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

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

I lean this way.
I also find it amusing how some are defending the players like they are teachers in Wisconsin.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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

This.

I'm so tired of hearing that sort of take on the issue.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

Maybe there's a reason for this, for instance not giving away more than they should to players.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

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

If you read that thread you would have seen the money went to help children with terminal illnesses.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If you read that thread you would have seen the money went to help children with terminal illnesses.

Damnit think think think think. Oh wait I got it.

Umm, yeah well if you read my post you would realize I'm dyslexic and not so lazy as to skim over threads before making judgements.

Did he buy it? Am I typing my thoughts? No stop that no wait damnit no don't click submit.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

Obviously they had that "right" to opt out. Were they "right" in doing so? No. If you want to claim you are losing profits, be prepared to show the numbers.

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.

/facepalm

Why people keep relating their job/business to that of the NFL is beyond me. It's not even remotely comparable in the least. You know why you can tell your employees that? Because you can replace them on a whim. Now, let your business and your wealth depended on people that you could not replace, then chances are you wouldn't be dictating much of anything. Not unless you were absolutely stupid and wanted to lose your income. Don't think of the NFL players as employees, think of them as the actual product because that's exactly what they are. Who holds more power? The record label or the famous recording artist? The recording artist can find another label that will be willing to take less and sponsor them, the recording label would be out of luck.

Same thing here bro. There are other billionaires out that that would put together a plan to form another league and take less just so they could profit.

[NC_Skins]

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.

In your scenario, if that person performing that work was the only person in the world that could do it like him and I couldn't get another, then chances are he would be in his rights to pretty much demand anything he wanted if I needed his work performed.

I find that most people that favor the owners are in fact business owners themselves. How they can't see the difference is beyond me. It's dumbfounding that they keep relating their everyday employee to a person who's talent brings in billions of dollars.

Here are the cliffnotes:

Your employee: Replaceable
NFL PLayer : Not replaceable


Your income lost if employee leaves:Nothing because you replace them.
Income lost by owners if NFL Players left: Billions and Billions.



If you were making millions upon millions of dollars off the talents of individuals, why in the hell would you risk that cash cow to squeeze out more money? You do realize that their other people in this world that would form another league, get these sponsors, and TV deals and build it into something just as big as the NFL. And they could. Why? Because they would then have all the world class talent leaving the NFL to become the new Arena Football/AFL that most people would stop watching.

I think most business owners have a hard time siding with the players because they are pissed that these "employees" (as they refer to them) can hold such leverage over the people who "own" the business.

[JoeRedskin]

You seem to think the owners of the franchises and the individual franchises themselves, their history and traditions, are valueless.

Sure, a certain portion of each roster is made up of irreplaceable players (and I am not talking the Mannings, Brady's etc.), it is also true that a large portion of every roster is made up of very replaceable players. The bottom third of most rosters churn year to year. Sometimes stars emerge from this bottom tier (Keenan McCardell jumps to mind), sometimes stars emerge by accident (Kurt Warner). Ultimately, even if all the current players went and formed a new league, if the NFL stayed in operation, the NFL would "replace" all the immediately irreplaceable players. Not immediately, of course, but, in time, the NFL owners through their marketing savvy, greater capitol resources and the inherent value of their trade names which have accrued value over decades, the players might succeed in the short term but probably... as so many competitors have done in the past ... fail.

Could the players come up with enough capital to fund the PR and acquisition of new talent to drive the NFL out of business? Do the players have the systemic and organizational skills to create a league out of whole clothe that would take fans away from their traditional loyalties? (If the current "ultimate Redskin" Cooley gets traded to Denver - are you going to stop being a Redskin fan?) Then there is the coaching aspect ... would players be able to provide the stability and authority (to coaches) that it would take to attract the top coaches? Do you think Belicheck is leaving New England to coach a team in a start up league? Even if that start up league is made of top players. Or will he, perhaps, take the guarranteed stability of the NFL and its deep pcocket owners? Sure, he has to coach less than top talent for a few years but do you really think that is going to stop him or any of the other top coaches from staying with the NFL?

The bottom line is that it is a symbiotic relationship. Each side brings something valuable to the table. Your complete dismissal of the owners value is either naive, stupid or just plain obtuse due to your inherent socialist tendencies.

[NYCskinfan82]

The longer this lockout continues the worse it gets for both side, If it last into the season I could see the owners telling the players to start celebrating TD's again to bring the fans back.

Which would remind me of a scene from Blazing Saddles a GREAT movie.

YouTube - Blazing Saddles - Camp Town Ladies

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Obviously they had that "right" to opt out. Were they "right" in doing so? No. If you want to claim you are losing profits, be prepared to show the numbers.

Ok. Ignoring the second part for the moment. You agree they had the right to do it. Nowhere did the CBA say the side opting out had to show any type of proof or level of support in order for the opt out to become effective. At least we agree on that.

Now the 2nd part is more fuzzy. But let's say that the owners didn't help their case by not immediately giving the books to a neutral party, redact the names and identities and say to the players here are the numbers and projected path. Further let's say that the owners royally stepped in it with the tv deal. It still comes to a point that there was a federal mediator working with the group that could have (if both sides wanted to) put a deal together. You misquoted the mediator before, he did not say both sides were at a stopping point, he said it was clear no more was going to be done, and that (imo) is because the players knew that they were going to litigate, and they weren't going to let mediation get in the way of decertifying. The owners had every desire to stay within the labor framework because that would give them leverage over your "irreplaceable" players.

Finally, paraphrasing JR, the players are precious, but not irreplaceable. (As an entertainment analogy, CBS is not going to end because Sheen is off 2 1/2 men, another eager actor is stepping into that role) Peyton Manning may be indianapolis' all in all but I wouldn't shed a tear if he was out of the league - maybe he would go into commercials full time, that would be awesome. As all Redskins fans know the next Peyton is due out in 2012/2013 well after this fiasco is over. Heck maybe if the season gets cancelled the NFL will do a lottery (with the agreement of some group of players) and get the number 1 pick .

[Dirtbag59]

Regardless of how you feel about the lockout I think people are missing the fact that NFL Owners are running legal monopolies. So comparing them to the rules and privileges experienced by other private businesses is simply a case of comparing apples to oranges.

Not saying that the NFL should be required to give the players access to their books but at the same time they should at least be required evaluation by a neutral third and even fourth party (that doesn't evoke memories of Arther Anderson) and in turn report their findings to the players..

[Longtimefan]

A look at the hidden problems of the lockout on our youth. How it affects their young lives.

Roger Goodell: Not enough negotiation between NFL owners, players - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Why people keep relating their job/business to that of the NFL is beyond me. It's not even remotely comparable in the least. You know why you can tell your employees that? Because you can replace them on a whim. Now, let your business and your wealth depended on people that you could not replace, then chances are you wouldn't be dictating much of anything. Not unless you were absolutely stupid and wanted to lose your income. Don't think of the NFL players as employees, think of them as the actual product because that's exactly what they are. Who holds more power? The record label or the famous recording artist? The recording artist can find another label that will be willing to take less and sponsor them, the recording label would be out of luck.

Same thing here bro. There are other billionaires out that that would put together a plan to form another league and take less just so they could profit.

You are obviously entrenched in your "rage against the machine", tea-party type position against the NFL....or just business in general. As I am no where near as idealistically/emotionally invested in this arguement I am going go complete table this discussion and allow you to get back to making the protest signs for your next rally.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

You are obviously entrenched in your "rage against the machine", tea-party type position against the NFL....or just business in general. As I am no where near as idealistically/emotionally invested in this arguement I am going go complete table this discussion and allow you to get back to making the protest signs for your next rally.

It's not even like that and how you can't understand that is beyond me. It seems like the following mentality is being used as a basis on this arguement, "OH, YOU DON"T SUPPORT BUSINESSES THEN YOU MUST BE SOCIALIST COMMUNIST!!", hence your ill advised tea party comment.

I think I've been very fair in this ordeal and I've stated my beefs with the people posting in favor of the owners. You continue to use your jobs/employees/business as a example to what's going on. It's mind boggling why people can't grasp that simple concept. It's not your business, they aren't replaceable employees, they are the product just like any movie star or music artist out there.

Had the players walked out on the CBA agreement they made back in 2006, I'd be siding with the owners on this. As it stands, I'm not.

Also, I"m not "emotionally" invested in any of this. I could care less if the NFL folded as it's not what drives me in life nor is it something I couldn't live without. Would I be bummed if it did? Sure. We are having a debate in regards to the politics/finances of this situation and I'm speaking my mind regardless if we agree or not. It's just a bit annoying when apples are being compared to oranges though.

[Son Of Man]

Peace.