8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[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".

[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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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".

Lets not stop to think that maybe the owners might, just might be experiencing a reduction in income due to this whole mess that the owners need to find a way to keep the right amount of money flow coming in to the business to pay said employees, or reduce employees pay by a % to enable them to keep their jobs.

Yep it's all the owners fault. Damn owners. If they would just lift the lockout then fans would be happy and throw the money they don't have due to the bad economy at season tickets, the owners wouldn't have to raise jeresy costs, and employees wouldn't have to worry about their jobs or a reduction in their pay.

Stick it to the owners players and stand your ground. Hold out and wait to hear what the 8th Circuit decides.

When you need a job you go out and apply to 15 to 20 different places in hopes a few respond. You don't go out and apply to one place and wait and when you don't get it you go out and apply to another place and wait, so on and so on. See while the players are so called waiting.... they could be sitting at a table with the owners trying to work something out. What I'd like to see is the owners pick a date and time. The players don't show up its on them, because I'm almost certain the players don't want to negotiate. They want to hear what the 8th Circuit says first or atleast win having the lockout lifted then they will be all over "lets get together."

[SBXVII]

^Perhaps I'm not getting it. Because both parties could not come to an agreement I was under the impression for atleast the last few yrs both sides have been working under an agreed upon earlier CBA, ie; the 2006 CBA. The reason the owners would have let the CBA expire a couple of months ago was because they felt it was a more player friendly CBA and they want a more even keel CBA. The players don't want to give that up.

In any event it was my understanding that both sides agreed to work under the 2006 CBA in order to keep football going and give them more time to negotiate. So although I'm not "getting it" I was pretty sure there was a CBA for which the players decertified 6 hrs prior to the deadline of an agreed upon deadline.

Again I could be wrong but I was pretty sure there was a CBA that both sides were playing under that both sides agreed to use up until about a couple of months ago when the players chose to decertify.

So your second excuse for the players is they had to file prior to 5pm? When technically they could have waited until the next day after the deadline? Good arguement. Although had they waited there probably would not be any issue's about whether they decertified illegally. I'm soo glad I'm just not getting "it".

[CRedskinsRule]

People who point to the opt out moment are generally trying to deflect criticism away from the players. They tend to disregard that the opt out was a valid option for either side and agreed upon by both sides. If you call them on that, they will go to the unethical tv contracts, this is completely valid, except that the owners have been found guilty, and will face a triple damage punishment, tha brings us to the nflpa disclaimer, which has yet to have a final judgement of intent but doesn't pass a simple smell test. If the 8th district and NLRB both say it was valid, then I will not point to it, but at this point in time, that act of disclaiming with the purpose of subverting the 6month time period written into the CBA is, to me, the point where fault lays.

But rather than lay fault at this point both sides know what it takes to reach a deal, the NFL has put offers out there, somebody on the players side ought to get a response back to the owners, so that everyone can get moving forward to a final solution.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

People who point to the opt out moment are generally trying to deflect criticism away from the players. They tend to disregard that the opt out was a valid option for either side and agreed upon by both sides. If you call them on that, they will go to the unethical tv contracts, this is completely valid, except that the owners have been found guilty, and will face a triple damage punishment, tha brings us to the nflpa disclaimer, which has yet to have a final judgement of intent but doesn't pass a simple smell test. If the 8th district and NLRB both say it was valid, then I will not point to it, but at this point in time, that act of disclaiming with the purpose of subverting the 6month time period written into the CBA is, to me, the point where fault lays.

But rather than lay fault at this point both sides know what it takes to reach a deal, the NFL has put offers out there, somebody on the players side ought to get a response back to the owners, so that everyone can get moving forward to a final solution.

In regards to the 1st para, it doesn't matter who has "leverage", if the players are found to have decertified illegally (which I think will happen) then the owners hold the leverage.

but in regards to the 2nd para, no matter who holds leverage both sides need to get an agreement which means sitting at a table and agreeing on a new CBA and signing it. You can't work on anything if only one party is throwing out offers and the other side does not respond or does not throw out counter offers. As you said both sides can have fingers pointed at them, but they need to negotiate and that can't be done by just one side.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

People who point to the opt out moment are generally trying to deflect criticism away from the players. .

