8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

Please note that this has to be the shortest post ever from JR. I want to thank everybody involved in helping him learn how to use a minimum of words effectively!

It's Tuesday "drink with the neighbors and all their frends" Night. So you need to also thiank the two bottles of wine, 4 magaritas and 2 shots of bourbon I have drank in the last two hours.

f' em all. Football forever. Fight for all DC!!

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.

I'm curious about why you'd side with the players honestly. I think you'd agree both sides are being greedy (which is perfectly acceptable in this case to me.) Given only that I'd be hard pressed to take any side at all. But add in that the players have consistently positioned themselves to pursue litigation and have now pursued said litigation by pretty dubious means I can't see how anyone can side with them. The balance of good faith spent lies firmly with the owners in my opinion and that is the only thing that tilts me towards the owners.

Edit: I think it is telling that we have a group of 32 business owners making BILLIONS of dollars a year crying poor and slowly but surely public opinion seems to be shifting firmly to their side. If there was ever a less sympathetic entity than the NFL owners crying poor I cannot think of it. Yet the players are consistently positioning themselves on the wrong side of "right".

I wrote a whole post about it, don't feel like rehashing it. But in summary, I don't believe the state of the league is as poor as the owners claim it is, and the NFLPA made several concessions which were rejected by the NFL before March

NFLPA Made Proposals To NFL On How To Split Revenues - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/01/Jan-18/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFLPA.aspx)

and we disagree on "dubious means" and the players side was prepared to negotiate multiple times back in the spring, but the owners either wouldn't show up for meetings, would show up but sit in a separate room and not meet face to face, or would show up and leave after a couple of hours.

And from my own discussions with the league, I just don't buy that they're in the dire position they claim to be. And I know how they can bully, totally different circumstances I know.

Yes, both sides are to blame. But I think the owners are being made to look too much like the good guys. Which, I understand, they usually are because people generally have a hard time siding with "millionaires playing a kid's game"

I also don't think I'm as emotionally charged up about this as others appear to be. And heck, it would probably affect me more than most others here. But the only reason I want the issue resolved is for my own selfish reasons as a fan. But realistically, I know that what matters is getting to a long-term agreement that will benefit the players and keep the league moving forward for decades to come, not a quick fix band-aid solution to appease fans.

I'm not so aggravated about the NFLPA preparing for litigation. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have been preparing themselves for worst-case scenarios for a couple of years. That's par for the course.

Gotcha. That you know of, has D Smith, or any player given a proposal or negotiating points since they walked away from the mediation?

Not that I know of. I doubt any player would anyway

It's Tuesday "drink with the neighbors and all their frends" Night. So you need to also thiank the two bottles of wine, 4 magaritas and 2 shots of bourbon I have drank in the last two hours.

f' em all. Football forever. Fight for all DC!!

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.
Ya know I coulda found a way over there!

#3- Monopoly? I don't think so. Prior to the UFL, yes, but the players do have more then one option now. They may not get as good a pay but they have options.


It isn't about being a monopoly. It is about monopolizing the market. Collusion would fit under the act of monopolizing, but they have an exemption to that, so some OTHER act that would consistitute monopolizing the market. The UFL's existence is irrelevant to the matter unless the NFL is trying actively wipe it out.

It's Tuesday "drink with the neighbors and all their frends" Night. So you need to also thiank the two bottles of wine, 4 magaritas and 2 shots of bourbon I have drank in the last two hours.

f' em all. Football forever. Fight for all DC!!

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.Now waiting on the Lockout Continues-Drunk Thread super-merge.

SB XVII, GTripp & FRPG are brilliant, Dirtbag gets it, SS - however - is a whiny insider player's know-it-all. NC_Skins is a communist.

Going to drink more.

You must be drunk, saying something as foolish as that.

That one needs to happen. I can live with an NBA lockout mainly because the NBA needs fundamental changes to player movement and acquisition. The NFL system on the other hand works from a competition perspective all it needs is a few tweaks. And unlike the NFL I can in fact believe that the NBA owners are loosing money.

NBA also needs to revamp how their draft works. I just don't get how the worst team doesn't get the #1 pick because they drew ping pong balls to determine who gets the #1 pick.

I know this sounds like a stupid question, but I don't understand why can't there be negotiations while the league it is still running. I just feel that the teams are shooting themselves in the foot by not having free agency and offseason workouts/practices/training camps.

Why is there so much debate over the 59% or 53%? The owners say 59% the players say 53%.

Could I possibly be right in thinking the owners keep talking about the expired CBA and after the 1 billion was taken off the top the players received 59% of the income.

But under the new CBA offered by the NFL 2 billion would be taken off the top and the players would only get 53%?

Is that even remotely close? "if" I am then split the difference. If the players refuse to give up their 59% then let the owners take 2 billion off the top and of the remaining give the players 59%. or... only give the owners 1 billion off the top and only give the players 53% of the income. Fair?