|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
If they hadn't done so, then we would not see the 2011 season start on time for sure. Now, it still may be salvageable.......
I wouldn't go as far as to believe this. By going the litigation route, you can gaurantee that this will be dragged out for months. Just setting a court date will take time. Then after months of waiting for that, both sides can postpone it many times. It could be mid summer before this ever goes before a judge. Then once it does, the proceedings could take weeks.
You seem to be siding with the union, which is alright, but don't try to make it sound as if the owners will be at fault for no football next year.
The facts were laid out, be it by a NFL spokesperson, but I have failed to see Smith or anybody else from the union dispute the facts of the deal offered.
Bottom line is Smith wants the books open so he can start a media circus against the owners. I see no season at all.
You don't understand. This won't drag out for months. (the lockout)
It will be ruled upon rather quickly, this isn't a murder trial with pre-trial hearings and motions for continuances.
I'm not siding with either side. If I were to pick sides, I would probably actually lean towards the owners because I have read the CBA and understand what the players have gotten over the years. Have you? Do you?
Smith does not want a media circus. He wants the best deal for his union......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well, it seems most everyone is pretty much appalled with the players now that information is being published web-wide. As a result many have sided with the owners.
I'm only going to say this: The only information we are getting right now is from the NFL. That's one side of the equation.
Between the NFL and the 32 teams there are 33 websites from which to get information on how the negotiations processed up until the union decertified. Listen to how all the information portrays the NFL as the total good guys who were willing to do just about anything to get a fair agreement settled while the union was totally uncooperative.
What else do we expect to hear from that one side?
On the other hand, there are not 33 websites representing the players side of the story. Since there is no union now, even the NFLPA website is shut down. So all we are getting is one side of this whole issue and that one side is sure painting themselves as the innocents in this whole issue while citing the players/union as the bad guys.
More shall be revealed....
You keep taking that road, and maybe you are right, but to me it is pretty apparent the players wanted more. No??
The players weren't in talks, but they didn't have to be I suppose. They had a deal they wanted to keep.
Every ounce of information from them is they insisted on seeing books...and really, they knew that wasn't going to happen, so they never engaged is serious talks.
The players are taking this stance in an effort to turn the NFL on it's ear. They want total free agency. No tags, no draft.
They feel they have the power to make this move at this time, and are doing so.
The players do not want to turn the NFL on it's ear. They don't want total free agency.
Christ why can't people understand simple things???????????????????????????????????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, it seems most everyone is pretty much appalled with the players now that information is being published web-wide. As a result many have sided with the owners.
I'm only going to say this: The only information we are getting right now is from the NFL. That's one side of the equation.
Between the NFL and the 32 teams there are 33 websites from which to get information on how the negotiations processed up until the union decertified. Listen to how all the information portrays the NFL as the total good guys who were willing to do just about anything to get a fair agreement settled while the union was totally uncooperative.
What else do we expect to hear from that one side?
On the other hand, there are not 33 websites representing the players side of the story. Since there is no union now, even the NFLPA website is shut down. So all we are getting is one side of this whole issue and that one side is sure painting themselves as the innocents in this whole issue while citing the players/union as the bad guys.
More shall be revealed....
You keep taking that road, and maybe you are right, but to me it is pretty apparent the players wanted more. No??
The players weren't in talks, but they didn't have to be I suppose. They had a deal they wanted to keep.
Every ounce of information from them is they insisted on seeing books...and really, they knew that wasn't going to happen, so they never engaged is serious talks.
The players are taking this stance in an effort to turn the NFL on it's ear. They want total free agency. No tags, no draft.
They feel they have the power to make this move at this time, and are doing so.
The players do not want to turn the NFL on it's ear. They don't want total free agency.
Christ why can't people understand simple things???????????????????????????????????
OK,, so you say that they aren't trying to turn the NFL on it's ear...
