league back" without CBS and FOX paying their Bills. Go ahead and enlighten me if you think there is something I missed. umm i guess being devils advocate here.... 1)its been said repeatedly that the TV money would not have effect the owners in 2011 at all, and would only be touched by the owners with the tightest financial issues in 2012. clearly speculative, but ive yet to see anyone but fans parroting that the money is an issue right now for owners. also, just because they planned for a contingency doesnt mean it was plan A and a primary goal. i put money in savings in case of emergency, doesnt mean my end game is planning to go to the hospital or to lose my job. 2)if the owners just wanted a lockout why didnt they execute the plan in 2006? instead they conceded more than they wanted to in order to keep the product on the field, and built in a way to get back to the table ASAP. if they just wanted to go to court and ask for some of the increased percentages from 2006 back.... why give up the money in the first place? i just dont buy that they said - "fine ill give you 10% more and then in two years sue you for 5% back." as the grand plan. why not just battle it out in 06 Edited March 16, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) umm i guess being devils advocate here.... 1)its been said repeatedly that the TV money would not have effect the owners in 2011 at all, and would only be touched by the owners with the tightest financial issues in 2012. clearly speculative, but ive yet to see anyone but fans parroting that the money is an issue right now for owners. also, just because they planned for a contingency doesnt mean it was plan A and a primary goal. i put money in savings in case of emergency, doesnt mean my end game is planning to go to the hospital or to lose my job. There is too much at stake for the NFL owners to be naive enough to think that a lockout wasn't planned for years. Specifically coming out of the March 2010 meeting where Jerry Richardson gave a speech where he said "Let's take our league back!" http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810 2)if the owners just wanted a lockout why didnt they execute the plan in 2006? instead they conceded more than they wanted to in order to keep the product on the field, and built in a way to get back to the table ASAP. if they just wanted to go to court and ask for some of the increased percentages from 2006 back.... why give up the money in the first place? i just dont buy that they said - "fine ill give you 10% more and then in two years sue you for 5% back." as the grand plan. why not just battle it out in 06 I think you've probably read all the articles about how the owners feel they were forced into a raw deal, Taglibue and Gene Upshaw were on their way out and didn't want to end their careers in the middle of a lockout\strike so they pushed a deal through. Now Ralph Wilson is getting praised as being a "visionary" in determining the deal was bad for the owners. Edited March 16, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts