Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Quarterback

Message Board Member Opinion Challenge...

   74 members have voted

  1. 1. Whom is more to blame for the lack of progress?

    • The Players and DeMaurice Smith are more (not all) to blame.
    • The Owners and Roger Goodell are more (not all) to blame.

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

112 posts in this topic

Not a problem since all you have said since the start of this post is blah blah blah with absolutely no substance but lots and lots or words trying to defend your point you even ask for others to prove their point well guess what that also goes both ways prove your point with FACTS!!!!

When someone claims something to be a fact, then i ask to see proof. I have said time and time again what parts of my argument are my opinion and my opinion if I was wrong. But It is nice to see you have not changed in your childish ways from the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THEY HAD TO FILE IT BEFORE THE LOCKOUT OR WOULD HAVE HAD TO WAIT 6 MONTHS to have the lawsuit. And the Judge didnt see the case until after the Lockout was official.

the timeline is

Decertify at 5pm

File preliminary junction that day.

Lockout in effect at Midnight.

Judge sees prelimiary Junction and hearing on April 6th.

I agree.

That is exactly the way legal matters work.

The only problem I have with your "version" is the order in which it occured. You seem to think the players had been at the table with an offer during prelimenary discussions over the past two years and that the owners had ignored them. Simply not true. Neither side had committed to seriously talking about a new CBA before the 2010 season had ended. But it was public knowledge that both sides had been in "discussions".

Both sides had given each other knowledge ahead of time of what they had planned to do. So there was no sudden "omg the owners are locking us out!" or anything. The Owners had a "fair" deal outlined in full based on the past two years worth of discussions.

When the CBA expired, the Owners came to the table with an offer.

MeMaurice Smith did not even respond.

He decertified the players union and he and various NFL players filed lawsuits.

Now here we are 4 months later with Memaurice finally sitting down to the table. Couldnt he have done this in March?

No. He had to be a bad*ss. And anything that has to do with the courts takes...a....long...time.

That's all i'm saying. It's wasted time.

Posturing and throwing your legal weight around doesnt get you very far in my book. Memaurice is a frickin worm.

Anybody that had a history in football would have probably had a deal by now.

Setting up a new, up-to-date economic CBA deal, was just common sense. Of course they were going to argue it out before they came to an agreeable decision. And yes, they have been arguing for two years. But who brought this crapolla to the courts, hmm?

Fact: Players are just making way too much money and it's going up and up, while the economy goes down and down.

Peyton Manning (while arguably the best in the league) is due $23 million this season. :wacko:

That's 16 games people.

Owners of smaller franchises were not going to survive long in the previous CBA. Not in todays economy. People cant even afford to go to the games because of these ridiculous contracts for crying out loud.

This isnt about big money this is about little money. My money. Our money.

When we cant afford to go to the games it's all over, folks.

Nevermind the fact that Drew Brees and his bogus lawsuits are trying to destroy the NFL as we know it.

Take the players side all you want. Common sense isnt something i'm gonna spend alot of time arguing with another Falcon fan about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure, there will be no negotiating without both sides setting down to talk out terms of a new agreement.

I chose the Players and DeMaurice Smith as being most at fault at the present, only because most of what I have heard is their latest attempt in court to overturn the lockout , lawyers following it said there is no way the lockout gets overturned by the players at this point in time based on their arguements, they said it was mostly because it's already been ruled a labor dispute and not a legal dispute.

Anybody else hear this? Is this correct? Perhaps I heard that wrong.

Replying to my own thread, just to ask "AM I RIGHT ABOUT THIS?"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone claims something to be a fact, then i ask to see proof. I have said time and time again what parts of my argument are my opinion and my opinion if I was wrong. But It is nice to see you have not changed in your childish ways from the past.

to respond to this one and another one

No lockout = No lawsuit. that is a FACT. Link to prove this please

So... Is that a No on being able to prove me wrong? Don't have to since it is an opinion DUH

My childish ways as you put it are a response to you idiotic rant.

OH and we all know what an opinion is like and you are a big one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to respond to this one and another one

No lockout = No lawsuit. that is a FACT. Link to prove this please

So... Is that a No on being able to prove me wrong? Don't have to since it is an opinion DUH

My childish ways as you put it are a response to you idiotic rant.

