Jump to content

Cris Collinsworth on the CBA - sees 9-10 game season & possible armageddon with the NFL as you know it


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It would destroy the NFL.

its closer than most of us think, Skar.....

I don't think it would destroy the NFL - but it would never be the same, that is for sure.

It would suck to feel like you don't have the chance to compete on a semi-level playing field with the big market teams. Falcons would become the "red-headed step child"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gritz

Meh...I don't think Collingsworth has any particular inside knowledge about the situation.

Bottom line is that if all of the parties involved are stupid enough to destroy or seriously damage the NFL there is very little that we can do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its closer than most of us think, Skar.....

I don't think it would destroy the NFL - but it would never be the same, that is for sure.

It would suck to feel like you don't have the chance to compete on a semi-level playing field with the big market teams. Falcons would become the "red-headed step child"

Look at the NHL, it hasn't been the same since it's lockout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh...I don't think Collingsworth has any particular inside knowledge about the situation.

Bottom line is that if all of the parties involved are stupid enough to destroy or seriously damage the NFL there is very little that we can do about it.

agree that Collingsworth does not have any inside knowledge - but most everything he states seems possible.

I think DeMaurice Smith's incendiary comments seem to indicate he does not want to negotiate with the owners at all. There is no logical reason to continually call the owners "liars" and worse in the public forum and media - unless you(Dee) has no inclination to negotiate - he wants to litigate the anti-trust - that is all Dee wants to do.

Everyone - including majority of players - will lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh...I don't think Collingsworth has any particular inside knowledge about the situation.

Bottom line is that if all of the parties involved are stupid enough to destroy or seriously damage the NFL there is very little that we can do about it.

Gritz,I agree with you more often than not but in this case I think worthlessness is right on the money with his accessment . When baseball went on strike a few years back I went on strike to , after years of being a Braves fan I quit watching baseball . I'm still on strike and doubt I will ever watch baseball again .

If the NFL goes the same route I'm not sure how I'm going to react but Dallas and Washington becoming the Yankees of Football is gonna really really tick me off

sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its closer than most of us think, Skar.....

I don't think it would destroy the NFL - but it would never be the same, that is for sure.

It would suck to feel like you don't have the chance to compete on a semi-level playing field with the big market teams. Falcons would become the "red-headed step child"

At least they would have a team, Cincinnati and Jacksonville wouldn't last 3 years in a open market without revenue sharing.

I would guess the Chiefs, Bills, Browns, Lions and Raiders would be out of business after a decade, or so. These teams have solid fan bases, but how can they keep it if the price of season tickets increases by 400% in one year? Which is the only way they could feild a competitive team. Another (lame) solution would be corporate sponsers, could you imagine the 'Wells Fargo' 49ers or the 'Microsoft' Seahawks. We just might see it.

At this point, it may be best to start a new league, for the small market teams, because clearly they cannot compete with the Cowboys, Giants and Redskins.

Either way, this would kill the NFL and I would walk away at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fricking spoiled millionaires fighting with spoiled billionaires using the scum of the earth-lawyers and courts. Let's kill the golden goose- have smaller franchises fail, which means less teams and less opportunities for players. If this goes this way football will die. Frankly, as sour as our economy is, unemployment rampant, I really have no sympathy for either side.

It's a crying shame how these folks related with football care so little for the fans. Increased ticket prices, 8 dollars for a hotdog, 10 dollar parking, etc. Do it for the fans, do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree that Collingsworth does not have any inside knowledge - but most everything he states seems possible.

I think DeMaurice Smith's incendiary comments seem to indicate he does not want to negotiate with the owners at all. There is no logical reason to continually call the owners "liars" and worse in the public forum and media - unless you(Dee) has no inclination to negotiate - he wants to litigate the anti-trust - that is all Dee wants to do.

Everyone - including majority of players - will lose.

You say you don't see Smith negotiating, but you had the Owners turn down opportunities to talk, and you have owners like Rooney today pretty much saying that the mediation process was useless. As far as I'm concerned the fact we are in a lockout says "We aren't negotiating".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time there was a goose in a small village. And it laid wonderful golden eggs. Every day the townspeople went out to see dozens of golden eggs underneath the goose. The townspeople shared them and profited greatly.