All anyone is doing is looking at what Ddub posted.. as in:
Quote:
3. Declairing that the NFL Defendants imposition of other anticompetitive restrictions, including the Salary Cap, "Franchise Player" designation, "Transition Player" designation, and/or other player restrictions, violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining said restrictions;
maybe it's just me but If I'm reading this right, what the union is asking for is to have the Salary cap, Franchise player, Transition player designation to be found in violation of the Sherman Act? Isn't that the same as having all those designations removed from all future negotitions? I think that turns the NFL on it's ear. All by itself.
And that's just one item from the list that Ddub posted.
Maybe we're all wrong here, and maybe you are right, But damn it, this one item tells me that they want to get rid of any designation that would stop a player from moving from one team to another.
An NFL team drafts a kid,, pays him some bucks, trains him, grooms him, and then, because some other team offers more, they are supposed to just bend over and take one for the players?
If' that's not total free agency, then I gotta tell ya man, I don't know what the hell is.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
2. Declaring the NFL Defendants imposing the anticompetitive Draft with an "Entering Player Pool" violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining said restriction;
How is the Draft anti competitive? It's what has given the League parity over the years and kept this a competitive league.
The players seem to forget that this is what the fans want for this game to be competitive.
The players may win this battle but end the end they will lose their fans and that will eventually trickle down to bite them in the butt.
Will be nothing more then a farm team like our Indians are to baseball witch I could care less about after the rape.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, it seems most everyone is pretty much appalled with the players now that information is being published web-wide. As a result many have sided with the owners.
I'm only going to say this: The only information we are getting right now is from the NFL. That's one side of the equation.
Between the NFL and the 32 teams there are 33 websites from which to get information on how the negotiations processed up until the union decertified. Listen to how all the information portrays the NFL as the total good guys who were willing to do just about anything to get a fair agreement settled while the union was totally uncooperative.
What else do we expect to hear from that one side?
On the other hand, there are not 33 websites representing the players side of the story. Since there is no union now, even the NFLPA website is shut down. So all we are getting is one side of this whole issue and that one side is sure painting themselves as the innocents in this whole issue while citing the players/union as the bad guys.
More shall be revealed....
You keep taking that road, and maybe you are right, but to me it is pretty apparent the players wanted more. No??
The players weren't in talks, but they didn't have to be I suppose. They had a deal they wanted to keep.
Every ounce of information from them is they insisted on seeing books...and really, they knew that wasn't going to happen, so they never engaged is serious talks.
The players are taking this stance in an effort to turn the NFL on it's ear. They want total free agency. No tags, no draft.
They feel they have the power to make this move at this time, and are doing so.
The players do not want to turn the NFL on it's ear. They don't want total free agency.
Christ why can't people understand simple things???????????????????????????????????
Because we are Simpletons???
Sorry, I know not.
What they wanted, and what they now seek are different.
It's a simple power play.....the union feels the upper hand, and played.
You strike me as a guy who has played in a serious round of poker.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
You keep taking that road, and maybe you are right, but to me it is pretty apparent the players wanted more. No?? ...
...The players are taking this stance in an effort to turn the NFL on it's ear. They want total free agency. No tags, no draft.
They feel they have the power to make this move at this time, and are doing so.
I'm not so sure about no draft. Of course you may be reading it for what it really means while I'm reading it for what I think it means regarding "players entering the pool". That's why after 15-20 pages I asked you to interpret it somewhat. You saved me another 27 pages of reading up to page 48. 
But I am sure that you're right that they do want total free agency without the "tags". Those tags have prevented some players from ever gaining free agency as they've been tagged year after year. That's not free agency.
Just look at how many players have become very angry over being tagged. Sure, it's a decent paycheck for the year they're tagged but it denies them the right to pursue a long-term deal with a big signing bonus with another team. If they get injured the year they're tagged they've lost out on a lot. Meanwhile, a player who may not be quite good enough to bet the tag goes on to get the long-term deal that the better player wanted.
It's a way for the clubs to protect their investment in their better players but it's being done at the expense of the best players loss of freedom to compete in a competitive market.
The league has fought free agency tooth and nail throughout it's history. When the players asked for FA years ago, what they got was the top 35 players, of the clubs choosing, exempt from FA. Of those who were left none of them moved because none of them were sought. It was like a league collusion to not sign any FA players.