OH and we all know what an opinion is like and you are a big one

oh knoes i guess u dun figz it out. lol im just kidding

so your first point is that No Lockout = No lawsuit is an opinion. okay well let me disprove that easily.

here is a PDF of the motion, which states right on the front of it. Lockout violates section 1 of sherman Act.

http://www.antitrusthall.com/lockout/10113571088.pdf

How can you have a lockout questioning the legality of the lockout if you do not have a lockout? Also If you could have a lawsuit on the lockout without actually being locked out, then why didnt the players file this months ago? why wait until the night before the lockout?

I think we can logically conclude that NO Lockout = No lawsuit a fan.

( side note: How about giving me a chance to disprove you before you go pretend that i have no rebuttal. I atleast gave you a chance to reply before questioning if you had the ability to disprove it)

I just proved you wrong, so i cant be the one on the idiotic rant, which means you are probably the one on the idiotic rant, especially since all you seem to do is name calling, which also proves my claim that you are acting childish.

So I am an *******, because I have a different opinion than you? If that makes me an *******, then i guess i am one. I find it funny that i have been able to have arguments with Chifalc, Birds, gdawg, and other pro owners, but you are the only one that it has turned into this childish name calling. I think the problem lies with you and not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question. how do you start a topic. it says i have no access to starting a topic. Just became a season ticket holder recently and enjoy the site but i have some things i want to post from time to time. Used to my jets fan site,jetsinsider , d i could reply and begin threads there. any advice. really do not want anyone to say then go post on the jets site. we live in the atlanta area and we are looking forward to attending games this year. want to become a rabid falcons fan. this site is a vehicle to help that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question. how do you start a topic. it says i have no access to starting a topic. Just became a season ticket holder recently and enjoy the site but i have some things i want to post from time to time. Used to my jets fan site,jetsinsider , d i could reply and begin threads there. any advice. really do not want anyone to say then go post on the jets site. we live in the atlanta area and we are looking forward to attending games this year. want to become a rabid falcons fan. this site is a vehicle to help that happen.

Hmm, if while you are signed in you cant seem to start a topic, then i believe they may have started having a post qualification to start topics. We had a bunch of trolls just make topic after topic, and many people asked that new people have to have a certain number of posts before getting the ability to start a topic. I believe that number is 50, and you are almost 10% done, so keep posting and you will have the ability soon. Or you may want to ask a mod for help. I know Sacfalcfan is usually around in the college sports forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They want to end the lockout. That is the main point. I have yet to see you prove with facts otherwise. Maybe Dsmith wants to destroy the NFL, but the players do not. Even if they win, do you think they are really going to get rid of the draft etc? How can their main point be getting rid of the draft and everything, but even the part about the draft deals with loss in income. Lockout = loss of income drafts Franchise tag etc = loss of income Suing for lost wages = loss of income treble suit for loss of income = loss of income.

Can you show me a link where they said they would continue with the lawsuit, since i have yet to hear this.

The Lawsuit is not a Sham, because the players are not just suing for the loss of possible income. They are suing to end the lockout to work and suing for loss of pay etc.

My link

The players' antitrust suit -- from which Nelson's ruling was an offshoot -- against the league also will proceed.

that article and quote was directly after Judge Nelson ruled on the preliminary injunction request.

This is the last time i will try to explain this. Below are the only two options, possibilities, or scenario's for the NFLPA's actions.

Option A. The NFLPA truly believes they want all the things in their lawsuit to come true. You and I have both agreed we don't want this for football.

Option B. The NFLPA illegally decertified to sue on anti-trust violation to gain leverage towards a CBA.

Those are your only two options. You can choose to believe which ever one of those is the case, but their is no third option for the players actions.

If the truth is option A, then they have done nothing illegal, but i don't like the direction that will take the league. So, personally i am against that option from happening and against the NFLPA.

If the truth is option B, i disagree with that strategy and blame that for the lack of negotiations. They decided to string this out through the court system as opposed to negotiating to reach a fair deal.

That is why i'm more owner slanted in this debate. I can't agree with the players decision to do either of those options, as both of those options waste time in the courts, time away from negotiations, and threaten more than this season but the future of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My link

that article and quote was directly after Judge Nelson ruled on the preliminary injunction request.

This is the last time i will try to explain this. Below are the only two options, possibilities, or scenario's for the NFLPA's actions.

Option A. The NFLPA truly believes they want all the things in their lawsuit to come true. You and I have both agreed we don't want this for football.

Option B. The NFLPA illegally decertified to sue on anti-trust violation to gain leverage towards a CBA.

Those are your only two options. You can choose to believe which ever one of those is the case, but their is no third option for the players actions.

