|
|
SBXVII 05-25-2011, 10:53 PM Don't know if this has been posted yet but I think it would be hilarious to see Shanahan put Snyder through an OTA.
The next frontier in lockout boredom: Rams hold “Mock OTA” | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/25/the-next-frontier-in-lockout-boredom-rams-hold-mock-ota/)
lol. I can hear it know
MS- "Ok so you have to go up and back 4 times in oder to pass."
DS- "This is BS, I'm a millionair."
MS- "So is Haynesworth."
DS- "Ok, I finished 2 I gotta go to the bathroom."
MS- "Well you took too long in the bathroom so you have to start over."
DS- "I finished the test. I think I'm going to sue you for defamation of character."
SBXVII 05-25-2011, 11:00 PM 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.
Dirtbag59 05-25-2011, 11:20 PM lol. I can hear it know
MS- "Ok so you have to go up and back 4 times in oder to pass."
DS- "This is BS, I'm a millionair."
MS- "So is Haynesworth."
DS- "Ok, I finished 2 I gotta go to the bathroom."
MS- "Well you took too long in the bathroom so you have to start over."
DS- "I finished the test. I think I'm going to sue you for defamation of character."
I think I could figure out the itnerary.
Drill 1 - Signing checks then resting
Drill 2 - Read a critical article without suing
Drill 3 - Charging less then $200 for beverages.
SBXVII 05-25-2011, 11:37 PM I think I could figure out the itnerary.
Drill 1 - Signing checks then resting
Drill 2 - Read a critical article without suing
Drill 3 - Charging less then $200 for beverages.
lol. What happens if DS refuses to do a drill? lol. What happens if DS is seen laying on the field reading the critical article?
Drill 4- putting a credit card into a cheerleaders top with out touching boobage.
Ruhskins 05-26-2011, 08:55 AM lol. What happens if DS refuses to do a drill? lol. What happens if DS is seen laying on the field reading the critical article?
Drill 4- putting a credit card into a cheerleaders top with out touching boobage.
That's actually part of the NFL sex offender OTAs led by Big Ben and Fal Al. LOL.
NC_Skins 05-26-2011, 09:04 AM 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 05-26-2011, 10:15 AM ^ So to help out my ignorant butt some more your saying the Owners and Players have been working together with out a CBA for 4 yrs? Because the Owners opted out in 2006.
Yet apparently I'm not the only individual to "not get it." Because the media doesn't either.....
NFL.com news: Lockout block? Union seeks to decertify before CBA expires (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e80385/article/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.
In case your wondering the story was written Feb 26, 2011. Please enlighten me ole smart one as to how the Owners (who should be at fault) opted out of the CBA in 2006, which would mean there is no CBA, and be able to opt out yet again in 2011? Better yet how could the Players decertify now 4yrs after the owners opted out and yet still be filing prior to the expiration of the CBA.
Last I knew if either party opted out then the CBA was no longer in effect. Yet both sides have been working under a CBA? Yes they have been working under the 2006 CBA which was agreed upon and extended by both parties agreeing to have it extended until they both could agree on a new one.
The owners may have opted out as you put it but they have been working under the very CBA they opted out of. and .... it expired on March 3rd at midnight.
What I don't think some other non informed individuals get is the 2006 CBA that the owners and players were working under all the way up until March 3rd ..... COULD HAVE BEEN EXTENDED. Except the players chose to decertify prior to the deadline of the expiration.
SBXVII 05-26-2011, 10:19 AM OMG, if you read the article it says that very thing.....
At this point there are four likely scenarios that would take place March 4: a new deal is struck, the sides opt to extend the negotiating period, the union decertifies or the owners vote for a lockout.
SmootSmack 05-26-2011, 10:25 AM Talk about totally misreading what NC wrote. He didn't say the owners opted out in 2006. He said they opted out of the 2006 deal. The 2006 deal gave either the option to opt out a year or two before the deal expired, an option the owners exercised in 2008
NFL owners opt out of CBA (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true)
SBXVII 05-26-2011, 10:41 AM Talk about totally misreading what NC wrote. He didn't say the owners opted out in 2006. He said they opted out of the 2006 deal. The 2006 deal gave either the option to opt out a year or two before the deal expired, an option the owners exercised in 2008
NFL owners opt out of CBA (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true)
Ok totally wrong sorry. Misread. But although they opted out did they not extend the 2006 CBA each year in order to reach an agreement? or were they simply playing under the 2006 CBA but did not actually have a CBA in place due to the owners opting out.
In any event the owners might have "opted out" in 2006 but they have been trying to get a new one in place. In other words if both sides had the option to "opt out" then either side could have done it. Legally. Now if the side who opted out ... also chose not to work out an agreement I'd be pointing fingers, except thats not whats happened. The owners have been showing up at all meetings, they have offered 2 CBA offers, Both the players walked away from with out even a counter offer, players decertify (possibly illegally which is where the finger pointing should start), owners lockedout, mediation, and 8th Circuit upholding the lockout but asking the owners to, yet again, send the players, yet again, another CBA offer, which was, yet again not counter offered.
I understand the owners and players are most likely talking about the issue's but... it should not stop the players from taking whatever offer the owners hand to them and making the adjustments they would like to see happen and sending the offer (on paper) back to the owners.
|