After another such change with the NFL giving in very little the union finally decertified, the players sued and got free agency as we have experienced it these past years. But apparently there is even more to it than I understand because they want more freedom of movement than they've had. I do understand that. Any of us would want the same if we were one the best.
Of course that doesn't translate to mean the players as a whole want more money. It seemed they were willing to give in that regard if the NFL would only prove they needed it to keep the league afloat and growing as they claim. I'm sure that's why they wanted to see the books with no flim-flam, half-truth, creative accounting to skew it. Of course, the NFL understandably doesn't want to do that. Even if they really are hurting they don't want to show the books. I understand that. But I also understand that they can't just throw out a claim without backing it up somehow without being selective in what they consider their proof.
Quote:
Every ounce of information from them is they insisted on seeing books...and really, they knew that wasn't going to happen, so they never engaged is serious talks.
And since the NFL was refusing to show any real proof of hardship then neither were they engaging in serious talks money wise. Maybe I'm being naive in that regard but being just a regular guy and not a big business man it looks like that to me.
They were both being very hard-headed with neither being willing to give up the thing the other really wanted, money for the owners and total free agency for the players. Or so it seems that is each one's request. Unless I misunderstand the whole deal, and I may, it looks to me now like those were the sticking points.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Trying to get a timeline straight in my head...
...Do I have that right?
Regarding the timeline I don't know. That has been the least of my concerns although it could come up as important if someone did something legally wrong regarding the decertification or the lockout in a timely manner.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Only the NFL could create a work stoppage. Which they've done.
Quote:
They were not the ones who walked away from the mediation.
They were not the ones who voted to decertify in September 2010.
Walking away could not create the work stoppage.
Decertifying could not create a work stoppage. In fact, just the opposite. Decertifying would legally prevent the lockout if the decertification is not found to be a sham which is what the NFL is trying to prove.
Walking away and decertifying was the only thing that could possibly save the 2011 season without delays any further than what has already been delayed.
Neither group is the bad guys here. They are just both hard-headed as hell and no agreement was going to be negotiated as neither is willing to give in to the others' most important demand: Money for the owners; unrestricted free agency for the players. Those seem to be the main sticking points to me.
The information we get on the internet, (NFL.com and the individual team websites), make a big deal about the money the NFL was willing to give up thus making it look like the players wanted more money. I don't believe that to be the case at all. I believe it is only the owners who want more money and the players are willing to give in if they can see proof of the NFL's claims that they are in a hardship.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
maybe it's just me but If I'm reading this right, what the union is asking for is to have the Salary cap, Franchise player, Transition player designation to be found in violation of the Sherman Act? Isn't that the same as having all those designations removed from all future negotitions? I think that turns the NFL on it's ear. All by itself.
I don't see that as turning the NFL on it's ear. All it does is allow the best players, those who get franchise tagged or transition tagged, to have the same freedom of movement as does every other player. Why should the owners have the right to restrict free agency for certain players?
Quote:
Maybe we're all wrong here, and maybe you are right, But damn it, this one item tells me that they want to get rid of any designation that would stop a player from moving from one team to another.
Exactly. Why should the best players be denied the same freedom that every other player has in movement? The players have free agency or they don't.
Quote:
An NFL team drafts a kid,, pays him some bucks, trains him, grooms him, and then, because some other team offers more, they are supposed to just bend over and take one for the players?
Or pay him. Why should certain players be restricted from movement while others are not. I think that a big point with the players. I think another variable in this is years of service which they've argued about. That is, when a player has earned free agency.
Quote:
3. Declairing that the NFL Defendants imposition of other anticompetitive restrictions, including the Salary Cap, "Franchise Player" designation, "Transition Player" designation, and/or other player restrictions, violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining said restrictions;
On those bolded items, Salary Cap, Tags and "other restrictions" along with the "Entering Player Pool" (which sounds like ending the draft) are all points that can be negotiated later. But for now they cannot pick and choose certain items as anti-trust while leaving other anti-trust items go. I'm sure the only way to do it is to add all the anti-trust points in their demands at this point in time.
Once it is found in the courts that locking out the players violates the anti-trust laws now that the players have no union then the season can go on as usual while all those sticking points can be negotiated I believe. (Peen, jump in here).
If that is the case then the salary cap can be in effect as can the "entering player pool" so the draft continues as usual with some tweaks to prevent another Marcus Russell fiasco.
But the tags and "other restrictions" will be the main sticking points the players are after and those are what they'll fight for.
As I said, as I believe, and I would like some clarification on this, they cannot pick and choose anti-trust points without including all anti-trust points at this time. The players are either claiming anti-trust or they're not. If they are then all of it is included.
I'll bet a dollar to a can 'o beer, which is still a good deal if I lose , that this is likely the same wording in the lawsuits against the NFL the last time the union decertified and a group of players, the main man being Reggie White, sued the NFL.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
I'll bet a dollar to a can 'o beer, which is still a good deal if I lose , that this is likely the same wording in the lawsuits against the NFL the last time the union decertified and a group of players, the main man being Reggie White, sued the NFL.
Pretty damned close.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730 |
Quote:
I'm not so sure about no draft. Of course you may be reading it for what it really means while I'm reading it for what I think it means regarding "players entering the pool"
No. In haste I mistyped and left off the the player pool. Sorry for the confusion in that regard.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc..
If there is no CBA, and the union that had the CBA with the league is decertified, then why can teams not negotiate with individual players, since everyone is technically a free agent now right?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730 |
Contracts are still in place.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Why should the owners have the right to restrict free agency for certain players?
So you think it is ok that they invest millions upon millions in these people...developing them from players with potential (some with hidden potential) to players that are meeting or exceeding potential, only to have other people bear the fruits of that investment?
That is like Apple creating the IPod or IPhone but never being allowed to sell it because Samsung stole the rights to do so.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
I don't see that as turning the NFL on it's ear. All it does is allow the best players, those who get franchise tagged or transition tagged, to have the same freedom of movement as does every other player. Why should the owners have the right to restrict free agency for certain players?
we are going to have to just agree to disagree on this Ddub,, I think that the best players are key to the success of the league in general.
To me, if you take the best players, and allow them the freedom to move without the opportunity for the home team to find a way to keep them you destroy the thing that has made the NFL better than Baseball or Basketball.
In the NFL, you can't BUY a winning team. You have to build it. But in Baseball you can buy a winner.. Stienbrenner did it for years with the Yankees.. How about the Marlens that beat the Indians in the World Series? And now we have Lebron, Wade and Bosh together in what was supposed to be a superteam (not playing like it however).
Can't be done in Football. And I like it that way.
Besides, there isn't anything unfair about the Franchise tag. The player automatically gets the average of the salaries of the top 5 players at his position as well as sitting him a good position to negotiate a strong deal long term.
Take that away and a guy like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady could literally walk away from the teams that drafted them and the fans that supported them all those years in the league.. No no man,, This changes the game...
Quote:
Exactly. Why should the best players be denied the same freedom that every other player has in movement? The players have free agency or they don't.
It's a Quid Pro Quo (sp) kinda thing Ddub.. Franchising a guy or taging him comes with a price tag.. sometimes it's a big chunk of money.
Quote:
Or pay him. Why should certain players be restricted from movement while others are not. I think that a big point with the players. I think another variable in this is years of service which they've argued about. That is, when a player has earned free agency.
Teams and fanbases invest heavily in a player. The fanbase is more emotional to be sure, but the teams invest time and money in a guy. Are they to be left unprotected? I think not and I think that's exactly what the players want. But again, they aren't going to starve if they are franchised or tagged.
I'm no lawyer man, so I can't tell for sure if I'm reading this whole thing right which is why I had to put the caviat in there just in case.
But to me it seems as if the players union had this planned all along. I believe it was thier intention to try and stir the fan base into a frenzy in order to force the league to give in.