If the truth is option A, then they have done nothing illegal, but i don't like the direction that will take the league. So, personally i am against that option from happening and against the NFLPA.

If the truth is option B, i disagree with that strategy and blame that for the lack of negotiations. They decided to string this out through the court system as opposed to negotiating to reach a fair deal.

That is why i'm more owner slanted in this debate. I can't agree with the players decision to do either of those options, as both of those options waste time in the courts, time away from negotiations, and threaten more than this season but the future of the game.

I dont think they gain leverage if they win the case though. Even if we have football continue while the negotiations happen, what leverage do they have? It will be just like they are negotiating before the CBA expired. But the rest is a fair assumption.

Being that i do not believe leverage is won by the NFLPA if they win the trial, I am slated with the players, but i feel like they need someone other than smith running things. I really wish they got someone like Fran, because he loves the sports and knows how it can help players. I honestly believe if they replaced gene with a player who was also well liked, then this problem wouldnt have started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising to me (I predicted 60/40 in favor of the owners and Goodell), after 26+ hours of voting those who put the most responsibility for the lack of progress toward an agreement on DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA outnumber those who do not 2-1 (31 votes to 16 votes or 66% to 34%).

If this were any other type of voting or election process this would be considered victory by a landslide!

Please vote if you haven't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh knoes i guess u dun figz it out. lol im just kidding

so your first point is that No Lockout = No lawsuit is an opinion. okay well let me disprove that easily.

here is a PDF of the motion, which states right on the front of it. Lockout violates section 1 of sherman Act.

http://www.antitrusthall.com/lockout/10113571088.pdf

How can you have a lockout questioning the legality of the lockout if you do not have a lockout? Also If you could have a lawsuit on the lockout without actually being locked out, then why didnt the players file this months ago? why wait until the night before the lockout?

I think we can logically conclude that NO Lockout = No lawsuit a fan.

( side note: How about giving me a chance to disprove you before you go pretend that i have no rebuttal. I atleast gave you a chance to reply before questioning if you had the ability to disprove it)

I just proved you wrong, so i cant be the one on the idiotic rant, which means you are probably the one on the idiotic rant, especially since all you seem to do is name calling, which also proves my claim that you are acting childish.

So I am an *******, because I have a different opinion than you? If that makes me an *******, then i guess i am one. I find it funny that i have been able to have arguments with Chifalc, Birds, gdawg, and other pro owners, but you are the only one that it has turned into this childish name calling. I think the problem lies with you and not me.

Despite two extensions to the collective bargaining agreement during 16 days of talks overseen by a federal mediator -- and previous months of stop-and-start negotiating -- the sides could not agree on a new deal. Now they will be adversaries in court: The players already requested an injunction to block a lockout, even before one was in place

My link

Sounds a lot to me like the lawsuit and injunction request was filed before the lockout ever took place. the article also states what financial information the Owners agreed to provide that was refused by the NFLPA, that the owners attempted to extend the CBA to allow the NFLPA to counter their proposal, and the fact the NFLPA decertified before a lockout was ever instituted.

No Lockout=no Lawsuit?!?! how so. The players sued before the league instituted a lockout. There's your proof.

And in response to your question about why waiting till the last day. The players couldn't file a lawsuit without decertifying.

And it depends on your opinion of their decertification as to wether the Sherman Anti-trust act applies or not. In one instance, yes the lockout is considered illegal. in the other instance, the NFLPA's lawsuit and decertification were illegal and the right to lockout is protected by federal law.

Which do you believe GeorgiaFan? that the NFLPA is using this to try and gain leverage for a CBA or they truly want the draft, salary cap, free agency gone and want a true free enterprise NFL?

I dont think they gain leverage if they win the case though. Even if we have football continue while the negotiations happen, what leverage do they have? It will be just like they are negotiating before the CBA expired. But the rest is a fair assumption.

The fact that they are still playing is leverage. They have no incentive to give on any of the terms for a new CBA. They can continue to take the my way or the highway approach they have the entire time. If facing an impending lockout they made no true movement to get a deal done, to think they would concede anything while still playing football and getting game checks is a completly unreasonable assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My link

Sounds a lot to me like the lawsuit and injunction request was filed before the lockout ever took place. the article also states what financial information the Owners agreed to provide that was refused by the NFLPA, that the owners attempted to extend the CBA to allow the NFLPA to counter their proposal, and the fact the NFLPA decertified before a lockout was ever instituted.

No Lockout=no Lawsuit?!?! how so. The players sued before the league instituted a lockout. There's your proof.

