8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

reduce restricted free agency to 3 years.
impose a 1 year maximum on franchise tags
reduce or eliminate mandatory ota's, even changing bonus structures so that they can't be used as hammers
increased health benefits post career (on this one, the owners would probably ask to enlarge the exemption, but it seems worth it to me)
remove 18 games completely (heck we all figure the owners through that in as a bargaining chip, so use it for best gains)

there are probably more ways too. So rather than scream show us the books, just use it as a tool- no books, ok, healthcare for everyone. 1.4b exemption ok pensions start at age 50, not 55. 1.5b, ok, unrestricted after 3 years for everyone.

I believe the owners were expecting and willing to handle that negotiation, but instead we get a steady diet of war, books, and lawsuits, that none of the owners are going to buy into as a negotiation.

Its really quite simple when you think about it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Its really quite simple when you think about it.

I think there are so many ways this deal could have gotten done, and so few that lead us to where we are now. It's really a shame.

[Ruhskins]

About time this happened...

"RT @judybattista NFL coaches association filed amicus brief in support of players, asking 8th Circuit to affirm injunction and lift lockout."

I'm curious how the owners will fell about this.

[CRedskinsRule]

Interesting brief, http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_....3791315.0.pdf

I thought the coaches were represented by a union, but in fact they are a trade organization.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Interesting brief, http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_....3791315.0.pdf

I thought the coaches were represented by a union, but in fact they are a trade organization.

Thanks for this link. I guess since some coaches are considered management, they wouldn't be able to be represented by a union? I thought I read that somewhere (or I could be wrong).

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Its really quite simple when you think about it.

-

No, it's really not.I'm not as eloquent typing as some of you please just listen when I say contract and Union negotiations...really are not as simple as you may think,yeah we hear things and think hell sounds good to me but remember these guys are not dealing with a game ...this is business to both sides.I've gone though 6 now at my place of work and things change from day to day,basically both sides must be fortune tellers and see into the future.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Can the NFLPA re-decertify? They are already decertified, how can they re-decertify if they are already decertified? I'm confused.

If the courts find that the NFLPA's decertification is invalid then that mean's those Anti-Trust suits will also be invalid as well. It means the NFLPA would have to bargain as a union and the owners would have all the leverage. A lockout is going to occur with or without a union. That much is guaranteed.

I know I'm behind on the discussion trying to catch up, but I recall someone here mentioning that the Players did not decertify, but had filed an intent to decertify. Don't get me wrong I thought they did, the owners talk as if they did but it was after something I asked and another fan here said the players had not actually decertified but had only filed an intent to decertify. So could they recind the intent and wait then file? or was the other fan incorrect and they Players did decertify?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The NFLPA disclaimed interest, the media keeps saying decertified. A disclaimer of interest can be undone in a heart beat of a vote. A true de-certification vote has procedures, and then the union is barred from recertifying for a year.

I don't think that is right about the lockout, because the owners contention is that they are in their rights to lockout BECAUSE the decertification was a sham. But if the union follows the CBA clause of 6 months then the NFL can't claim it's a sham, and the whole process starts over, without a lockout in place. The main thing it would mean is we just wasted this time in getting a deal done.

The only question I would have is would the Owners have a claim of damage? Loss of revenue, Attorney's costs due to what the players have done?

[SBXVII]

Just watching NFL Network and god I'm soo tired of yet another owner or CEO or whoever saying .... " We need to get back to the negotiations table." So what is the problem? It seems that the owners are all saying we need to get to the negotiations table and everytime I hear from the players side it's all about whatever happens June 3rd or June 6th.

So why can't the Players tell their reps to get at the table and keep trying? I mean if they are cable of getting something done then all the law suits could be dropped.

Damn players.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The only question I would have is would the Owners have a claim of damage? Loss of revenue, Attorney's costs due to what the players have done?

No way no how. They in fact locked their own income out by their own doing. There is no way in hell they could make a claim like that. Their revenue loss is squarely on their own accord.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No way no how. They in fact locked their own income out by their own doing. There is no way in hell they could make a claim like that. Their revenue loss is squarely on their own accord.

Ok, I'm not totally up on all the leagaleeze. lol. But I was just wondering could the Owners point out that had the Players not done what they did the Lockout would not have happened and because of that could the Owners request damage?

I can for some reason see the owners pointing this out talking about how some fans failed to renew their tickets because of not knowing what was going to happen with the lockout... basically causing damage.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Just watching NFL Network and god I'm soo tired of yet another owner or CEO or whoever saying .... " We need to get back to the negotiations table." So what is the problem? It seems that the owners are all saying we need to get to the negotiations table and everytime I hear from the players side it's all about whatever happens June 3rd or June 6th.

So why can't the Players tell their reps to get at the table and keep trying? I mean if they are cable of getting something done then all the law suits could be dropped.

Damn players.

It does appear that the players are begining to lose the PR battle. DeMaurice Smith doesn't seem to be winning them any good favor with his rhetoric and perceived indignance...while the NFL mantra has been "we need to get back to the table".

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

It does appear that the players are begining to lose the PR battle. DeMaurice Smith doesn't seem to be winning them any good favor with his rhetoric and perceived indignance...while the NFL mantra has been "we need to get back to the table".

No. The NFL mantra has been this.


Buffalo Bills suspend pension and 401K payments to employees - ESPN

NFL Shop raises jersey prices $5 amid lockout - CBSSports.com

Get ready to pay: 18 NFL teams raising ticket prices for 2010 - USATODAY.com

****ing over the fans, screwing over their employees, so they can make yet more money so that they can misuse under the guise of their "operating expenses" and then turn around and claim their are having "profit losses".

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I can for some reason see the owners pointing this out talking about how some fans failed to renew their tickets because of not knowing what was going to happen with the lockout... basically causing damage.

It's about as retarded as a robber suing a home owner for a faulty window that broke and cut him while he was trying to break into the house.

Doesn't make sense does it? Didn't think so.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

****ing over the fans, screwing over their employees, so they can make yet more money so that they can misuse under the guise of their "operating expenses" and then turn around and claim their are having "profit losses".

I would be interested to view your proof on this statement.