If I were King of the NFL

[hondo in seattle]

When you hire a guy to mow your lawn, who decides how much he gets paid? You or him?

 

If I ran the NFL, I wouldn't negotiate with the organization that used to be the NFLPA. I would simply hire replacement players and carry on.

 

Yep, it would be a financial disaster. Either way - concessions to the former NFLPA or going forward with replacements - is going to cost the NFL money. I'd rather lose in the short term and gain in the long.

 

Next year, draftees would have a choice. Either sign with the NFL and play for millions or align themselves with a union that doesn't actually exist and is accomplishing nothing. Most of these young guys don't have the financial means to support a strike. They'd sign and play while Brady and Manning continued to sit.

 

After a few years, we'd fill the clubs with enough college stars that the fans would come back. Many of the former members of the former NFLPA would sign too eventually. They'd come to appreciate that playing for a mill a year is better than working at Walmart. There might be a few players with money in the bank who stick to their principles and support the NFLPA to the bitter end. Oh well, life goes on. No individual is indispensable. Sooner or later, the NFL would flourish with a new crop of players who won't dare to become too greedy. Strikes would become a thing of the past.

[mjt328]

How many fans would you turn off in the process?

I, for one, would never watch professional football again.

 

To answer your question: We both decide how much he gets paid to mow my lawn.

I can offer him $10 to do it. He can accept that or ask for more. That is his decision.

If I refuse to pay him what he's worth, I take the risk of having someone else do a crappy job. That's my decision.

There is always give and take.

 

 

The NFL is not just popular because football is a cool sport. If that was true, the NFL wouldn't have any advantage over the CFL, USFL, Arena League, XFL, whatever...

One of the reason it's popular is because of the TALENT.

 

We pay to watch Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers throw the ball. Not some bum off the street that can't hit the broadside of a barn.

We pay to watch Adrien Peterson, Chris Johnson run the ball. Not some guy with half the speed and no moves.

 

 

Maybe the players are selfish, greedy and don't appreciate what they have. I'm sure quite a few are.

But the reason they get paid so much money is because WE are willing to fork out that kind of money to be entertained. It's called supply and demand.

Fans need to stop being jealous of what the players have. Having millions of dollars and fame isn't everything. Instead, we need to start appreciating that football players are around to entertain us.

Edited June 4, 2011 by mjt328

[Scrappy]

Slavery is what you propose, maybe collared greens for play would be better?

[It's in My Blood]

Slavery is what you propose, maybe collared greens for play would be better?

 

 

:lol: :worthy:

[3rdand12]

this is a good dialogue for some of us to have. It interests me a little how we fans can affect the outcome. we are have been paying for a service and we are interdependent upon each other also.

without us fans ( theoretically ) there is no football nor any of this money to argue over. of course unrealistic but true i am thinking.

So the kid is not cutting my grass and it is getting really long which makes me unhappy .

also to ops point and method. i think he might be on to something ( again in theory, never happen ). all the players skills would level out as to each other, although may be much lower than we are accustomed to of course. But that does not mean that it would not be competitive and possibly more exciting. maybe we could reset our expectations, doubt it though for most folks. But a lot of friends think college football is much more exciting than pro ball. just some rambling thoughts

[Cereal]

If I were the king of the NFL, I'll tell you what I'd do.

 

I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the wars , and make sweet love to you.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Cereal

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Slavery is what you propose, maybe collared greens for play would be better?

I'm glad we never had unions so we can only make a dollar an hr.

[Mickey]

When you hire a guy to mow your lawn, who decides how much he gets paid? You or him?

 

If I ran the NFL, I wouldn't negotiate with the organization that used to be the NFLPA. I would simply hire replacement players and carry on.

 

Yep, it would be a financial disaster. Either way - concessions to the former NFLPA or going forward with replacements - is going to cost the NFL money. I'd rather lose in the short term and gain in the long.

 

Next year, draftees would have a choice. Either sign with the NFL and play for millions or align themselves with a union that doesn't actually exist and is accomplishing nothing. Most of these young guys don't have the financial means to support a strike. They'd sign and play while Brady and Manning continued to sit.