And in response to your question about why waiting till the last day. The players couldn't file a lawsuit without decertifying.

And it depends on your opinion of their decertification as to wether the Sherman Anti-trust act applies or not. In one instance, yes the lockout is considered illegal. in the other instance, the NFLPA's lawsuit and decertification were illegal and the right to lockout is protected by federal law.

Which do you believe GeorgiaFan? that the NFLPA is using this to try and gain leverage for a CBA or they truly want the draft, salary cap, free agency gone and want a true free enterprise NFL?

The fact that they are still playing is leverage. They have no incentive to give on any of the terms for a new CBA. They can continue to take the my way or the highway approach they have the entire time. If facing an impending lockout they made no true movement to get a deal done, to think they would concede anything while still playing football and getting game checks is a completly unreasonable assumption.

Okay, so why wait til the day before the lockout to decertify? Why not decertify once the NFL opted out? Why not just sue from the start. Why include the part about the lockout in the motion?

The Decertification and Lawsuit was a response to the Lockout. The motion says that they are filing they are suing because they believe that the Lockout goes against Act 1 of the Sherman Act. The rest is Support to their case.

No Lockout = No Lawsuit. That is a fact. How can a lawsuit about the lockout not mean its not about the lockout.

the old saying works here Walks like a Duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Edit: I cant really trust a Fox News article. Especially after the lawsuit they had trying to gain the ability to lie to its viewers.

paulitik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is, that the players couldn't afford to let the CBA expire without having decertified as they would have had to wait 6 months before they could issue anti-trust proceedings, which would have been too late to prevent games being missed. The NFLPA didn't decertify in response to the lockout, they decertified in anticipation of it. Of course, they also wanted the immediate leverage of the anti-trust case.

For the owner part, they couldn't afford to risk playing football without an agreed CBA, due to the risk of anti-trust claims and the huge damages that could be awarded againstthem in a successful anti-trust case. The fact that an anti-truist claim had already been issued by the players beofre the CBA expired at 11.59pm on 11th March simply reinfocred that, although it is inevitable that they would have lockoud out anyway to mitigate against the risk. Of course, they - like the player - also wanted the leverage.

In the circumstances, the decertification and lockout were always going to be inextricably linked. In the absence of a CBA, it was in the onwers' best interest to lockout and the players best interest to decertify, irrespective of what the other side did. There was never going to be one without the other. Asking which one cause the other, is like asking "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". It can't be answered, because both sides spend years preparing for what they did, whislt being smart enough not to go public about it.

Having left negotiations much too late, then only alternative to decertification and lockout was to extend the old CBA for a week to continue negotiating, postponing the lockout and decertification in the hope of reaching a deal. That is what should have happened, even if is just meant postponing the inevitable for a few weeks whislt negotiations were exhausted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is, that the players couldn't afford to let the CBA expire without having decertified as they would have had to wait 6 months before they could issue anti-trust proceedings, which would have been too late to prevent games being missed. The NFLPA didn't decertify in response to the lockout, they decertified in anticipation of it. Of course, they also wanted the immediate leverage of the anti-trust case.

For the owner part, they couldn't afford to risk playing football without an agreed CBA, due to the risk of anti-trust claims and the huge damages that could be awarded againstthem in a successful anti-trust case. The fact that an anti-truist claim had already been issued by the players beofre the CBA expired at 11.59pm on 11th March simply reinfocred that, although it is inevitable that they would have lockoud out anyway to mitigate against the risk. Of course, they - like the player - also wanted the leverage.

In the circumstances, the decertification and lockout were always going to be inextricably linked. In the absence of a CBA, it was in the onwers' best interest to lockout and the players best interest to decertify, irrespective of what the other side did. There was never going to be one without the other. Asking which one cause the other, is like asking "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". It can't be answered, because both sides spend years preparing for what they did, whislt being smart enough not to go public about it.

Having left negotiations much too late, then only alternative to decertification and lockout was to extend the old CBA for a week to continue negotiating, postponing the lockout and decertification in the hope of reaching a deal. That is what should have happened, even if is just meant postponing the inevitable for a few weeks whislt negotiations were exhausted.

Agreed, but who is most responsible for the decision to end the negotiations and not agree to an extension of the negotiations?

Nice summary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but who is most responsible for the decision to end the negotiations and not agree to an extension of the negotiations?

Nice summary!

Clearly the players.

I suspect that any extension would just have delayed the inevitable, but they should still have tried it, as there was clearly scope for further negiotiations and progress in the lights of the significant concessions made by the owners.