The goose became famous. People from neighboring towns came to watch, and the goose didn't disappoint. The more people that showed, the more eggs the goose laid. The townspeople were amazed at this magical goose and thankful for their great fortunes in having it arrive at their village. By now they were becoming very wealthy.

But everything has a natural limit. And soon no matter how much it tried the magical goose just couldn't keep up with the increasing demands of the townspeople for more and more golden eggs. They began to poke at the goose, which worked for awhile. Each time they poked and prodded, more eggs came out. But it was clear very soon that these actions were making the goose sick.

After a while, the townspeople began to argue about who owned the right to the majority of the now short supply of golden eggs. A dispute broke out between the breeder/keeper's family, and the stable manager's family as to who ultimately controlled the goose. The stablekeepers shut the doors and refused to allow any visitors in to see the goose, even locking the keeper's family out. This only made things worse for the now very sickly magical goose.

A few more months passed and the highly prized "prime egg laying" season passed with no visitors from neighboring towns. This greatly hurt all the other townspeople who made their living selling food and souveniers to the once plentiful visitors. The goose was sicker than ever, now in critical condition. The stable managers panicked and let the keepers back in to try to save the dying magical goose. But it was too late.

The keepers and stable managers were in shock. What had they done? They searched the village repeatedly and tried to find other magical gooses, but none were the same, and none ever came close to attaining the popularity of the long lost goose. The village struggled and perservered, and after many years began to scrape things together again and get back on its feet.

But there was never another goose like the magical golden egg laying goose. And the old folks in the neighboring towns would tell their children and grandchildren amazing stories about their travels to the village during the days of the golden goose. Stories filled with tales of great parties, cookouts, and multitudes of cheering people. And if you looked closely as the old folks spoke, you could see the tiny, almost imperceptable tears falling from the corner of their eyes.

Outstanding, LMAO ........truly a ' Grimm " fairy tale, a true life fable for all the crying fksticks to ponder ......the fools that killed the golden goose ......classic man, well done sir .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees have won a grand total of ONE of the last ten World Series Championships. Even with all of uncle Steinbrenner's loot. They lost two to the Diamondbacks and Marlins during that span.

If all these radical changes come to fruition as Collinsworth predicts, we will still have a competitive league, just like MLB has.

The current structure hasn't helped the Bengals, Falcons, Panties, Jags and Bills of the league win a championship. Snyder has spent hella free agent money before. What did that get him? Nothing. You still gotta play the game. Payrolls don't win championships.

Pitt Steelers/ GB Packers totally invalidate the "small market myth" in football. It's not just the total amount of money available but how you reinvest it back into the team, coaching, scouting, player development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitt Steelers/ GB Packers totally invalidate the "small market myth" in football. It's not just the total amount of money available but how you reinvest it back into the team, coaching, scouting, player development.

teams like Green Bay and Pittsburgh were built "through the draft".....ummm......there would be no draft - sure GB and Pitt have "found the nuggets" the good players in later rounds - but their front office acumen would be diminished without the level playing field - it would still exist but it would be diminished when the front offices that are not as savvy can spend their way out of mistakes in personnel easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitt Steelers/ GB Packers totally invalidate the "small market myth" in football. It's not just the total amount of money available but how you reinvest it back into the team, coaching, scouting, player development.

They're able to do that because of revenue sharing, I think that's the point you missed. If that goes away, then they won't have the same amount of money to distribute among the players, coaches, and scouting. There will still be some very cunning front office guys out there that are able to squeeze all they can out of what they have, but it will still be extremely difficult to match up with the likely doubled financial resources of the Jerry Jones' of the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're able to do that because of revenue sharing, I think that's the point you missed. If that goes away, then they won't have the same amount of money to distribute among the players, coaches, and scouting. There will still be some very cunning front office guys out there that are able to squeeze all they can out of what they have, but it will still be extremely difficult to match up with the likely doubled financial resources of the Jerry Jones' of the NFL.

sting, you and I just made the same point at the same time to illustrate Mid-Nite Toker's mistake in logic.

jinx......1,2,3......buy me a Coke! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gritz

.