 

After a few years, we'd fill the clubs with enough college stars that the fans would come back. Many of the former members of the former NFLPA would sign too eventually. They'd come to appreciate that playing for a mill a year is better than working at Walmart. There might be a few players with money in the bank who stick to their principles and support the NFLPA to the bitter end. Oh well, life goes on. No individual is indispensable. Sooner or later, the NFL would flourish with a new crop of players who won't dare to become too greedy. Strikes would become a thing of the past.

Brilliant! I am sure they never thought of that, you should send them a note or something. Oh wait....wouldn't all the rich SOB's in the land who don't have an NFL franchise jump at the chance to start a new league with all the best players ready to display their superior skills for the fans while the new NFL with their ex-bouncers and arena football stars kill all the geese that laid the golden eggs?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

When you hire a guy to mow your lawn, who decides how much he gets paid? You or him?

Lawn mowing issues can get complicated, and are not always intuitive, especially if supposedly superior Canadian lawn mowing equipment is involved.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/130111-toronto-taking-the-bills-is-like-my-ex-wife/

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

....wouldn't all the rich SOB's in the land who don't have an NFL franchise jump at the chance to start a new league with all the best players ready to display their superior skills for the fans while the new NFL with their ex-bouncers and arena football stars kill all the geese that laid the golden eggs?

Maybe - - but what happens when the NFL's lawyers threaten a tortious interference with contract suit against those OTHER rich SOBs, and follow it up with suits against the superior players seeking injunctions to prevent such superior players from ever playing a down in the new league (at least for the unexpired term of their existing NFL contracts), based on the contract language quoted below?

 

I'm open to any rationally based explanation to the contrary, but I think the players already gave up the right to play in any other league for the duration of their existing contracts. Conversely, at least in the parts I've read so far (it's REEEEAAALLLLYYYY long), the old CBA did not require the owners to give up the right to hire replacement players.

 

The recently expired CBA is publicly available, and contains a sample player contract. See Article XIV, section 1, at page 40/301 of the CBA here:

 

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

 

"Section 1. Form: The NFL Player Contract form attached hereto as Appendix

C will be used for all player signings. This form cannot be amended

without the approval of the Management Council and the NFLPA."

 

The sample contract attached as Exhibit C in turn reads, at page 248/301 of the CBA

 

"Player will not participate in any football game not sponsored

by the League unless the game is first approved by the League.

 

* * * *

 

Without prior written consent of the

Club, Player will not play football or engage in activities related to football

otherwise than for Club . . .

 

* * * *

 

Player ... agrees that Club will have the right, in addition to any other right

which Club may possess, to enjoin Player by appropriate proceedings from

playing football or engaging in football-related activities other than for Club"

 

==================================================================================

 

Serious question - - is there some legal reason why the NFL owners could not simultaneously (1) lock out the current players, (2) hire replacement players, and (3) enforce the contract terms quoted above to prevent the locked-out players from playing football in any other league? A material breach of the contract by the owners would prevent them from enforcing the above provisions, but exactly how have the owners materially breached the existing player contracts? Help me think about it.

Edited June 5, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[CookieG]

When you hire a guy to mow your lawn, who decides how much he gets paid? You or him?

 

If I ran the NFL, I wouldn't negotiate with the organization that used to be the NFLPA. I would simply hire replacement players and carry on.

 

Yep, it would be a financial disaster. Either way - concessions to the former NFLPA or going forward with replacements - is going to cost the NFL money. I'd rather lose in the short term and gain in the long.

 

Next year, draftees would have a choice. Either sign with the NFL and play for millions or align themselves with a union that doesn't actually exist and is accomplishing nothing. Most of these young guys don't have the financial means to support a strike. They'd sign and play while Brady and Manning continued to sit.

 

After a few years, we'd fill the clubs with enough college stars that the fans would come back. Many of the former members of the former NFLPA would sign too eventually. They'd come to appreciate that playing for a mill a year is better than working at Walmart. There might be a few players with money in the bank who stick to their principles and support the NFLPA to the bitter end. Oh well, life goes on. No individual is indispensable. Sooner or later, the NFL would flourish with a new crop of players who won't dare to become too greedy. Strikes would become a thing of the past.

 

Cool, the Tony George business model.

 

The IRL/CART split, with the most popular drivers leaving for CART, became the doom for open wheeled racing in the US.

 

The Indy 500, once the crowned jewel in US motorsports and an American memorial day institution, now gets ratings on par with an average NASCAR race.

 

Other IRL races get ratings of around .1 to .2. And that's 15 years after the split.

 

CART went out of business.

 

The big beneficiary..NASCAR.

 

Maybe Danica Patrick can play QB.

[T master]

Slavery is what you propose, maybe collared greens for play would be better?

 

You sound like that JACK ASS that plays for the Steelers, Mendenhal . This stuff has nothing to do with slavery . These guys are all greedy they start out from the time they are kids with the thought that one day i will play in the NFL & make millions of dollars .

 

That is a decision !! They are not pushed into it !! That Mendenhal head let's see him pack it in & go work toting brick for a living IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN you know why because he made the decision to PLAY A GAME .

 

The owners are the ones that have let this get out of hand ,(look at the last vote only Ralph & Browns owner were smart enough to vote against it) it's the same with any union , they start out with the workers best interest @ heart then they get greedy , then the worker get's greedy & it just snow balls . I know because my old man was a GM (UAW) worker fat & lazy, we wonder why our cars cost so much & why the industry is what it is ??

 

And if given the way of the players & owners Football will soon be like baseball half empty stadiums , a couple of teams with all the money (Pats , Cowboys) and the rest of the league to barely survive with the scraps it's the American way they try to fix what isn't broken .. They just need to fix the obvious & leave the rest alone !!!

 

AND GET THIS FREAKIN SLAVERY CRAP IDEA OUT OF THE CONVERSATION !! LET THEN ALL GO IN THE OFF SEASON & TOTE BRICK FOR $8.00 AN HR & SEE IF THEY CHANGE THEIR TUNE !!

[Mickey]

Maybe - - but what happens when the NFL's lawyers threaten a tortious interference with contract suit against those OTHER rich SOBs, and follow it up with suits against the superior players seeking injunctions to prevent such superior players from ever playing a down in the new league (at least for the unexpired term of their existing NFL contracts), based on the contract language quoted below?

 

I'm open to any rationally based explanation to the contrary, but I think the players already gave up the right to play in any other league for the duration of their existing contracts. Conversely, at least in the parts I've read so far (it's REEEEAAALLLLYYYY long), the old CBA did not require the owners to give up the right to hire replacement players.

 

The recently expired CBA is publicly available, and contains a sample player contract. See Article XIV, section 1, at page 40/301 of the CBA here:

 

http://images.nflpla...%20-%202012.pdf

 

"Section 1. Form: The NFL Player Contract form attached hereto as Appendix

C will be used for all player signings. This form cannot be amended

without the approval of the Management Council and the NFLPA."

 

The sample contract attached as Exhibit C in turn reads, at page 248/301 of the CBA

 

"Player will not participate in any football game not sponsored

by the League unless the game is first approved by the League.

 

* * * *

 

Without prior written consent of the

Club, Player will not play football or engage in activities related to football

otherwise than for Club . . .

 

* * * *

 

Player ... agrees that Club will have the right, in addition to any other right

which Club may possess, to enjoin Player by appropriate proceedings from

playing football or engaging in football-related activities other than for Club"

 

==================================================================================

 

Serious question - - is there some legal reason why the NFL owners could not simultaneously (1) lock out the current players, (2) hire replacement players, and (3) enforce the contract terms quoted above to prevent the locked-out players from playing football in any other league? A material breach of the contract by the owners would prevent them from enforcing the above provisions, but exactly how have the owners materially breached the existing player contracts? Help me think about it.

 

"...enjoin...by appropriate proceedings..." That hasn't happened and a lockout would not exactly qualify. That clause is what allows the league to suspend players found in violation of league rules via "approrpriate proceedings". What you are suggesting is that the players quitel literally be shackled so that they can't earn a living for their families, it would be a species of slavery that the law would not countenance.

 

Every contract has an invisible conscionability clause which would allow a court to refuse to enforce a contract clause that shocks the conscience of the court.

[hondo in seattle]

 

The NFL is not just popular because football is a cool sport. If that was true, the NFL wouldn't have any advantage over the CFL, USFL, Arena League, XFL, whatever...