HouseofEuphoria likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks this is the players fault has their head in the sand or up their *SS.

Sure you could accuse the players of being stubborn to the aggreement the owners presented to them but . . .

THE OWNERS RENIGGED ON THE INITIAL DEAL TO BEGIN WITH.

The owners were the ones who wanted to REnegotiate. The players simply wanted to keep WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD.

Any of you would have done the same if you already had a contract with your employer and the boss wanted to rework a NEW deal that was LESS that what you INITIALLY agreed to.

For all of you who claim you are concerned for all the other parties who could be financially harmed because of this, REALIZE THE OWNERS KNEW THAT THOSE OTHER PARTIES WOULD BE EFFECTED AND COULD HAVE CARED LESS. The owners KNEW they had leverage because any of them have more money than any single player let alone the ENTIRE NFL and they PURPOSELY took action to have a work stoppage because they could win the waiting game because they HAVE MORE MONEY AND MORE LEVERAGE TO SIT AND WAIT TO GET THEIR WAY.

An agreement is an agreement folks. IF you want a new agreement then you let the old one EXPIRE first. None of this REnegotiation BS.

The players are NOT holding out because they want more it is the OWNERS WHO WANT MORE.

paulitik and GEORGIAfan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the NFL at any less risk whether there is a lockout ir not? Either scenario you are restricting the players pay. Whether that be through via lockout, 32 separate teams colluding to withhold contracted players pay, or via restricted free agency, a draft, or salary cap. It's collusion either way, and neither scenario is going to stop an anti-trust suit if that's what the players wanted the entire time, as so many have suggested. Whether the courts see it that way or not, the risk is practically the same. This just gives the players less incentive to recertify. What a ridiculously weak argument to use as an excuse to end the season and make us all suffer.

As if the Doty, Nelson, or 8th circuit is going to change their mind on the Anti-trust issue because the NFL found a temporary solution to let football be played. If they overturn the lockout, they will have to find something anyway, especially if they can't come to an agreement on a CBA immediately.

The pro-owner argument holds absolutely no water in terms of the lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the NFL at any less risk whether there is a lockout ir not? Either scenario you are restricting the players pay. Whether that be through via lockout, 32 separate teams colluding to withhold contracted players pay, or via restricted free agency, a draft, or salary cap. It's collusion either way, and neither scenario is going to stop an anti-trust suit if that's what the players wanted the entire time, as so many have suggested. Whether the courts see it that way or not, the risk is practically the same. This just gives the players less incentive to recertify. What a ridiculously weak argument to use as an excuse to end the season and make us all suffer.

As if the Doty, Nelson, or 8th circuit is going to change their mind on the Anti-trust issue because the NFL found a temporary solution to let football be played. If they overturn the lockout, they will have to find something anyway, especially if they can't come to an agreement on a CBA immediately.

The pro-owner argument holds absolutely no water in terms of the lockout.

Because the legality (or otherwise) of the lockout will be determined before the season starts. If the owners are entitled to lock the players out, they not liable for damages for doing so.

The breaches of anti-trist law arise if/when you start implementing league rules that restrict player movement or compensation. At the moment the players are only seeking declarations that a draft, cap and various FA restcrions are unalwful. If the league goes on to implement a draft, cap and FA restcrions, the players then seek - and potentially become entitled to - compensation in addition to the declarations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the legality (or otherwise) of the lockout will be determined before the season starts. If the owners are entitled to lock the players out, they not liable for damages for doing so.

The breaches of anti-trist law arise if/when you start implementing league rules that restrict player movement or compensation. At the moment the players are only seeking declarations that a draft, cap and various FA restcrions are unalwful. If the league goes on to implement a draft, cap and FA restcrions, the players then seek - and potentially become entitled to - compensation in addition to the declarations.

Thats not necessarily true. The ruling is whether a court can enjoin in a labor situation, it's whether the courts have the ability to overturn it now. This thing could end up in the Supreme Court, or with further suits if the Union decides to remain dissolved. The eventual NLRB rulings can determine a lot of these issues well past the season opener. The 8th's decision is far from being the end all, be all of this fight. The league could very well win the right to lockout and end up having to reimburse the players for lost compensation anyway. It defeats the whole point. It turns the 2011 season into a paid vacation, and puts the NFL in a worse financial situation, than if they never opted out.

