Mr. WEO Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 They are still an organization, remember? You understand that decertifying was strictly for collective bargaining purposes. You really think Manning is attaching his name to the biggest media followed lawsuit and no one realized he has no standing to be a party? cmon man. No, a ruling wouldnt necessarily change all of that. The liklihood of it getting that far is unlikely, the appeals process to finalize the decision would be lengthy. The players immediate goal is winning the injunction. Regardless of your political beliefs, this should be your goal too, it gets football moving again. The basis for damages would be lost wages, in that the owners collaborated to lock out the players to prevent them from working. In an antitrust suit, such as this one, should the players prevail they get treble damages, or three times the amount they can show in damages. Because of treble damages theses types of cases rarely go to verdict, and this one surely wont. I think the owners are gambling here, they know they will have to show the books during this suit. This will be an interesting ride for sure. Well, if there is no lockout, what are they suing over? If they are getting paid, what are the damages? If the suit is a ploy to see the books, what point is there in seeing them? The owners want a new deal to lower their exposure to risk going forward. Even if the playyers know every penny that the owners make, the two sides still have to make a deal. The owners cannot be forced by a court to offer a profit sharing deal that is to the union's liking. If a new deal is reached, is it with the union? Does the union legally reform immediately? Does the lawsuit get dropped and the NFL goes back to being a monopoly (and the players are happy that it is)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreReed83 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 He has the best head of hair I've ever seen. Even if it is transplanted. Doesn't beat Bieber's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Well, if there is no lockout, what are they suing over? If they are getting paid, what are the damages? If the suit is a ploy to see the books, what point is there in seeing them? The owners want a new deal to lower their exposure to risk going forward. Even if the playyers know every penny that the owners make, the two sides still have to make a deal. The owners cannot be forced by a court to offer a profit sharing deal that is to the union's liking. If a new deal is reached, is it with the union? Does the union legally reform immediately? Does the lawsuit get dropped and the NFL goes back to being a monopoly (and the players are happy that it is)? There would still be a lockout, the injunction is temporary and forces them to operate under the old rules. Suit remains as if there was a lockout. Same damages. Players arent being paid. The owners cant be forced to give a deal they dont like, but they can be told by a court they are a monopoly which of course would be very bad. The league knows this but it will never get to that point. The judge today essentially told each side to work this out without judicial intervention. It sounds like she was leaning towards the players but one can never be certain just from oral arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 You think that Brady's having a bad day, look what Drew Greed's mouth has done wrought... http://profootballta...-at-drew-brees/ Drew Brees is a supreme jerk considering how little those old school guys made back in the day when they were laying the brick and mortar for what is now a 9 billion dollar industry. Wow, I never disliked Brees until reading what he said. His helping out poor families during Katrina was probably nothing but him putting on a show to garner fan favor and bolster his bank account. Maybe it's just me, but when I read the link you include, I don't dislike Brees at all. "They shaped the game for us,” Brees said in that interview. “Because of those guys, we have an opportunity to play this game, to make the money that we make, to get the benefits we get. We will always, always, always reach back to give to those guys. But there’s a way to do it." And then he said some guys made bad business decisions and are saying "you must make up for my bad business decisions because you are wealthy". I agree with Brees. I don't see why he should be responsible for Travis Henry's bad morals and bad behavior or for someone else's bad business judgement that squandered their money. Shakira said it well: "your family got bigger when they thought you were rich" That's a different thing than something like setting up medical benefits or other benefits for players who built up the game and never had those - and Brees isn't saying don't do that. But whatever - sounds like "Judgemental 'R' Us" 4 U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 There would still be a lockout, the injunction is temporary and forces them to operate under the old rules. Suit remains as if there was a lockout. Same damages. Players arent being paid. The owners cant be forced to give a deal they dont like, but they can be told by a court they are a monopoly which of course would be very bad. The league knows this but it will never get to that point. The judge today essentially told each side to work this out without judicial intervention. It sounds like she was leaning towards the players but one can never be certain just from oral arguments. If an injunction is given, the lockout ends. The games get played. The checks keep coming as under the "old rules". There are no damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 If an injunction is given, the lockout ends. The games get played. The checks keep coming as under the "old rules". There are no damages. Yes there are, an injunction is temporary in nature, there would and will be damages. For example, the players will argue the lockout has robbed them of one year of playing time on their careers. Also, it prevents them from entering into legal contracts etc etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Yes there are, an injunction is temporary in nature, there would and will be damages. For example, the players will argue the lockout has robbed them of one year of playing time on their careers. Also, it prevents them from entering into legal contracts etc etc etc. Huh? If the lockout is tossed, there are no games missed. How are players robbed of a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Huh? If the lockout is tossed, there are no games missed. How are players robbed of a year? As we speak there are damages accruing bc of the lack of free agency, damages are not limited to missed games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 As we speak there are damages accruing bc of the lack of free agency, damages are not limited to missed games. That's what they are suing for. And that's where the "treble" damages will most easily be quantified. FA will return. These guys will get their FA deals. It will be impossible to determine what effect the time wasted until the next owner/player deal will have had on any future FA contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I made 3380.00 per year in 1965 in management. Company went chapter 7 after I had 15 years. I got 500.00 from my pension cash. I didn't cry. I got another job. Put it in proper perspective. The time is now. Stop looking back and saying I should have. I would like to know who told all the players they had to be in sports. Blame those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Tom Brady's image is a taint. And, Drew Brees is a punk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts