Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Brody81;793078]Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???[/quote]


[IMG]http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/at_first_puppy.jpg[/IMG]

Thank you for making my day. Makes that 127 bucks I just shelled over seem like nothing now.


[quote=firstdown;793081]I use to lock out my girl friend and use a replacement.[/quote]

Well played...lol

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=dmek25;793099]yikes! the unions demanded this, and the owners rolled over and gave in. they are both are at fault. they cant even agree to collusion, because they know one of them will cave. both sides deserve equal blame here. and yes, i will watch replacements. because it will count. and i love the redskins, no matter who puts on that uniform[/quote]

I like that....spoken like a TRUE Redskin fan!
httr

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=SmootSmack;793080]Oh man...you poor, poor guy. Still a fool two weeks later[/quote]

I know, I'm an idiot!!!

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Chico23231;792937]^ right NC Skins. I wouldnt watch scabs regardless...I wish to god everyone that has the NFL ticket or any NFL subscriptions would pick up their phone and cancel that sh*t and vote how they feel with there wallet. I really pissed in these tough economic times how selfish both sides have acted, [B]Goodell IMO has been piss poor throughout the CBA bullsh*t[/quote][/B]

X2. I wish the guy would resign.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;792933][I]Sports Illustrated [/I]had a poll and found that 63% of the people polled said they [B]WOULD[/B] watch NFL games with replacement players.

Everyone take a deep breath here. Things are still VERY far away from anything like "Replacement Games".

But since there is nothing real to talk about with regard to the NFL at the moment while Judge Nelson is writing her ruling - - I have to think she has made up her mind by now and is simply crafting her decision into legal language - - why not pose the question here:
[INDENT]Would you watch NFL games if they used replacement players?
[/INDENT]Before answering, remember what TV viewing options for sports on Sundays exist in the Fall:

1. MLB playoffs and World Series

2. Pac-12 MIGHT put a game of the week on Sunday this year

3. NASCAR

4. Golf

5. Bowling

6. Poker

7. Tennis

8. Rodeo

9. Fishing


Personally, I would probably watch Replacement Games unenthusiastically because the alternatives are even less appealing.[/quote]

i would not watch replacement games this time around. back in 87 i watched cause 2 or 3 games had already been played by the regulars and the redskins had a team that was a super bowl contender. everyone knew that the scab games were not going to last. i watched mainly cause back then i loved this team. we had a great coach, defensive coordinator, owner, front office. not only did i like the players but the people who coached and ran it. now it's just different and i'm just not as attached to the current team... different time, different era. i'd go play golf or do some house work.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Brody81;793078]Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???[/quote]

I hear the NFL will be trying out replacement owners...

[url=http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/report-nfl-may-end-lockout-by-hiring-scab-owners,19770/]Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network[/url]

:lol:

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Ruhskins;793137]I hear the NFL will be trying out replacement owners...

[url=http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/report-nfl-may-end-lockout-by-hiring-scab-owners,19770/]Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network[/url]

:lol:[/quote]

haha...that was brilliant. I like this portion of the article.

[quote]"Our replacement owners might not be as flashy as someone like Al Davis, but they will be just as effective at running a football franchise, handling difficult management decisions, and collecting profits." Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones criticized the possible move, claiming the scab owners wouldn't know anything about the nuances of price-gouging and ****ing over fans.[/quote]

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=NC_Skins;792996]/bangs head against wall


Read my post above about "Replacement Players". There will be none. This isn't a player strike.[/quote]

If there is no CBA, why will it matter if this is a strike or a lockout? No CBA means that the NFL players who are loyal to their decertified union will not play. If the league then chooses to try to put on games, they would have to use other players and those would be "replacement players". The source of the work-stoppage does not preclude that possibility.

The odds that this situation would devolve to a place where no agreement is in place so late in the year that "replacements" would become a real possibility are very long. But it is not impossible.

Consider this a hypothetical situation to be discussed - - sort of like the hypothetical discussions we have around things like what would have happened if Jack Kent Cooke's will had not forced his son to sell the team or what would have happened if Gregg Williams had become head coach instead of Jim Zorn.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;793204]If there is no CBA, why will it matter if this is a strike or a lockout? No CBA means that the NFL players who are loyal to their decertified union will not play. If the league then chooses to try to put on games, they would have to use other players and those would be "replacement players". The source of the work-stoppage does not preclude that possibility.

The odds that this situation would devolve to a place where no agreement is in place so late in the year that "replacements" would become a real possibility are very long. But it is not impossible. [/quote]

If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Lotus;793069]Thanks for the tip. I've been to India several times and always drink bottled water. I never drink the tap water or anything which might contain tap water and this was true before the advent of this "superbug."

India is a terrific place anyway.[/quote]

I wouldn't mind seeing India, heck I'd like to see a lot of countries that are in no way shape and form American friendly. I must be the moron who wonders why those countries don't wise up. Most of the middle east would make a ton of money if they would just be more friendly towards foriegners, Americans, and Christians. Instead their gov would prefer to lose the millions they cold be making in order to keep the outsiders out.

Like Cuba, supposedly has the nicest beaches but would prefer to stay communist instead of reforming their gov and opening their island to vacationers which would bolster their economy.

Re: Replacement Players
 

Crazy I know but not every country is interested in being westernized.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=NC_Skins;793237]If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.[/quote]

Is this true? Because with the NFL union dissolved, I feel like they can't hold a player to the contract and the player can't hold an owner to a contract. With the union gone, aren't the contracts null and void?

Re: Replacement Players
 

As I understand it, the contracts are null till a new CBA grandfathers them in, HOWEVER, if the owners chose to bring in scabs, and all the owners refused to allow any current players to play on their teams(because as we all know - the players want to play:vomit:), THEN the owners would be guilty of collusion and even more anti trust violations, thus subjecting them to treble (triple) damages, so the 100 million dollar per team number would jump to $300million and probably over $400 million per team. There will be no replacement players this go around.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Daseal;793267]Is this true? Because with the NFL union dissolved, I feel like they can't hold a player to the contract and the player can't hold an owner to a contract. With the union gone, aren't the contracts null and void?[/quote]

The contracts are between the player and the team, not the team and the union. The union just represents these guys like any other union does it's workers. The disbanding of the union doesn't nullify the contracts still current. If disbanding the Union nullified contracts, imagine how many free agents would be available. Peyton Manning anyone?...lol We really could assemble a dream team.

With the Union gone, the only thing that changes is the representation from the players. They will now have to represent themselves (along with their legal council) in the matter instead of DeMaurice Smith.

They very well can come to a CBA agreement with the NFL, and then re-certify the Union to represent the players again in matters going forward.


*see Credskins post above for further explanation.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Mattyk;793266]Crazy I know but not every country is interested in being westernized.[/quote]


Yeah I know, there's a lot to the word "westernized." But your right, for a group of countries that have done nothing but fight over a religious beliefs or land would not begin to open their doors to society with welcome arms with the idea that tourism would create more income for both the country and its citizens.

It's a shame though because I'm sure there are some beautiful places, and historical sites. I just don't want to be kidnapped, killed or thrown in prison.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Daseal;793267]Is this true? Because with the NFL union dissolved, I feel like they can't hold a player to the contract and the player can't hold an owner to a contract. With the union gone, aren't the contracts null and void?[/quote]

I think whatever agreements the Union agreed to are disolved. As an example would be teams not making contact with players under contract, or agents speaking with other teams. But individual contracts that the player and team sign fall under contract law. Those contracts are still in place. Which is why someone mentioned that the players will still be getting paid. I thought I read somewhere though that part of the issue to be concerned about was if the players disolved the Union then the owners would "lockout" which they did and due to that players would not get paid. Most players were well aware of the situation and put money aside or were told to for this very occassion. I could be wrong but I thought that was the case which is why some players are worried about the rulings.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;793270]As I understand it, the contracts are null till a new CBA grandfathers them in, HOWEVER, if the owners chose to bring in scabs, and all the owners refused to allow any current players to play on their teams(because as we all know - the players want to play:vomit:), THEN the owners would be guilty of collusion and even more anti trust violations, thus subjecting them to treble (triple) damages, so the 100 million dollar per team number would jump to $300million and probably over $400 million per team. There will be no replacement players this go around.[/quote]

and.... although you bring up a good point, could not the owners incorporate into their agreement with a new CBA that the players will not seek "collusion" or that whatever penalty in regards to that be dismissed in order to reach an agreement?

In any event the the NFL has said "All games will be played." So no worry, if the first 4 games are not played as expected I'm sure the season will simply be extended at the end to finish these games or the whole season will be backed up so the first games played will be the first opponants on week 4. We'll just have to sweat it out the first few weeks.


But knowing all this why would all the teams already announce "Replacement Tryouts" if each owner knows he's breaking the law and could be forced to pay a huge penalty? Somethings not adding up.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=SBXVII;793294]But knowing all this why would all the teams already announce "Replacement Tryouts" if each owner knows he's breaking the law and could be forced to pay a huge penalty? Somethings not adding up.[/quote]


dot dot dot dot


[YT]KTwnwbG9YLE[/YT]

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=SBXVII;793261]I wouldn't mind seeing India, heck I'd like to see a lot of countries that are in no way shape and form American friendly. I must be the moron who wonders why those countries don't wise up. Most of the middle east would make a ton of money if they would just be more friendly towards foriegners, Americans, and Christians. Instead their gov would prefer to lose the millions they cold be making in order to keep the outsiders out.

