Kelly the Dog Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 So, do you feel that the NFL has exemption from common labor law, and that unequal treatment under the law is desireable? 659068[/snapback] Of course. I expect you do, too. Otherwise, again, teams wouldn't be able to stop players from going to other teams whenever they wished. The Bills of the 90s would never have had their heyday. If you don't like players and agents now, imagine if teams couldn't stop them from jumping ship whenever they wanted. The smaller cities would not exist. The Dan Snyders would be worse than Steinbrenner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Of course. I expect you do, too. Otherwise, again, teams wouldn't be able to stop players from going to other teams whenever they wished. The Bills of the 90s would never have had their heyday. If you don't like players and agents now, imagine if teams could stop them from jumping ship whenever they wanted. The smaller cities would not exist. The Dan Snyders would be worse than Steinbrenner. 659071[/snapback] Kelly - let me state my point, if it was not clear. I realize what is what. What I advocate, in view of the fact that the NFL is an odd duck in prevaling labor law is, simply - let sleeping dogs lie. When politicians start to advocate this or that, pick up this or that firebrand for this owner or that, the whole house of cards becomes open to question. Better to avoid that, IMO. Schumer starts mouthing off, maybe some Senator without any NFL constituiency starts pointing out some other things to shine his own political star... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Kelly - let me state my point, if it was not clear. I realize what is what. What I advocate, in view of the fact that the NFL is an odd duck in prevaling labor law is, simply - let sleeping dogs lie. When politicians start to advocate this or that, pick up this or that firebrand for this owner or that, the whole house of cards becomes open to question. Better to avoid that, IMO. Schumer starts mouthing off, maybe some Senator without any NFL constituiency starts pointing out some other things to shine his own political star... 659081[/snapback] I just cannot imagine that happening. Schumer can help the Bills. In my mind, there is no question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Having a Senator sticking his nose into the NFL, like many things they stick their noses into, is repugnant. What's next? The Super-Star Senate tv show? 17th Amendement to the US Constitution - the worst ever... Stuck, while I generally agree with this viewpoint, this issue may be too close to home (literally and figuratively) to allow me to be objective. Having Shumer, Higgins, Pataki etc. sticking up for the Bills is a very good thing. I care too much about the area to allow any anti-government meddling stand get in the way of keeping the Bills in Buffalo. I'm willing to excuse just about any "means" to justify that "end." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Stuck, while I generally agree with this viewpoint, this issue may be too close to home (literally and figuratively) to allow me to be objective. Having Shumer, Higgins, Pataki etc. sticking up for the Bills is a very good thing. I care too much about the area to allow any anti-government meddling stand get in the way of keeping the Bills in Buffalo. I'm willing to excuse just about any "means" to justify that "end." 659093[/snapback] Alright, but that politicians love to find a parade to jump in front of is old fact, and when it sours, they save their skins by saying how they realized that all was not well, and then make some more hay when they lead the attack against. Betrayal is prominent in politics. When you invite snakes into your house, the outcome may not be what was hoped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 If Senators didn't stick their nose into the NFL there would be no Bills and NFL as we know it. The antitrust of the NFL that is allowed because of powerful Senators is essential to its existence. 659025[/snapback] I thought the Senators were an NHL team? I would put money on the BILLS beating the Senators in football. GO BILLS SABRES Too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I thought the Senators were an NHL team? I would put money on the BILLS beating the Senators in football. GO BILLS SABRES Too! 659132[/snapback] Best comment in this whole thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Above the Law was an amazing Steven Seagal movie. kidding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC81 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I agree. Schumer has power over NFL, especially because of his committee assignments. 658995[/snapback] He also has a friend in Donald Trump. He was on The Apprentice last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasker Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The Bills aren't going anywhere. Even with the new CBA they will be profitable. And the most important thing in my eyes is that if LA is filled by the Bills and not an expansion franchise, Ralph gets rich, and the NFL does not get to sell the francise rights to the highest bidder. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and the other owners don't want to lose that payday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 i think if the bills ever did move (which i think will not happen)but if they did ........................i think it would be just like the cleveland situation................the team would leave ,but they would not be able to take the bills name with them. it would be like how the browns stayed in cleveland and the oilers became the titans....the bills should not really be peanilized for being in a small market, they do sell their games out have a solid devout fanbase .......go bills in"06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Living Tribunal Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I, for one, do not think anyone should get their hopes up regarding any political intervention at this point. I'm part of the camp that believes that all of this discussion regarding Mr. Wilson meeting w/ politicians and such is all just posturing on both sides. But, honestly, why would Congress intervene? You have the owners and players all getting together and negotiating the CBA. It was voted for and approved by a vast majority. No one except for Mr. Wilson has spoken out against it (not sure the Bengals owner has said anything). No other small market team owner has come out and said he/she regretted signing it. The complaints of a lone dissenter on an agreement approved by a wide margin is hardly cause for a congressional investigation. Let's remember: no laws were broken here for Congress to scrutinize. The NFL is a partnership, and its partners (owners and NFLPA alike) have agreed to the terms of this labor deal. Nor should anyone expect the court system to get involved; a deal like this would only be scrutinized if there was something grossly unfair about it. But that isn't the case. This country is defined by two basic principles: democracy and capitalism. This deal was upheld by a 30-2 vote, well w/in numbers needed to pass. And there's nothing fundamentally unfair about a deal which actually takes money from wealthy franchises and gives it to poorer ones. The fact of the matter is, no city has an entitlement--constitutional or otherwise--to a football team. The NFL is set up to try to level the playing field as much as possible for its members, but it is NOT intended to do so at all costs. Small teams can still be competitive under this system (e.g., Green Bay, Pittsburg), but there does come a time when a market can simply no longer sustain a team financially. I'm not saying Buffalo is there, but that's what everyone is trying to figure out now. My point is, the NFL is a business. We can't lose sight of this fact. There's nothing inherently noble about it that requires Congress or the courts to step in in order to maintain its sanctity. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business and football is America's favorite sport, with fans from every state, even those without pro football teams. THe NFL can survive (and even thrive) the loss of any member, even the high profile ones, like Dallas or New England. That being said, I'm sure Mr. Wilson realizes all this, which is why I think he's doing this all to increase public awareness of the issue. He knows he's fighting an uphill battle, and the more public support, the better. But I certainly don't think anyone should harbor the illusion that now that the issue is decidedly improved now that a politician is involved. Just my two cents. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts