Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.
|
The players agreed to a CBA that allowed the owners to opt out without any justification necessary. I am not sure how the owners exercising a negotiated contract right is in any way improper. Show me where, any where, in the CBA
agreed to by the players, that the owners are required to show cause, injury or other justification
prior to exercising their negotiated rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!
|
Loopholes I get. I got no problem with
legal loopholes. Hell, I love'em. The players, however, aren't taking advantage of a loophole. Read the CBA - (see CRed's post earlier). The players union, essentially, agreed not to decertify as a means of circumventing federal labor laws. Despite this agreement, they decertify with the specific intent of filing suit and attempting to gain leverage by intentionally circumventing their earlier agreement and established labor law.
This is not a "loophole", it is a flagrant violation of the CBA and federal labor laws. This was the basis of the NFL's opposition to the District Court's injunction and, according to the 8th Circuit when it overruled the lower court, is a claim upon which the NFL is likely to succeed.
Had the players followed the CBA and allowed the matter to proceed through the NLRB or other applicable (as agreed by the players union), I would have no beef with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.
|
Nothing technically legal about it? I am assuming your using hyperbole, but, if not, the sheer unbridled ignorance of this remark makes a response impossible. Short answer: The NFL and its teams are legal entities that can choose to do business anyway they so choose subject to the appropriate lablor laws which the players availed themselves of by forming a union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.
|
Their decertification, I suggest, was illegal and forced the owners hand into a lockout. Ultimately, the courts will make a determination as to the decertification's legality but, based on the 8th Circuit's recent ruling, it is likely they will find the decertification illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything illegal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.
|
Let's get something straight - I think the owner's voided the CBA out of greed, they were unhappy with their cut and wanted to increase it. This does not mean what they did was illegal or a violation of the CBA or applicable law. It is legal to be greedy.
The players actions also demonstrate a level of greed - not nearly as much as the owners. However, in pursuing their perfectly legal greed, the players, IMO (and apparently the 8th Circuit's) are using illegal methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.
|
Go look it up. By all accounts, the March 11th proposal met the players demands half way. As I understand it, the most recent proposal is more favorable.