Like Cuba, supposedly has the nicest beaches but would prefer to stay communist instead of reforming their gov and opening their island to vacationers which would bolster their economy.[/quote]

[quote=SBXVII;793288]It's a shame though because I'm sure there are some beautiful places, and historical sites. I just don't want to be kidnapped, killed or thrown in prison.[/quote]

Actually India is quite USA-friendly compared to its neighbor Pakistan. We are a major trading partner with them, a major military supplier of them, and should they go to war with China again, they hope that we will come to their aid.

More on-the-ground, I've run into almost zero hostility towards Americans from average Indian citizens. Some Indians sincerely admire us while others are more neutral. There are some Indians who do not like our foreign policies but they don't hold that against average Americans.

Also, don't forget that just as we are fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, so is India.

When I am there I have almost no fear of being kidnapped, killed, or thrown in prison. I do fear thieves but I fear them in the USA, too.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=SBXVII;793294]and.... although you bring up a good point, could not the owners incorporate into their agreement with a new CBA that the players will not seek "collusion" or that whatever penalty in regards to that be dismissed in order to reach an agreement?

In any event the the NFL has said "All games will be played." So no worry, if the first 4 games are not played as expected I'm sure the season will simply be extended at the end to finish these games or the whole season will be backed up so the first games played will be the first opponants on week 4. We'll just have to sweat it out the first few weeks.


But knowing all this why would all the teams already announce "Replacement Tryouts" if each owner knows he's breaking the law and could be forced to pay a huge penalty? Somethings not adding up.[/quote]

the 4/1 joke that just keeps giving

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=SmootSmack;793089]Well, I think you're probably making a lot of generalizations. But regardless, not sure that's quite what this discussion is about. Would you watch replacement players?[/quote]

I stated in the post that I would not watch replacements.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=tmandoug1;793324]I stated in the post that I would not watch replacements.[/quote]

Got it. Must have missed it

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=Mattyk;793322]the 4/1 joke that just keeps giving[/quote]

[url=http://www.hogshaven.com/2011/4/1/2082067/washington-redskins-become-first-nfl-team-to-hold-tryouts-for]Washington Redskins Become First NFL Team To Hold Tryouts for Replacement Players - Hogs Haven[/url]


[quote]Update: Ok, so as you know this was our April Fool's joke. At first we had the phone # go to the Redskins Club Level ticket office, but they politely asked us to take it down after getting bombarded with calls. So we switched it to the Cowboys ticket office, and after 3 days they did the same. I'd say this joke was a success. [/quote]


I don't know whether to laugh or cry at people...lol

Re: Replacement Players
 

This is the first time I noticed SBXVII had fallen for it too, along with Brody.

Man, I hope neither of them have been training non-stop the past two weeks for this "This is my shot!"

Re: Replacement Players
 

Yeah, I typed my post first thing this morning. I never learn. I understood that the owners have contracts with the players, but I thought with lack of a union a lot more would change than actually changed. Thanks all for the clarification.

Re: Replacement Players
 

I would cancel the NFL Sunday ticket. I wouldnt watch one game, even if we started out 11-0......

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=NC_Skins;793237]If the owners decided to play any games, they would be on the hook for the current contracts of the NFL Players. You think they are going to pay 100+ million each team and have those players sit at home watching scabs play? Not only that, it would kill the quality of the NFL during that time.

I don't see any scenario where the league could lockout the players and still continue business as usual with scabs. Again, I think you are confusing a player lockout and a owner lockout. Not the same.[/quote]

1. Most NFL players have year by year contracts so that they can be voided without cost.

2. If the current players do not show up for work, it would be difficult for them to demand payment since they chose to withhold their services.

There are several good reasons why owners ought to be VERY reluctant to play games with replacement players, but having to pay the current players is not one of them.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;793427]1. Most NFL players have year by year contracts so that they can be voided without cost.

2. If the current players do not show up for work, it would be difficult for them to demand payment since they chose to withhold their services.

There are several good reasons why owners ought to be VERY reluctant to play games with replacement players, but having to pay the current players is not one of them.[/quote]

1) ...if the owners lock them out there very well might have to pay(or a portion) them upon return I would have to see the contract language,players don't return it's a strike and you don't get payed while on the piket line.


....as for replacement players nope.....didn't watch it then and not now ....I'll just go to the local High school and watch or maybe gets tickets for Navy.

Re: Replacement Players
 

[quote=SmootSmack;793343]This is the first time I noticed SBXVII had fallen for it too, along with Brody.

Man, I hope neither of them have been training non-stop the past two weeks for this "This is my shot!"[/quote]

Think they can pass the "Hayensworth" test?

Re: Replacement Players
 

Beware the clerical shuttle..........