Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated

[Son Of Man]

I have a hard time viewing either side in this lawsuit as an injured party. As a business owner myself, I can see where the owners are coming from. As a businessman, I can see where the players are coming from. Botom line, I do not have a dog in this fight. I just want it over with so my Skins can fill out our roster and move some players off of our team. Period.

BTW- Funny how millionaire players (those named in the lawsuit) and billionaire owners have the rest of us arguing over whose right and taking sides. Rather ironic seeing as though the NFL viewer/consumer is the driving force behind their revenue generation. Why waste time arguing the validity of their arguements when we stand to gain nothing. We buy tickets, merchandise, drive web traffic to their sites and tune into the tv to drive th ratings for their games. I don't see us being represented in this lawsuit, so why care.

If you want something to debate, there's plenty to argue over in politics! At least there you get to vote.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

I have a hard time viewing either side in this lawsuit as an injured party. As a business owner myself, I can see where the owners are coming from. As a businessman, I can see where the players are coming from. Botom line, I do not have a dog in this fight. I just want it over with so my Skins can fill out our roster and move some players off of our team. Period.

BTW- Funny how millionaire players (those named in the lawsuit) and billionaire owners have the rest of us arguing over whose right and taking sides. Rather ironic seeing as though the NFL viewer/consumer is the driving force behind their revenue generation. Why waste time arguing the validity of their arguements when we stand to gain nothing. We buy tickets, merchandise, drive web traffic to their sites and tune into the tv to drive th ratings for their games. I don't see us being represented in this lawsuit, so why care.

If you want something to debate, there's plenty to argue over in politics! At least there you get to vote.

See my post I made earlier. You do have a vote in this, most people don't chose to use their power.

My thing is, if the owners can show that they are indeed losing profits (not related to misuse of funds or poor management), then they have ground to stand on. However, if the some owners are running their franchise like the McCourts did the Dodgers, don't expect the players to take a salary cut all because you want to use your professional franchise as means to fund your personal life. That's the whole other issue, they aren't willing to open their books, and my guess is it's for a good reason and that whole argument of "oh, i don't want people knowing what i pay my accountant or secretary" crap isn't flying either.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

One other thing, I think if Troy Vincent had been elected instead of D Smith, negotiations would have continued, and we would be very close to a good deal for all involved. I can't prove it, but I believe it

Agree 100%. But the players opted for Smith rather than Vincent. Most of these guys are college educated so they knew what they were getting.

[CRedskinsRule]

NC_Skins: Did the owners have the right to opt out 2 years ago?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Agree 100%. But the players opted for Smith rather than Vincent. Most of these guys are college educated so they knew what they were getting.

That is true, they also had a chance to dissent when they took votes on de-certification and they didn't. I just find it easier to believe that they believed the Owners would divide (as they had several times before) than to believe they intend for this to get to this stage.

[saden1]

I don't understand all this demobilization of Smith. Smith is doing what the players want, not what he wants. Consensus will be reached so there is no point in arguing about what's going to happen.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

See my post I made earlier. You do have a vote in this, most people don't chose to use their power.

My thing is, if the owners can show that they are indeed losing profits (not related to misuse of funds or poor management), then they have ground to stand on. However, if the some owners are running their franchise like the McCourts did the Dodgers, don't expect the players to take a salary cut all because you want to use your professional franchise as means to fund your personal life. That's the whole other issue, they aren't willing to open their books, and my guess is it's for a good reason and that whole argument of "oh, i don't want people knowing what i pay my accountant or secretary" crap isn't flying either.