The opt out was brought up because somebody actually thinks the players started the "first event" in all this with the decertification. He's talking about the owners suing the players for something "they've" done. It's ****ing retarded when you think about what started this whole fiasco and it sure wasn't the players.


I'll make this simple so even a cave man can understand.


If the owners didn't opt out of the 2006 CBA, would we even be having this discussion? Any answer other than NO is a clear sign of a person's intelligence level and I refuse to go any further with this. The owners event started this whole thing. End of story. Now, if you want to argue the merits of the players impact on this ordeal, that's one thing. If you want to argue the players haven't cooperated, that's one thing. What isn't up for debate is the players starting it. At that point, you are simply trolling.

[SBXVII]

Holy crap! I was right...

NFL.com news: Lockout block? Union seeks to decertify before CBA expires

If the union does decertify, the plan in place is to do so prior to the expiration of the CBA at 11:59 p.m. ET on March 3, absent any breakthrough in talks. The union would then seek an injunction to block a potential lockout.

But here's the problem with them waiting....

The NFLPA would take this course of action to ensure the injunction goes before Judge David Doty, who's jurisdiction over this case ends on March 3. If the NFLPA waited until after the expiration of the CBA, the union would have to wait six months to decertify.

The Union didn't want to have to wait 6 months. OFW.

[Dirtbag59]

Leverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverageLeverage leverage leverage leverage

TNT I'M DYNAMITE!

League Loses Leverage From Within? Coaches Revolting? « Phin Phanatic | A Miami Dolphins blog

[SBXVII]

I see this as a stalemate. Did not a second contingient of players file a suit also? A break in the ranks of the players? So all that has happened is a break in the ranks of the owners. To me... screams of tie. Just because this is the latest news does not make the opposite side a winner in the leverage game.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I see this as a stalemate. Did not a second contingient of players file a suit also? A break in the ranks of the players? So all that has happened is a break in the ranks of the owners. To me... screams of tie. Just because this is the latest news does not make the opposite side a winner in the leverage game.

I wasn't saying either way rather I'm simply tired of the players (and some of the owners) obsession with obtaining leverage.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I wasn't saying either way rather I'm simply tired of the players (and some of the owners) obsession with obtaining leverage.

Misunderstood sorry. I too am tired of the whole "leverage" issue. Who the "F" cares? the players thought they would get leverage by decertifying. Did it work? no, the owners lockedout. Did the owners gain any leverage by locking out? no.

How will getting leverage from the courts help in the specifics of a new CBA? I keep hearing that the courts can't instruct what gets put in or taken out of the CBA. They can only determine if either party broke the law. So basically the whole court issues are a smoke screen to take attention away from the sitting down and hashing out an agreement.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Misunderstood sorry. I too am tired of the whole "leverage" issue. Who the "F" cares? the players thought they would get leverage by decertifying. Did it work? no, the owners lockedout. Did the owners gain any leverage by locking out? no.

How will getting leverage from the courts help in the specifics of a new CBA? I keep hearing that the courts can't instruct what gets put in or taken out of the CBA. They can only determine if either party broke the law. So basically the whole court issues are a smoke screen to take attention away from the sitting down and hashing out an agreement.

Funny thing about leverage is you loose some when it becomes obvious that you're desperately chasing after it. In retrospect the only thing leverage wise that I have no problem with is the NFLPA going after the Owners rainy day fund with the TV Contracts.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Funny thing about leverage is you loose some when it becomes obvious that you're desperately chasing after it. In retrospect the only thing leverage wise that I have no problem with is the NFLPA going after the Owners rainy day fund with the TV Contracts.

Yeah I really didn't pay attention to the whole TV deal and out of the blue people were calling foul. As long as it's counted in as NFL income and it's part of what the players will get, then I don't see the problem because in the long run the players are going to see part of that money also. But if it's exclusively money for the owners but should be for the players also then I can see the arguement.

Which I'm guessing is the issue. I think it's funny how it's business as usual for the NFL all except for when it comes to players. and even then some of us would be idiots to think the teams are not having some kind of contact with their players. Yet the NFL just recently looked into it and ... what do you know... no violations. lol.