The NFL could amend the 2010 rules,temporarily remove the free agency restrictions, and still have enough players under contract to keep parity strong for a season or two. There has to be a similar plan if the court overturns the lockout. They can worry about the 2012 draft later. Hopefully we'll have an agreement by then. That, in my opinion, would show more good will to the courts in trying to do the right thing in terms of an Anti-trust suit. It also softens the accusations of the players. It would also actually make the NFL look like the victim in all of this. It would be a sign to the fans that the NFL will Martyr itself for the fans and make the players the bad guys you so want them to be.

Like I said, there has to be a plan if the 8th pulls a surprise and overturns the lockout. They could be using that plan to bring football back on time, but they are not. They want this lockout. If they didn't they'd be looking at every possibility to have a full season, CBA or not. This is nothing more than an extortion of the players, a money grab. Whether the NFL is justified in asking for more money is irrelevant, using this tactic is wrong and does nothing to solidify their defense in an anti-trust suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the players are at fault ad they own nothing they invest nothing but if they where willing to do so i would have a different opinion, on the other hand the owners should have gotten this buissness settled years ago with a great offer the players coud'nt refuse. To me the owners are idiots for this.

Not having been prepared or have made preperation to get this locked up is just bad buisness. If i owned a team i would have forced this issue atleast 3 offseasons ago. A decent offer some what better than what the players where currently recieving most players would have accepted getting more money now, before the pressure was on, and they where vacationing.

Now the players are caught up thinking they can get alot more money plus benifits plus everything else in there wildest dreams since the NFL owners are made of money. So yea really the owners should have seen this coming. Either way most owners are not gonna concede too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the players are at fault ad they own nothing they invest nothing but if they where willing to do so i would have a different opinion, on the other hand the owners should have gotten this buissness settled years ago with a great offer the players coud'nt refuse. To me the owners are idiots for this.

Not having been prepared or have made preperation to get this locked up is just bad buisness. If i owned a team i would have forced this issue atleast 3 offseasons ago. A decent offer some what better than what the players where currently recieving most players would have accepted getting more money now, before the pressure was on, and they where vacationing.

Now the players are caught up thinking they can get alot more money plus benifits plus everything else in there wildest dreams since the NFL owners are made of money. So yea really the owners should have seen this coming. Either way most owners are not gonna concede too much.

I think with the length of the average career (3-5 years), the fact that the players don't have guaranteed contracts, and are at constant risk of ending their career or life with one hit, is plenty of "investment". It's not like the players can get stock options when there are 31 privately owned teams and one publicly onwed one where you have to be a Green Bay resident. The owners can always sell, or file bankruptcy if they suffer a business loss. A player can't replace their spine or their brain.

I do agree with you that the owners should have expected the players to fight, especially looking at the history. Instead of preparing for a lockout, they should have tried to negotatiate in good faith before they opted out. They burned every bridge, then try to act cooperative and reasonable after they've destroyed any credibility. I hate what the players are doing, but I understand why they have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks this is the players fault has their head in the sand or up their *SS.

Sure you could accuse the players of being stubborn to the aggreement the owners presented to them but . . .

THE OWNERS RENIGGED ON THE INITIAL DEAL TO BEGIN WITH.

The owners were the ones who wanted to REnegotiate. The players simply wanted to keep WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD.

Any of you would have done the same if you already had a contract with your employer and the boss wanted to rework a NEW deal that was LESS that what you INITIALLY agreed to.

For all of you who claim you are concerned for all the other parties who could be financially harmed because of this, REALIZE THE OWNERS KNEW THAT THOSE OTHER PARTIES WOULD BE EFFECTED AND COULD HAVE CARED LESS. The owners KNEW they had leverage because any of them have more money than any single player let alone the ENTIRE NFL and they PURPOSELY took action to have a work stoppage because they could win the waiting game because they HAVE MORE MONEY AND MORE LEVERAGE TO SIT AND WAIT TO GET THEIR WAY.

An agreement is an agreement folks. IF you want a new agreement then you let the old one EXPIRE first. None of this REnegotiation BS.

The players are NOT holding out because they want more it is the OWNERS WHO WANT MORE.

Owners using a legal opt out option are not reneging on a agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners using a legal opt out option are not reneging on a agreement.

I would say that opting out, and using extortion as a tactic to get your way, is pretty much the same thing. Maybe not technically, but the damage in terms of the relationship is pretty much the same. They were doing this while they were conspiring to get paid so they could fund what they are threatening. Either way, it did tremendous damage to the owners ability to bargain in good faith. The way they handled it, might as well be reneging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites