Replacement Players

[Longtimefan]

I have already made plans to purchase my tickets as of May 1st. I haven't yet decided what to do in the event a decision is made to actually go with replacement players. In 1987 I did attend the games because I realized they were going to count in the standings regardless of who the players were. Had we not won those games it's likely we would not have won the SB that year either. I have plenty of time to decide.

ps/ I'll be refunded if games are cancelled. It's no biggie one way or the other.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I have already made plans to purchase my tickets as of May 1st. I haven't yet decided what to do in the event a decision is made to actually go with replacement players.

/bangs head against wall


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

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

/bangs head against wall


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

I think the question posed by the poster was: Would you watch the games "if" they were played by replacements, not whether there will or won't be.

[Brody81]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

/bangs head against wall


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

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

Oh man...you poor, poor guy. Still a fool two weeks later

[Brody81]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Oh man...you poor, poor guy. Still a fool two weeks later

I know, I'm an idiot!!!

[tmandoug1]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

I think I just spit out all of my drink, man April Fools day was 12 days ago!!!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Why are the skins holding tryouts for replacement players if thats not an option???

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

Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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

Report: NFL May End Lockout By Hiring Scab Owners | The Onion Sports Network

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

"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.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

/bangs head against wall


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

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

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.

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.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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?

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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?

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.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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.