tennesseeboy Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I was on an airplane ride from a guy who was connected with the NFL and he said there were contingencies for a shortened season depending on how long the lockout went and that the owners saw this as the "final option" in negotiation to avoid losing an entire season, with there being almost no preseason, a revised schedule to allow the home and away divisional games and a playoff and superbowl. He said it was his uncerstanding that losing a seaosn is not an option. I don't know if he was pulling my leg or not, but It does kind of make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 The owners cannot move the Super Bowl from its date. That would prevent then from extending the season into February. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted May 20, 2011 Author Share Posted May 20, 2011 The owners cannot move the Super Bowl from its date. That would prevent then from extending the season into February. PTR The impression I got was that the playoffs and superbowl stayed on the schedule with the changes being the elimination of some preseason games and two to four regular season games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) The owners cannot move the Super Bowl from its date. That would prevent then from extending the season into February. PTR PTR, i think if i remember correctly they can move it a week..i will search a bit later, but pretty sure when the schedule came out the way it was set up they could lose the first 4 weekends and still get in all the games by having no bye and no week between Super Bowl and Conference chamionships and moving ganme back a week. Edited May 20, 2011 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 PTR, i think if i remember correctly they can move it a week..i will search a bit later, but pretty sure when the schedule came out the way it was set up they could lose te first 4 weekends and still get in all the games by having no bye and no week between Super Bowl and Conference chamionships and moving ganme back a week. But in that instance the Super Bowl would still remain the same week, there would just be no Bye week between the conf championships and the SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) But in that instance the Super Bowl would still remain the same week, there would just be no Bye week between the conf championships and the SB. I have to search, but i think they need to move it back one week if they lose the first 4 games and still want a 16 week schedule..and Indy has okayed the move. My bad, they can lose the first three weeks...if they move the Super Bowl 1 week, which they can http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/04/nfl-has-three-week-cushion-in-schedule-to-allow-for-lost-games/1 Edited May 20, 2011 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I was on an airplane ride from a guy who was connected with the NFL and he said there were contingencies for a shortened season depending on how long the lockout went and that the owners saw this as the "final option" in negotiation to avoid losing an entire season, with there being almost no preseason, a revised schedule to allow the home and away divisional games and a playoff and superbowl. He said it was his uncerstanding that losing a seaosn is not an option. I don't know if he was pulling my leg or not, but It does kind of make sense. Interesting. The league planned for the loss of the 2011 season due to a lockout when they negotiated a lower than market price deal with the networks for 2011 in exchange for hte $ being guarnteed regardless of whether or not any games were actually played. That is the suit that Judge Doty recently decided by overturning a special master's decision awarding the players only 6.7 million of the $4 billion being paid to the league. There is going to be a hearing on damages and Doty will probably give the players half of that money or perhaps prevent the league from collecting any of it. If losing the season was not an option, I don't see why they would have planned so meticulously for that eventuality. Doty's decision however, may have torn up the pea patch so that it really isn't an option anymore since the league may or may not collect the money they planned on using to carry them through a season of no football. That suit and the $2 billion dollars at stake, give or take, may be where the real leverage is in this dispute. Its like watching Zeus and Appollo duke it out. Us mere mortals can only quiver and quake in their shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Interesting. The league planned for the loss of the 2011 season due to a lockout when they negotiated a lower than market price deal with the networks for 2011 in exchange for hte $ being guarnteed regardless of whether or not any games were actually played. That is the suit that Judge Doty recently decided by overturning a special master's decision awarding the players only 6.7 million of the $4 billion being paid to the league. There is going to be a hearing on damages and Doty will probably give the players half of that money or perhaps prevent the league from collecting any of it. If losing the season was not an option, I don't see why they would have planned so meticulously for that eventuality. Doty's decision however, may have torn up the pea patch so that it really isn't an option anymore since the league may or may not collect the money they planned on using to carry them through a season of no football. That suit and the $2 billion dollars at stake, give or take, may be where the real leverage is in this dispute. Its like watching Zeus and Appollo duke it out. Us mere mortals can only quiver and quake in their shadow. If Doty rules to keep the money in escrow (and away form the owners), the players are worse off. The owners can borrow to pay the bills if there are no games. The players won't go long without checks. If the players accept the last deal offered them, they would make more money than in any year of the old CBA and would have concessions that were never offered to them before. It's not a bad deal--guaranteed raises every year as the cap goes up and up. Functionally, it's the same as they had before. The 59.5 % was an imaginary number they are still stuck on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 10-14 games is likely the minimum season they can go with if the lockout ends later but still with enough time to start a season there could be some sort of shortened season that length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 If the season is one game shorter I will cancel my Sunday NFL Ticket and tell them why. I will not attend one game. I will not buy one piece of NFL stuff. These punks need to know we will not take it any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) If the season is one game shorter I will cancel my Sunday NFL Ticket and tell them why. I will not attend one game. I will not buy one piece of NFL stuff. These punks need to know we will not take it any more. Direhard is right! Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. Edited May 20, 2011 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 If the season is one game shorter I will cancel my Sunday NFL Ticket and tell them why. I will not attend one game. I will not buy one piece of NFL stuff. These punks need to know we will not take it any more. Direhard is right! Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. Navy Seals Team 6? Are we gonna go after the players and the owners? Shoot first and ask questions later? Where shall we meet? I'm free on Sundays indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Interesting. The league planned for the loss of the 2011 season due to a lockout when they negotiated a lower than market price deal with the networks for 2011 in exchange for hte $ being guarnteed regardless of whether or not any games were actually played. That is the suit that Judge Doty recently decided by overturning a special master's decision awarding the players only 6.7 million of the $4 billion being paid to the league. There is going to be a hearing on damages and Doty will probably give the players half of that money or perhaps prevent the league from collecting any of it. If losing the season was not an option, I don't see why they would have planned so meticulously for that eventuality. Doty's decision however, may have torn up the pea patch so that it really isn't an option anymore since the league may or may not collect the money they planned on using to carry them through a season of no football. That suit and the $2 billion dollars at stake, give or take, may be where the real leverage is in this dispute. Its like watching Zeus and Appollo duke it out. Us mere mortals can only quiver and quake in their shadow. Lockout insurance ruling may not provide lockout insurance for players Posted by Mike Florio on May 20, 2011, 5:36 PM EDT ...... Either way, to the extent that the players assume that a large award will be entered by Judge Doty and that the money will help the players get through a full-season lockout without having to take out $500,000 loans at 23-percent interest, they need to realize that they quite possibly won’t see the money until after the 2011 season ends. And that they may not see it at all. The decision will be subject to appeal by the Eighth Circuit, and the judges assigned to the case could disagree with Judge Doty on the issue of damages, or even on the issue of liability. The Special Master, for example, viewed the case much differently that Doty did, and the appeal of Judge Nelson’s order lifting the lockout already has demonstrated the reality that what is clearly right to one federal judge may be clearly wrong to another. Also, the Eighth Circuit’s decision to expedite the appeal of the lockout-lifting order doesn’t mean that it will expedite the appeal of the lockout insurance ruling. Typically, awards of money damages are considered in the normal course of court business, with interest accruing while the plaintiff waits for justice to be dispensed. Thus, even though the chances of getting this entire mess resolved could be enhanced by an order forcing the league to finance the lockout for the players, there’s a good chance the players won’t see a penny of the money until after the 2011 season has come and gone, even if Judge Doty’s ruling is upheld on appeal. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/20/lockout-insurance-ruling-likely-wont-provide-lockout-insurance-for-players/ There's more in the link. Yeah, a slam dunk for the players..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Thats a shame. They should slame dunk the players laywers. Do they care about us fans?? NO! It's all about money honey. Same old Same old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 it is interesting, that's for sure. I can't see the matter being resolved in court, with appeals, stays and injunctions galore, and little happening. I also don't see the parties coming together soon. The owners did a "replacement" season once before and I don't think the fans, tv, or advertisers would buy into that. I see the eyeball to eyeball thing going on until well into "training camp" season and possibly preseason, and I think whenever the parties blink there will be some "contingency" schedule along the lines of what I'm seeing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) If the season is one game shorter I will cancel my Sunday NFL Ticket and tell them why. I will not attend one game. I will not buy one piece of NFL stuff. These punks need to know we will not take it any more. I suggest going to the window . . . Edited May 23, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Direhard is right! Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. Actually, I thought Direhard's post was a nice blend of your Animal House reference and Peter Finch's Oscar-winning Network speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I was on an airplane ride from a guy who was connected with the NFL and he said there were contingencies for a shortened season depending on how long the lockout went and that the owners saw this as the "final option" in negotiation to avoid losing an entire season, with there being almost no preseason, a revised schedule to allow the home and away divisional games and a playoff and superbowl. He said it was his uncerstanding that losing a seaosn is not an option. I don't know if he was pulling my leg or not, but It does kind of make sense. Don't quote the exact number weeks here but roughly... Weeks 1 and 3 have no division games, and all teams at home go on the road week 3- ie can be cancelled and keep a balanced schedule and full division slate. Week 2 has teams with common bye weeks playing so it can be postponed to the bye. The superbowl can be pushed back one week giving time to postpone 2 weeks worth of games. All that said a team might play 19 straight weekends entering the superbowl... Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 There will be games canceled. 4 games. But they will not be regular season games. They will be preseason games. I predict the lockout lasts about 1 month into normal activities, just long enough for both sides to agree to cancel preseason. And then the players will cave. Id almost put money on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) He said it was his uncerstanding that losing a seaosn is not an option. As Mickey pointed out, the reference to losing a season not being an option may have nothing to do with scheduling issues. Instead, it may reflect the fact that some teams still have debt service payments that will make it difficult for them to financially survive an entire season without game-related revenue (be it gate receipts or TV money). The owners negotiated with broadcasters to get payments even if the 2011 season was delayed or canceled, but Judge Doty in MN found that doing so breached the owners' contractual CBA obligations to the NFLPA. Unless there is some reason to think that the teams with the greatest debt took other financial measures to prepare for the current lockout, those teams will again be under pressure to meet player demands, just like they were in 2006. Of course, as pointed out in other threads, many players are often not very good at managing their money, and will also feel financial pain when they start missing game checks. So in some respects, it boils down to a question of which side can withstand the financial pain of missing game-related revenue the longest. Here's what the USA Today reported back in 2006, shortly after the CBA was approved by the other owners over Ralph Wilson's dissenting vote: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-03-28-nfl-tech_x.htm "This new deal is worse than the one we had," said Wilson, not attending the owners meetings in Orlando this week. "You want labor peace, but you also want a fair deal." Wilson believes club costs were not reflected enough in the CBA and that some peers were forced into a resolution because of significant debt. Although the previous CBA would not have expired until 2008, ramifications including an uncapped 2007 campaign would have been triggered if a new CBA wasn't done before the 2006 fiscal year began. "The owners panicked," Wilson said. "They were afraid there might be a work stoppage. But we would've had 12 months to sit down and work a better deal out. With this deal, there's going to be half the clubs under water." =============================================== Based on Forbes' estimates, it appears that Ralph's prediction of "half" the clubs being under water may have been wrong. But there's no reason to think he was mistaken about the impact of "significant" club debt on the owners' negotiating position. Edited May 23, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts