free agency 2011

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Yes because the owners are legally forbidden from using replacement players. There will be a season, probably just not an offseason like we're used to.

I thought I have seen it both ways. Do you know what specifically forbids them from using replacements? I had read a real good article on why the de-certification tact won't be a very effective tool this time around, but now can't seem to find it.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I thought I have seen it both ways. Do you know what specifically forbids them from using replacements? I had read a real good article on why the de-certification tact won't be a very effective tool this time around, but now can't seem to find it.

I looked for a link but can't find it but I have heard a few (Mort, King, Sheft, Lombardi) say that because of the federal anti trust exemption they have they are not allowed to use replacement workers at a time they are locking workers out.

I'm probably in the minority on this one but I am 100% behind the players. The owners agreed to a deal and then backed out of it. They are trying to expand the regular season for no other reason but greed. You signed a deal, live with it.

Back on topic, I think we will be very aggressive in free agency (whenever it is) at the same time purging much of the carryover roster (Moss, Rabach, Dockery, Portis, Daniels, Carter, Sellers, maybe even Fletcher) in another transition year.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I looked for a link but can't find it but I have heard a few (Mort, King, Sheft, Lombardi) say that because of the federal anti trust exemption they have they are not allowed to use replacement workers at a time they are locking workers out.

I'm probably in the minority on this one but I am 100% behind the players. The owners agreed to a deal and then backed out of it. They are trying to expand the regular season for no other reason but greed. You signed a deal, live with it.

Back on topic, I think we will be very aggressive in free agency (whenever it is) at the same time purging much of the carryover roster (Moss, Rabach, Dockery, Portis, Daniels, Carter, Sellers, maybe even Fletcher) in another transition year.

I very much disagree with you. The CBA expires this year. That is part of the deal the players signed to have these rules expire this year. They should live with the fact that they are making way too much money while the owners profits are diminishing. Theres no way any single player should be making more money than an owner, but it happens....hell a few owners are losing money every year. It is not greed, it is smart business, and it is not cheep, they have the right to not re-new the CBA because that was in the original contract.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by skinster

I very much disagree with you. The CBA expires this year. That is part of the deal the players signed to have these rules expire this year. They should live with the fact that they are making way too much money while the owners profits are diminishing. Theres no way any single player should be making more money than an owner, but it happens....hell a few owners are losing money every year. It is not greed, it is smart business, and it is not cheep, they have the right to not re-new the CBA because that was in the original contract.

Where are you getting your facts? The owners backed out of the CBA (a provision allowed them to do so, ensuring the uncapped year in 2010) which was set to expire after the 2012 season. NFL Owners Meetings: Work Stoppage Unlikely After CBA Opt-Out

There are NO players making more than owners and owners aren't losing money anywhere. If you believe that, then you also believe that Haynesworth is going to make $100 million and McNabb $78 million.

This is the problem, most fans have no clue what the issues are but are more than happy to rip 'greedy players' while ignoring provisions the owners have to continue to make money (guaranteed TV money, merchandise sales, etc.) while laying off/firing employees (non players) and sitting back while the players take all the heat.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Where are you getting your facts? The owners backed out of the CBA (a provision allowed them to do so, ensuring the uncapped year in 2010) which was set to expire after the 2012 season. NFL Owners Meetings: Work Stoppage Unlikely After CBA Opt-Out

There are NO players making more than owners and owners aren't losing money anywhere. If you believe that, then you also believe that Haynesworth is going to make $100 million and McNabb $78 million.

This is the problem, most fans have no clue what the issues are but are more than happy to rip 'greedy players' while ignoring provisions the owners have to continue to make money (guaranteed TV money, merchandise sales, etc.) while laying off/firing employees (non players) and sitting back while the players take all the heat.

I'm not sure what your asking because your just repeating what I said about the owners being allowed to opt out and doing so.

And if you want proof that some owners are making less than some players, read the links I posted on the previous page of the profits of each team. Two teams lost money last year. This year Green Bay is the only team to have reported its financial statements this year, and it made 9.8 million...an amount that many players make more than in a given year (not including their endorsements)

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by skinster

I'm not sure what your asking because your just repeating what I said about the owners being allowed to opt out and doing so.

And if you want proof that some owners are making less than some players, read the links I posted on the previous page of the profits of each team. Two teams lost money last year. This year Green Bay is the only team to have reported its financial statements this year, and it made 9.8 million...an amount that many players make more than in a given year (not including their endorsements)

The point was the CBA wasn't set to expire, the owners triggered this environment by opting out.

The Packers made $9.8 million in profit (reported) but their overall gross revenues were MUCH greater than that. If you want to compare apples to apples, see what a player takes home after taxes, expenses, etc. since that's essentially his 'profit'. I'm pretty sure no player, even Fat Al, made gross revenues close to what any NFL team makes on one home game. Until the full books are released by each team, I'm not buying that any teams are losing money.

Either way, it's irrelevant to the thread, sorry I derailed it. I hope, as one of the richest teams in the league, we spend wisely but aggressively adding at least one G, 2 WR and a playmaking LB.