benderbender Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I have little optimism for any deal to be worked out at this point. The players were banking on winning court cases and are shocked that the billionare owners can afford better ones. Now all the owners have to do is wait for the approach of the season and the players anxious of losing out on game checks will start to and eventually give in. Carson Palmer will be laughing in retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I have little optimism for any deal to be worked out at this point. The players were banking on winning court cases and are shocked that the billionare owners can afford better ones. Now all the owners have to do is wait for the approach of the season and the players anxious of losing out on game checks will start to and eventually give in. Carson Palmer will be laughing in retirement. I am having a tough time understanding what it would look like when the "players eventually give in"? The league wants the anti-trust exemption which they can't get without a CBA. Even if they win the injunction question just argued in court, it won't be permanent. Even the league's lawyer acknowledged that decertification would eventually remove the antitrust exemption during oral argument yesterday. The only debate was whether the players would have to wait 6 months which would be September 11 or so, or for one whole "business cycle" (the lawyer wasn't abel to say what exactly "one full business cycle" meant, presumably one season). Only the union recertifying could put them back under the umbrella of the anti-trust exemption and for that to happen, you would need a player majority vote. Individual players could trickle back and it wouldn't stop the antitrust suit pending before judge Nelson. One thing that ticked me off about yesterday's oral agument was that afterwards, the NFL's atty publicly spoke about the "secret meetings" as proof that there is still a "labor dispute" taking place and thus, the exemption is still in place which bars the injunction. Settlement discussions are not admissible and further, there is no way in heaven the players' atty's didn't require, as a precondition, an agreement that their participation in negotiations wouldn't be used to justify the "ongoing labor dispute" argument. I think it was dirty pool to use that in a public statement and if what the league wants is to negotiate a settlement, I have to wonder why they would do anything to make the players reluctant to have any negotiations at all out of fear it wiould endanger their legal position. One of the problems with litigation is that it can drive the parties further apart than when they started because of the nasty stuff that goes on during a law suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 One thing that ticked me off about yesterday's oral agument was that afterwards, the NFL's atty publicly spoke about the "secret meetings" as proof that there is still a "labor dispute" taking place and thus, the exemption is still in place which bars the injunction. Settlement discussions are not admissible and further, there is no way in heaven the players' atty's didn't require, as a precondition, an agreement that their participation in negotiations wouldn't be used to justify the "ongoing labor dispute" argument. I think it was dirty pool to use that in a public statement and if what the league wants is to negotiate a settlement, I have to wonder why they would do anything to make the players reluctant to have any negotiations at all out of fear it wiould endanger their legal position. One of the problems with litigation is that it can drive the parties further apart than when they started because of the nasty stuff that goes on during a law suit. yeah - I agree really annoying how one side can spin the story to fit their interpretation. something like the NFLPA constantly asserting that the NFL violated the CBA by contesting the de-certification - even though the players clearly jumped the gun and decertified before the CBA expired good thing this litigation is only a negotiating tactic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Exactly Gene Upshaw took Tags to the cleaners last time around. Tags desire to get a deal done (a deal that was so bad for the owners that they opted out of) is why we are where we are. True, the players got more of what they wanted, last time around...but I am not sure that was so much Upshaws' steely resolve, as it was the fact that Tagliabue had one foot out the door already, and gave his impassioned speech to the owners to settle so he could retire from his job, looking good... it wasn't 48 hours after the ink dried that everyone started predicting this lockout was going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I don't understand this comment. Are the players underpaid? No, infact he negotiated such a good deal for the players that the owners backed out of the current CBA and are locking the players out. He did a great job on the players behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts