8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially


The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

As to the TV contracts, I haven't been following that issue to closely. As such, not going to contest the issue at this point.

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.



You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

...and most of it goes to the guys who started this. Owners.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

As to the TV contracts, I haven't been following that issue to closely. As such, not going to contest the issue at this point.

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

Two solid compromises and no "COUNTER OFFER." People talking that they need to bounce the ideas back and forth which is communicating. The players have failed and yet to make a counter offer for the owners to work with.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially


The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.

So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.

2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.

So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.

2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.

First that 59% should be 53%. You forget that the owners take 1 billion off the top so they are essentially splitting 8 billion, not the 9 that is brought in.

Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses.

My personal belief is this without seeing the books. There is absolutely no way that player income is the reason they are having loss of profits even though revenue has increase annually. My guess is the reason why owners are losing profits is because owners are bad businessmen. Let's take a look at who's losing money.

Al Davis - Raiders?
Wayne Weaver - Jaguars?
Mike Brown - Bengals?

Wonder why? Bad business decisions from owners?

NFL Labor Talks Hinge on Growth Issue - WSJ.com

This is a good read. Talks about how the NFL has probably hit it's ceiling for revenue and it's probably right. Inflation is sky high, and look no further than the price of gold to see that.

The one thing NFL owners care most about—the market value of their franchises—can only increase if revenues do. Increased revenues also give prospective NFL owners more confidence that they're making a solid investment as opposed to a vanity purchase

Sounds to me if owners want more money to expand their empire, they should be making better business decisions instead of stupid ones. Nobody told Snyder to set the market for DTs at 15million a year and a 100 million contract. Nobody twisted Al's arm to sign Russell to a 40 mil guaranteed contract, or any other over paid talent he's brought to that team. Should players take a cut because owners are making bad decisions? Hell no.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially

The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses. .

So the Owners opting out backed the players in a corner but you have "no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA". You keep moving the target.

As Tripp said, the "open your books" issue is giant red herring. As part of the old CBA, the books are audited by a third party. If I understand you, however, your biggest problem is that a bunch of billionaires are crying "poor" and not allowing the players to see how much they spent on towel cleaning. Again, as Tripp said, idealogically, that's a hard sell for the owners, D-Smith knows it and is playing it up regardless of whether it is a sound legal theory. Doesn't matter that what D-Smith is asking for is legally unprecedented, it makes a great sound bite and joe-schmoe is bound to sympathize with sticking it to the owners.

My biggest beef with the players is not that they are seeking to increase/protect their share - both they and the owners are entilted to do so. Rather, its the deceptive manner in which they are trying to do so (i.e. the illegal decertification). I blame that mainly on D-Smith. He is nothing more than a high-priced schlock ambulance chaser - He just chases Mercedes instead.

When you don't have the law, argue the facts, when you don't have the facts, baffle'em with BS. Well, D-Smith is down to BS. His characterizations are consistently one off the accurate truth, his appeals are not to the law but to fans emotions. Doing mainly civil defense work, I see his type all the time and they piss me off simply 'cause you have to work twice as hard refuting all the BS rather than focusing on the issues. They throw everything against the wall, accurate or not, in hopes something will stick. He is a pile o' crap with a mouth. "You refuted what I said yesterday, I'll just move the target over here even if, in doing so, I indirectly contradict everything I said yesterday."

Sorry rant over. The owners opted out 'cause they wanted a bigger piece of the pie. The players got a great deal and don't want to change it. Cut the baby in the middle and move on (which is what the owners March 11th reportedly did). To me, that's the bottom line.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So the Owners opting out backed the players in a corner but you have "no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA". You keep moving the target.

As Tripp said, the "open your books" issue is giant red herring. As part of the old CBA, the books are audited by a third party. If I understand you, however, your biggest problem is that a bunch of billionaires are crying "poor" and not allowing the players to see how much they spent on towel cleaning. Again, as Tripp said, idealogically, that's a hard sell for the owners, D-Smith knows it and is playing it up regardless of whether it is a sound legal theory. Doesn't matter that what D-Smith is asking for is legally unprecedented, it makes a great sound bite and joe-schmoe is bound to sympathize with sticking it to the owners.

My biggest beef with the players is not that they are seeking to increase/protect their share - both they and the owners are entilted to do so. Rather, its the deceptive manner in which they are trying to do so (i.e. the illegal decertification). I blame that mainly on D-Smith. He is nothing more than a high-priced schlock ambulance chaser - He just chases Mercedes instead.

When you don't have the law, argue the facts, when you don't have the facts, baffle'em with BS. Well, D-Smith is down to BS. His characterizations are consistently one off the accurate truth, his appeals are not to the law but to fans emotions. Doing mainly civil defense work, I see his type all the time and they piss me off simply 'cause you have to work twice as hard refuting all the BS rather than focusing on the issues. They throw everything against the wall, accurate or not, in hopes something will stick. He is a pile o' crap with a mouth. "You refuted what I said yesterday, I'll just move the target over here even if, in doing so, I indirectly contradict everything I said yesterday."

Sorry rant over. The owners opted out 'cause they wanted a bigger piece of the pie. The players got a great deal and don't want to change it. Cut the baby in the middle and move on (which is what the owners March 11th reportedly did). To me, that's the bottom line.

TA DAA!


Thank You, Thank You, Point, Set, Match. Ladies and Gentleman.... Elvis has left the building.

If you can't dazzle them with facts baffle them with BS.

Everything done has been legal, except what the players have done.... decertify. But everyone is hung up on the lower court lifting the lockout. The fact is the courts need to look at the first action (the decertification) before they can look into the owners actions.

A judge does not listen to the facts of a drunk driver before he listens to whether the traffic stop was legal or not first. A judge does not listen to the officer finding drugs in the car before he listens to whether the traffic stop was legal and what probable cause the police officer had to even search the person or car.

People are completely jumping past whether the players had a right to decertify prior to the CBA ending and running with the owners can't lockout the players. News flash, if the Union/players were wrong in what they did then the owners lockout will not be illegal.

I agree with the $$$. You can't fault either side for trying to get as much as they can. Thats the nature of the beast. Why the owners agreed to the 59% back in 05 or 06 I don't know, maybe they did it for the fans to keep football going. But the owners now realize they made a mistake and want some of it back.

[MTK]

Obviously both would have to happen

[SBXVII]

With new offer in hand, ball is in players’ court | ProFootballTalk

On Monday, the NFL made a new CBA offer to the players, even though the players never responded to the last offer the NFL made.

As one of the commentors stated at the bottom....

Second offer made by the owners. That’s Owners – 2 Players – 0. Let’s hope Smith takes a step back and allows all the players to consider it.

[SBXVII]

Even in defeat, De Smith rolls out the rhetoric | ProFootballTalk

“It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,” Smith told reporters after Monday’s ruling. “Congratulations.”

The players need to fire De Smith. They would be better off anyone else at this point. make the owners happy and get rid of him and find someone who will represent them better and hopefully a deal can be struck.

The league hasn’t sued anyone. The league wants to impose economic pressure on the players via a lockout, and the players decertified and filed an antitrust lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the lockout. Today’s ruling that the lockout won’t be lifted pending resolution of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit hardly represents the NFL suing to not plays its game.

Am I confused or is this writer? The owners didn't lockout until AFTER the players decertified. and basically done to protect themselves from pending law suits by the players. But I agree with the last statement that it hardly represents the NFL suing to not play games. Each is trying to get the upper hand. The players decertified in hopes it would put pressure on the owners. The owners locked out because of it. The players filed a law suit claiming the owners illegally locked out, and the owners filed suit claiming the players illegally decertified. In any event the owners might have a point. If the first act is illegal (the decertifying) then the rest is moot. If it's not illegal then the owners are in the wrong and would need to lift the lockout. Yes/No?

What I don't get is the media has laid out the options for each side if players do this the owners will do that, if the owners do this the players will do that. But each time at the end of the scenario's the owners seem to have the upper hand. So why jump through all these hoops in hopes that what? the owners will slip up and throw an agreement at you that you love? They would be better off taking Goodall out to a bar and getting him completely drunk and on tape agreeing to what they want.

[Defensewins]

SBXVII- If the NFL owners did not get money back from the players in a new CBA deal the owners were going lock out the players anyway. The NBA owners are heading the same direction. You can see that right?
They will agree to a new deal at some point.
In the mean time the supposed "financially hurt NFL owners" greed continues:


In NFL owners’ enterprise, nothing’s free - The Washington Post

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

SBXVII- If the NFL owners did not get money back from the players in a new CBA deal the owners were going lock out the players anyway. The NBA owners are heading the same direction. You can see that right?
They will agree to a new deal at some point.
In the mean time the supposed "financially hurt NFL owners" greed continues:


In NFL owners’ enterprise, nothing’s free - The Washington Post

Honestly, I don't care about the NBA. I like the Wizards, but I'm more of a NFL/NHL fan.

Again, owners and their greed. What about the players greed? They are/were making 59% of the profit. I understand the owners skimmed off the top, and want more, but I look at it this way... either you have a job or you don't. Go ahead and play hard ball and hopefully later some of the teams don't fold or are forced to other markets. Want and example? Buffalo and the owner wanting to move to Canada because there are more fans there and probably a better market.

I know I'm taking it to an extreme when I say the worst teams are relying on the revenue sharing heavily in order to help their clubs and with out the money needed they will fold, but as I'm taking it to an extreme so I think others are when they say the NFL is doing just fine and the owners are greedy. I'd like to know what the owners take is after paying for their stadiums, practice fields, players, equipement, coach's, people who fix the fields, secretearies and related staff, plane costs, gas, food, etc. etc. etc. Then the owners have to take a % of their income and hand it over to the NFL to be distributed to the less fortunate clubs. But even though I'm just wondering... I don't think it's really anybodies business. Not mine, not the media's, not the players.

I think if this is the sticking point then the owners should take the 3 worst clubs and show their books. Then the players can't complain since I'm pretty sure it would prove loss of revenue.

[Son Of Man]

As a football fan, I hate this lock-out becasue it is interfering with my enjoyment of the football offseason and all the intrigue of roster shaping.

However, if I owned an NFL team, I would have locked the players out also. It is a business decison that should not bend to the will of the fan base (myself included as I wish it would end today). Whatever the resolution, it will affect revenues and profit margins of these clubs for years to come. Locking out the players may seem a harsh negotiation tactic, but may prove to be an effective one. Also, fast forward 5 or 10 years from now....same owners, different players. You have got to protect your future bottom line in business, even if it means alienating your current work force.

[Dirtbag59]

Wow, great counter offer players. Way to go, you sure you guys have never negotiated before because you guys are awesome at it, and by awesome I mean down right horrible, so bad that a 4th grader could do better, so bad that the Players would be better off sending a giraffe to negotiate on their behalf, or a Saint Bernard, everyone likes Saint Bernards.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Wow, great counter offer players. Way to go, you sure you guys have never negotiated before because you guys are awesome at it, and by awesome I mean down right horrible, so bad that a 4th grader could do better, so bad that the Players would be better off sending a giraffe to negotiate on their behalf, or a Saint Bernard, everyone likes Saint Bernards.

The main problem here is trust. There is none, and it's hard to bargain or compromise when there isn't trust.



This is what should happen. The owners should open their books to a third party financial firm to allow them to review the books. They could make it so that other owner's (or the public) wouldn't have access to them. That way the players can then trust the owners in this negotiation and proceed from there. It's hard to ask somebody to "trust me" over a billion dollars when in fact many of these guys are notorious for making money in shady ways.