Speaking purely as the owner/operator of a business myself (no where near NFL team revenue), I would never open my books to employees let alone in a matter that would make them public record. Not that there is anything shady going on, but allowing my local competition to see where I allocate my marketing resources, for instance, could hinder one of my competitive advantages by allowing them to counter my strategy and attempt to infiltrate that market. Allowing people to see how I structure my networking/joit work ventures with other firms could allow them to try to one-up my strategy with prospective new partnerships. Although I do not really which side presumably "wins" when this labor issue is resolved, I do feel it would not be prudent for the teams to open their books to their employees or the general public.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

Speaking purely as the owner/operator of a business myself (no where near NFL team revenue), I would never open my books to employees let alone in a matter that would make them public record. Not that there is anything shady going on, but allowing my local competition to see where I allocate my marketing resources, for instance, could hinder one of my competitive advantages by allowing them to counter my strategy and attempt to infiltrate that market. Allowing people to see how I structure my networking/joit work ventures with other firms could allow them to try to one-up my strategy with prospective new partnerships. Although I do not really which side presumably "wins" when this labor issue is resolved, I do feel it would not be prudent for the teams to open their books to their employees or the general public.

I see what you are saying, but I don't think you can compare the NFL with any regular business.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I see what you are saying, but I don't think you can compare the NFL with any regular business.

Why not. I agree with SoM. The only difference between the NFL and any other business is that the employees at the highest level are more difficult to replace in the short term.

[firstdown]

For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by firstdown

For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.

Let the people say Amen!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.

It's not that straightforward, I am on the owners side, but fact of the matter is that the owners pay a % of football revenues to the players. I don't think I am paying the guy fixing my roof a negotiated % of my income.

The players make to much of it, basically because they want to play rich owners against poor owners, and they knew the owners wouldn't, thus they have a rallying cry for their side. But it's not your typical business model, and so comparisons breakdown quickly.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by firstdown

For the people that say the owners should just open up their books and show everyone I say this. Next time someone does any work for you open up your checking, savings, etc.. accounts and let them then decide what they want to get paid. After all thats what the players are doing. I own a business and its none of my employees business what i make.

I think the third party offer was fair. For starters most of the players can't read complicated financial statements and more then likely the people that they would bring in to translate would be told to look for leverage.

However as a general principle I still think the owners have the best deal in sports. Sure the players are assigned 53% of total revenue and that might hit the owners right in the ego but consider that the NHL gave players 54% the year after the lockout and 57% this past year. Also I'm pretty sure that in the NBA players are getting as much as 60% but that needs to change for other reasons.

This lockout should have never happened in the first place and the fact that it's allowed to continue is absurd. Seriously all you needed to figure out was a rookie pay scale and how to take care of retired players and the money saved on rookies could have been used to help pay for veterans. THAT'S IT.

For God's sake the NFL has proven that they can make money in a recession. What more do they need?

[Dirtbag59]

PS FirstDown. We know where you spend your money. Instead of paying your employees what they're worth you buy overpriced ugly bikes

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I think the third party offer was fair. For starters most of the players can't read complicated financial statements and more then likely the people that they would bring in to translate would be told to look for leverage.

However as a general principle I still think the owners have the best deal in sports. Sure the players are assigned 53% of total revenue and that might hit the owners right in the ego but consider that the NHL gave players 54% the year after the lockout and 57% this past year. Also I'm pretty sure that in the NBA players are getting as much as 60% but that needs to change for other reasons.

This lockout should have never happened in the first place and the fact that it's allowed to continue is absurd. Seriously all you needed to figure out was a rookie pay scale and how to take care of retired players and the money saved on rookies could have been used to help pay for veterans. THAT'S IT.

For God's sake the NFL has proven that they can make money in a recession. What more do they need?

Excellent point, NFL owners have it much better than owners of other sports. And they don't have to pay out guaranteed contracts in the NFL, unlike MLB or the NBA.

I don't get this hard on everyone has for the owners side. All sides are at fault one way or another, but the lockout should be lifted while they continue to negotiate. Right now, it is the owners that are preventing that lock out from being lifted at the expense of their own team's performance next season.

Personally, I feel that both parties should've settled this before the season ended. During last season, there should've been hard negotiations going on. Instead both sides went on with business as usual.

Honestly, unless you're a millionaire or a billionaire, I don't understand how people can be so dead set on supporting a side on this argument. Both sides are at fault, and they need to get this sh*t fixed. Right now if the lockout continues, we're not going to have football next season.