If the NFL goes the same route I'm not sure how I'm going to react but Dallas and Washington becoming the Yankees of Football is gonna really really tick me off

sam

No worries Sam.....My grandfather used to have a saying that reminds me of this situation with Collingsworth (if Collingsworth is correct).

"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then."

And as to the second part of what you posted. If the NFL becomes a "rich get richer" type of league I'll simply quit watching it altogether.

That wouldn't be a problem for me. I love college football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link

So the owners are considering shutting down the entire NFL if they lose in court, and we want to blame DeMaurice Smith. Crazy. They wouldn't even be in court if they hadn't threatened this stupid lockout in the first place.

Say what you want, but this is insanity just even being mentioned as an option. Nothing De Smith says should even come close to infuriating you more than this.

Ridiculous. Babies, all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link

So the owners are considering shutting down the entire NFL if they lose in court, and we want to blame DeMaurice Smith. Crazy. They wouldn't even be in court if they hadn't threatened this stupid lockout in the first place.

Say what you want, but this is insanity just even being mentioned as an option. Nothing De Smith says should even come close to infuriating you more than this.

Ridiculous. Babies, all of them.

so, there was a "mutual option" to opt-out of the current CBA - either owners/players could opt out after three years - written into the contract.....

.....What does that mean, exactly?

Well, thanks for asking - I will tell you. It means it really was not a 5 year CBA in the first place - it was a 3 year CBA.....so, for all intents and purposes it was a 3 year deal that came to a close after the 2010 season.

I'm growing weary of the hyperbole of "owners started this" crap. Its a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm not defending the owners but they had the right - just like players did - to opt out of current CBA.

Since the players got the better end(presumably) of the last contract, owners opted out. If the shoe was on the other foot, players side would have done the same thing. The last CBA was not 5 yr deal - it was a 3yr deal w/ the OPTION to renew - please don't state otherwise - saying the owners are breaking the existing CBA is simply false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, there was a "mutual option" to opt-out of the current CBA - either owners/players could opt out after three years - written into the contract.....

.....What does that mean, exactly?

Well, thanks for asking - I will tell you. It means it really was not a 5 year CBA in the first place - it was a 3 year CBA.....so, for all intents and purposes it was a 3 year deal that came to a close after the 2010 season.

I'm growing weary of the hyperbole of "owners started this" crap. Its a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm not defending the owners but they had the right - just like players did - to opt out of current CBA.

Since the players got the better end(presumably) of the last contract, owners opted out. If the shoe was on the other foot, players side would have done the same thing. The last CBA was not 5 yr deal - it was a 3yr deal w/ the OPTION to renew - please don't state otherwise - saying the owners are breaking the existing CBA is simply false.

I've never disagreed that they had the right to opt out. I have no problem with the owners opting out, coming up with a temporary gameplan like the 2010 rules and bargaining for a better deal that they can prove is necessary, all while football continues on. That's not what happened. They did nothing for 3 years but plan a lockout, wait until the 11th hour to give them their terms, then expected the NFLPA to accept a rushed deal.

Just because there isn't a deal, doesn't mean there has to be a lockout.

I don't think they have the right to lock out, and 2 judges agree with me so far. If you do think the owners have the right, then you have no right to complain that there will be no football. Because if you think it's perfectly okay for the owners to do what ever they can to get leverage, then it is pure hypocrisy to not have that same right for the players.

The Doty ruling proved they violated the previous CBA, and that they were not bargaining in good faith. Since it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the NFL has been duplicitous, it would be ridiculously irresponsible for the players to take a deal proposed by the owners without having every fact available to them. I'm not going to begrudge them the right to that.

You act like if the players just cave that everything will be okay. I guarantee you if the owners get their way, we will return to seeing Strikes every other year like in the 80s.

We need the courts to rule in favor of the players to level the playying field. Otherwise it's extortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act like if the players just cave that everything will be okay. I guarantee you if the owners get their way, we will return to seeing Strikes every other year like in the 80s.

We need the courts to rule in favor of the players to level the playying field. Otherwise it's extortion.

you've never once heard me say that the players should "cave in". I don't think the players should cave. Right now the players have the upper hand - so, use the leverage to negotiate a deal - owners say they want to negotiate now - owners were the ones - the only ones negotiating up to the last minute before the lawsuit - owners want to negotiate now. Players - and Dee Smith - should negotiate now from their position of strength to get a favorable deal for themselves - and they should negotiate right now - not 2 months, 3 months or 6 months from now.

As far as your "extortion" comment - now that sounds like something DeMaurice would say, Paulitik.....come on now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you've never once heard me say that the players should "cave in". I don't think the players should cave. Right now the players have the upper hand - so, use the leverage to negotiate a deal - owners say they want to negotiate now - owners were the ones - the only ones negotiating up to the last minute before the lawsuit - owners want to negotiate now. Players - and Dee Smith - should negotiate now from their position of strength to get a favorable deal for themselves - and they should negotiate right now - not 2 months, 3 months or 6 months from now.

As far as your "extortion" comment - now that sounds like something DeMaurice would say, Paulitik.....come on now.

It is extortion. We don't pay you until you meet our demands. It's our way or the NFL dies. That is extortion, and if the lockout is proven illegal, it might be legally considered extortion.

If I'm Tony Gonzales or John Abraham, and I only have a year or 2 left, and the NFL is taking a year or 2 away from my career if we don't give them what they want without the courtesy of the justification for it, I'm sorry, but that's extortion.

The owners only want to "negotiate now" on their terms. Meaning the players give up the court case. They pretty much walked into today's negotiations saying they weren't.

This is bull. Like I said before, if you are on the owners side of this, you have no right to complain that there will be no football. The decision is ultimately theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link

So the owners are considering shutting down the entire NFL if they lose in court, and we want to blame DeMaurice Smith. Crazy. They wouldn't even be in court if they hadn't threatened this stupid lockout in the first place.

Say what you want, but this is insanity just even being mentioned as an option. Nothing De Smith says should even come close to infuriating you more than this.

Ridiculous. Babies, all of them.

Now your just being asinine with that argument paulitik. To claim they wouldn't be in court if the owners hadn't threatened a lockout? That's the same thing as me shooting you, then blaming you because you threatened to beat me up if we didn't agree on what to watch on tv. The players are why they are in court in the first place. The PLAYERS ARE THE ONES WHO DECERTIFIED AND FILED SUIT BEFORE THE OWNERS PLACED THE LOCKOUT. That's why this is in court. The NFLPA chose the courts instead of negotiating, not the owners.

the owners proved TWICE they were willing to extend the deadline for this CBA to continue negotiations towards an agreeable CBA. The players rejected the last offer and decided to END NEGOTIATIONS. They chose not to counter-offer or reach an agreement. The owners have oft stated that they want to continue negotiating towards a new CBA, something they cannot legally do b/c the union decertified instead of continuing negotiating.

The stalemate is not a result of the lockout, it is a result of the decertification. The NFLPA wants to engage in settlement talks to settle the anti-trust lawsuit, not reach a collective bargaining agreement. The Owners told the NFLPA for many months that if they chose to pursue litigation instead of collective bargaining, they would not negotiate settlement talks and let the litigation initiated by the players run its course.

For all we know, had Demaurice Smith not taken the actions he has and sued the NFL under anti-trust violations, they could still be negotiating a new CBA or come to an agreement on a new CBA already and football would be going right now.

While i hate your opinions on this topic Pauly, you seem just as well informed as i am about the legal nuances of the case. That being said, it is a fact, there CAN NOT BE any negotiations towards a CBA since the union is no longer a union. The decertification and litigation technique by the NFLPA is the cause for lack of negotiation and progress. By the players choosing this tactic, they are not legally allowed to negotiate a CBA. They are unilaterally declaring they want a free open market type NFL. Something both you and i agree would not be good for the game, and something you have said in the past you do not feel is what the players actually want. If the later is true, then there actions are just as illegal as the owners TV Negotiations.

So, either the players acted illegally by decertifying and suing to gain leverage for a new CBA, which all evidence points to this being true, or the players demands will ultimatley ruin the game of football as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Doty ruling proved they violated the previous CBA, and that they were not bargaining in good faith. Since it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the NFL has been duplicitous, it would be ridiculously irresponsible for the players to take a deal proposed by the owners without having every fact available to them. I'm not going to begrudge them the right to that.

/quote]

The charge was actually filed against the NFLPA for negotiation in bad faith. Can you honestly tell me the players truly want this free enterprise system, not a new collective bargaining agreement? After all of the quotes by the players, all of the posturing by kevein mawae saying how this is a leverage strategy before they decertified?

That means this entire course of actions that has stalled negotiations to a stand-still is a result of the players ACTING ILLEGALLY.

I won't argue about the TV contracts, the owners acted illegally and were wrong for that, but that doesn't give the players the excuse to turn around and behave illegally themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well said birds-til-death. I see no holes in your statements or logic either.

I too believe if the NFLPA did not decertify and if the players were at baragaining table, I believe we would have had a deal by now.

The players are holding up the show. Litigation is litigation - it takes forever and is not sensitive to the NFL schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now your just being asinine pauly with that argument paulitik. To claim they wouldn't be in court if the owners hadn't threatened a lockout? That's the same thing as me shooting you, then blaming you because you threatened to beat me up if we didn't agree on what to watch on tv. The players are why they are in court in the first place. The PLAYERS ARE THE ONES WHO DECERTIFIED AND FILED SUIT BEFORE THE OWNERS PLACED THE LOCKOUT. That's why this is in court. The NFLPA chose the courts instead of negotiating, not the owners.

the owners proved TWICE they were willing to extend the deadline for this CBA to continue negotiations towards an agreeable CBA. The players rejected the last offer and decided to END NEGOTIATIONS. They chose not to counter-offer or reach an agreement. The owners have oft stated that they want to continue negotiating towards a new CBA, something they cannot legally do b/c the union decertified instead of continuing negotiating.

The stalemate is not a result of the lockout, it is a result of the decertification. The NFLPA wants to engage in settlement talks to settle the anti-trust lawsuit, not reach a collective bargaining agreement. The Owners told the NFLPA for many months that if they chose to pursue litigation instead of collective bargaining, they would not negotiate settlement talks and let the litigation initiated by the players run its course.

For all we know, had Demaurice Smith not taken the actions he has and sued the NFL under anti-trust violations, they could still be negotiating a new CBA or come to an agreement on a new CBA already and football would be going right now.

While i hate your opinions on this topic Pauly, you seem just as well informed as i am about the legal nuances of the case. That being said, it is a fact, there CAN NOT BE any negotiations towards a CBA since the union is no longer a union. The decertification and litigation technique by the NFLPA is the cause for lack of negotiation and progress. By the players choosing this tactic, they are not legally allowed to negotiate a CBA. They are unilaterally declaring they want a free open market type NFL. Something both you and i agree would not be good for the game, and something you have said in the past you do not feel is what the players actually want. If the later is true, then there actions are just as illegal as the owners TV Negotiations.

So, either the players acted illegally by decertifying and suing to gain leverage for a new CBA, which all evidence points to this being true, or the players demands will ultimatley ruin the game of football as we know it.

What the **** have the owners been threatening, planning for the last 3 years? Don't be naive. Decertification came about because the NFLPA knew the owners were going to anyway. It was there only tool to fight the lockout without caving into a bad deal and you know it. The owners always planned to lockout, and there is no evidence otherewise besides NFL propaganda press releases. How else were they going to get the players to agree to taking less share without showing the books, unless they hit them in the wallet?

And where are all these injunctions and court rulings on the players decertifying? No where because it's not illegal. If you don't like it, change the law.

Besides the NFL crying, where are all of the legal opinions that the Union acted illegally? No where. There is not a lawyer outside of the NFL offices that think the NFL has a chance of winning this in the long term.

It's a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...