Replacement Players

[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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

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.

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.