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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

?? The players dont' set the prices for tickets. That would be the owners. The players get a percentage of the total revenue. If that revenue is lower, then they'll take a lower percentage. I think you are barking up the wrong tree my friend.

To be fair, under the previous CBA the owners had a fiduciary duty to the players to maximize revenues for the purposes of salary cap accounting. This is why the TV deal was illegal, and if the owners lowered the ticket prices, they would face the players in court saying that they weren't maximizing revenue.

[CRedskinsRule]

note, the above post was only to show that the players have a bearing on ticket prices, not mitigating the owners portion of responsibility.

[SmootSmack]

The rumor this morning is that the stay will not be lifted so the lockout will remain in place until the June 3 hearing at the earliest

Hoping this isn't true

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The rumor this morning is that the stay will not be lifted so the lockout will remain in place until the June 3 hearing at the earliest

Hoping this isn't true

Not a happy rumor. Kill the messenger!

[Ruhskins]

I just want one reporter to go up to an owner and ask:

"How can you justify sacrificing your team's ability to plan and play well for the upcoming season by insisting on keeping the lockout?"

I just don't get how can coaches sit idly and not be able to sign free agents, start OTAs, and eventually start training camp.

Our FO made a huge deal (and rightfully so) about Haynesworth not coming to OTAs, and now the owners are basically saying: screw you, we don't care about OTAs or training camp because we want to maintain this lockout.

It seems that 1 billion dollars is amount of money that will make owners purposefully screw up their teams performance for next season.

[CRedskinsRule]

All the teams are under the same disadvantage. The owners want to get this thing back to the negotiating table, not the courtroom. The quickest way to do that is for the courts to acknowledge that the union's decertification was a sham, and bring both back to the table under Federal labor mediation. The next quickest way is for the courts to say that the decertification was not a sham, and force the owners to mediate under the auspices of the court.

If the first way happens, we may see a long term deal quickly, if the 2nd one happens we most likely will see a shorter deal, with the owners opting out at the first possible moment.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Not a happy rumor. Kill the messenger!

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The rumor this morning is that the stay will not be lifted so the lockout will remain in place until the June 3 hearing at the earliest

Hoping this isn't true

I can't find it to post but I immediatly thought of Kenny from South Park going "Woo Hoo". lol.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Not a happy rumor. Kill the messenger!

Then I saw this responce and thought "Oh my god they killed Kenny". lol.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I just want one reporter to go up to an owner and ask:

"How can you justify sacrificing your team's ability to plan and play well for the upcoming season by insisting on keeping the lockout?"

I just don't get how can coaches sit idly and not be able to sign free agents, start OTAs, and eventually start training camp.

Our FO made a huge deal (and rightfully so) about Haynesworth not coming to OTAs, and now the owners are basically saying: screw you, we don't care about OTAs or training camp because we want to maintain this lockout.

It seems that 1 billion dollars is amount of money that will make owners purposefully screw up their teams performance for next season.

Then after the responce have the same reporter go up to Breese/Players Association and ask "why they left the table talks 6 hrs early instead of staying and trying to work out an agreement?"

ask them "why they feel the need to capitalize on 60% of the income instead of simply being fair and taking 50%?"

Why is it people only want to get mad at the owners and not the players for decertifying? You all do realize that because the players decertified the owners were pretty much forced to lockout to protect themselves.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Then after the responce have the same reporter go up to Breese/Players Association and ask "why they left the table talks 6 hrs early instead of staying and trying to work out an agreement?"

ask them "why they feel the need to capitalize on 60% of the income instead of simply being fair and taking 50%?"

Why is it people only want to get mad at the owners and not the players for decertifying? You all do realize that because the players decertified the owners were pretty much forced to lockout to protect themselves.

Actually it's 53% of the income. 60% of $8 billion in a $9 billion pot gives the players 53%.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The rumor this morning is that the stay will not be lifted so the lockout will remain in place until the June 3 hearing at the earliest

Hoping this isn't true

Thats excellent news! Sure, if youre only concerned about having news right now, you want the lockout lifted. however, as ive explained a number of times, i beleive its in the long-term interests of the NFL for both sides to agree to a deal on their own (its the only way both sides would feel the deal was fair). No fair deal would be negotiated absent a lockout.

Best case scenario if a CBA is imposed following litigation is a 3-4 year deal and then we're right back where we are now. DeMaurice Smith has no intentions of negotiating in good faith and he will abuse any shred of leverage he has to create another bad deal the owners will terminate as soon as possible.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Thats excellent news! Sure, if youre only concerned about having news right now, you want the lockout lifted. however, as ive explained a number of times, i beleive its in the long-term interests of the NFL for both sides to agree to a deal on their own (its the only way both sides would feel the deal was fair). No fair deal would be negotiated absent a lockout.

Best case scenario if a CBA is imposed following litigation is a 3-4 year deal and then we're right back where we are now. DeMaurice Smith has no intentions of negotiating in good faith and he will abuse any shred of leverage he has to create another bad deal the owners will terminate as soon as possible.

I get what you are saying from an overall league view, but in terms of the Redskins the best thing that can happen is this lockout ending as soon as possible. The Redskins have 12 draft picks to get up to speed, they have additional holes to fill in free agency, they have uncertainty at the QB position. Every day this thing extends on is one more nail in the coffin of the the 2011 Redskins! So right now i don't care about the owners trying to get out of a bad deal 4 years from now. I care about the Redskins who I spend a lot of money to see play having a fair chance to field a competitive team.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Then after the responce have the same reporter go up to Breese/Players Association and ask "why they left the table talks 6 hrs early instead of staying and trying to work out an agreement?"

ask them "why they feel the need to capitalize on 60% of the income instead of simply being fair and taking 50%?"

Why is it people only want to get mad at the owners and not the players for decertifying? You all do realize that because the players decertified the owners were pretty much forced to lockout to protect themselves.

Good point, but to me it seems that the owners should do everything to make their team better and win. I don't see why they can continue to negotiate and lift the lockout. The players are still a bit screwed right now b/c they are under 2010 rules. In the end both sides are at fault, but I just don't see how having a lockout helps anyone but the owners.

[Dirtbag59]

I'm tempted to suggest that both parties split the difference but part of me also believes thats a TERRIBLE way to settle any negotiation. Splitting the difference is what causes people to overreach on demands hiding the target they're really aiming for. Kind of like the 18 game proposal where the owners offer it knowing the players will never accept it then take it away calling it a concession.

So like lets say I have an offer to get $2 million and I want $4 million so I ask for $6 million. It's just ridiculous that we have to engage in these stupid tactics when we negotiate.