One of the reason it's popular is because of the TALENT.

 

 

 

Using replacement players would dilute the TALENT pool - but only temporarily. Current college stars would still sign with the NFL after future drafts because it's still - by far - the best paying gig in town.

 

The risk of a hardline approach is that the TALENT would migrate to a new league if one were formed. But setting up a competitively capitalized alternate professional football league quickly enough would be a challenging endeavor.

 

Slavery is what you propose, maybe collared greens for play would be better?

 

If NFL players are slaves then I want to be a slave.

 

But players are far from slaves. They have options. If they really want to play games for a living, they can join the CFL or some other league. Or they can finish their college degrees and enter regular working society like the rest of us.

 

It seems to me disrespectful of truly enslaved people - past and present - to refer to NFL millionaires as slaves.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I typically learn more from discussing things with people who don't share my views, as opposed to people who are in total agreement with me. I rarely learn anything from them. So if you have time, let's talk about this a bit.

 

"...enjoin...by appropriate proceedings..." That hasn't happened and a lockout would not exactly qualify. That clause is what allows the league to suspend players found in violation of league rules via "appropriate proceedings".

I don't claim to have your expertise but I disagree. Nothing in "that clause" even mentions league rules or suspension of players for violating them. If you actually read the player contract, there is an entirely separate paragraph that deals with player suspension. It reads (at page 253/301 of the CBA):

 

"15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the

League and professional football that would result from impairment of public

confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity

and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledgeshis awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL

game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an

NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or

gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other

drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is

guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner

to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the

Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity

for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice,

to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain

or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

 

What you are suggesting is that the players quite literally be shackled so that they can't earn a living for their families, it would be a species of slavery that the law would not countenance..

The "literally shackled" and "slavery" notions are hyperbole - - some people resort to it when they fear that logic alone doesn't adequately support their position. But maybe it's understandable when I'm suggesting that someone not be allowed to work wherever they want - - at first glance that does have an un-American ring to it. But the question isn't whether it sounds un-American, the question is whether courts would enforce a contract provision restricting a current employee's right to walk away from his employer and work for someone else - - whenever, wherever and however he chooses, regardless of what his existing employment contract says.

 

Again, I don't claim to have your expertise, but google somewhat levels the playing field. My impression is that many states (though not all) WILL enforce a contract putting restrictions on where an existing employee can work even AFTER that employee's employment has ended. See:

 

https://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Journals/LaborAndEmploymentLawJournal/labor_vol24no2_Swift.pdf

 

I'm suggesting that the NFL would have to ask a court to do even less - - enforce a contract term preventing an NFL player from playing football in some other league during the time that his existing NFL contract has not yet expired.

 

Every contract has an invisible conscionability clause which would allow a court to refuse to enforce a contract clause that shocks the conscience of the court.

I agree, and it's an interesting idea that could be raised by a player seeking to avoid his contractual obligation. But doesn't unconscionability usually get raised as a defense when there is a great difference in bargaining power between the parties to the contract? I don't see that here. The sample player contract is part of the old CBA, which resulted from very lengthy negotiations between parties with great financial resources, and who were represented by high-priced negotiators.

 

Besides, if I was an NFL owner, the current NFL players who I would most want to enjoin are the same players who would find it most difficult to assert an unconscionability defense. If Jon Corto or Namaan Roosevelt go play in a new league, Ralph may not care. The owners would only have to seek injunctions against the most famous (and therefore typically most well paid) players that might draw fans and TV contracts to the new league.

 

But a famous player like Drew Brees, who has already made millions of dollars and has a base salary many times higher than that of any judge, is going to have a hard time convincing a court that his family will starve if he can't break his existing multi-million dollar contract. He already has a multi-million dollar signing bonus in his pocket as a result of the very same contract he now wants to break.

 

If I was forced to take your side of the argument, I would look for some credible way to argue that the owners can't enforce the Drew Brees contract because the owners already breached it. Can you think of any argument along those lines?

Edited June 5, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[3rdand12]

um , yes i agree, i mean disagree. officer sir i did not know it was wrong to use the said bed for bouncing.