I hope the league doesn't. I really believe they are looking out for the long term financial health of the league and the players are looking to just get more and more.
Somewhere along the line it became clear to me that the players would love to boot the owners and just take over the league..
I'd hate it, but what if the league threw in the towel like the union did.. What if the owners said,, we are disbanding the league.. There will be no more NFL.
I guarantee you, the players tune would change overnight.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
I'd hate it, but what if the league threw in the towel like the union did.. What if the owners said,, we are disbanding the league.. There will be no more NFL.
I guarantee you, the players tune would change overnight.
We'd all hate it, but I would love to see it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Then we could argue over which "disbanding" was the larger SHAM. 
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Pete and Damanshot,
Are you forgetting that teams that have players under contract can exclusively negotiate contract extensions with those players?
Players should be able to do what they'd like at the conclusion of their contracts, hence free agency. Why should that be ok for most players, but not all of them?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
From PFT
NFL becomes victim of its own success
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 14, 2011, 11:18 AM EDT
NFL Labor Football
The NFL Network’s former ad campaign said it all: “Football season never ends.”
That’s why this work stoppage is unlike the player strikes of the 1980′s. The enormous increase of fan interest over the last decade in the NFL offseason will only amplify anger at ownership and players. The league has become a victim of its own success.
Things were much different as recently as eight years ago, when I started writing at Rotoworld full time. Back then, the morning newspapers set the agenda of the news day. After they were digested, very little information came out.
There were practically no newspaper blogs. Team-owned websites were barely updated, if at all. There was no unending stream of Twitter updates. Heck, Florio only updated PFT very early in the morning or very late at night because he had a real job to attend to.
Things have changed dramatically since, in no small part because of NFL Network. The league’s saturation coverage of the Combine, free agency, and OTAs forced ESPN to step up their game. There certainly didn’t used to be daily NFL Live episodes in the dead of the offseason, much less weeks of Combine talk on Sportscenter.
Websites like PFT and Rotoworld started to notice a voracious appetite for all things NFL, no matter the month. The highest trafficked day of the year, after all, is annually the first day of free agency. PFT’s offseason traffic routinely beat the regular season.
Newspaper blogs and team sites quickly realized that readers wanted more than sporadic, daily updates. Fans wanted information all day. Football season never ends, and neither does the NFL news cycle.
The NFL’s plan to grow the game into a 12-month-a-year obsession worked. The NFL became the nation’s ultimate reality show and everyone got rich(er) as a result.
Trey Wingo noted on Saturday the three most-read articles on ESPN.com were NFL-related lockout stories. The fourth-rated story — on college hoops — had half the traffic as the third NFL story.
The NFL’s success has suddenly become a weakness. The NFL and its players don’t have the luxury to wait until August before they look like greedy fools that take their success for granted. Fans are understandably outraged that the richest league in the country is in a work stoppage — even though it’s only March.
The question for the league and its players — who share responsibility for this lockout no matter what they say — is whether fan anger could possibly turn to ambivalence. They don’t think it will happen.
The league and players say they care about fans, but it’s a half truth at best. They care about the bottom line. They are counting on fans not really punishing them unless part of the season is missed, if then.
They fail to truly realize that March is the season for so many of us.
Their ad campaign worked too well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Pete and Damanshot,
Are you forgetting that teams that have players under contract can exclusively negotiate contract extensions with those players?
Players should be able to do what they'd like at the conclusion of their contracts, hence free agency. Why should that be ok for most players, but not all of them?
I've outlined why I think it's a bad idea to elimate franchise designations.. I can't make it any clearer.. But I am guessing you just don't agree..
Tell me this, why is it OK for players to just leave a franchise that has drafted, then paid, then nurtured and trained them to be worthy of a franchise tag?
As for players being able to negotiate with teams they are under contract to... Im not sure why that's an issue here. I was specifically speaking to the unions desire to eliminate designations that could harm the clubs..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
It's ok because they've fulfilled their contractual obligations to the team. I don't see how it could be any clearer than that.
The point about them being able to negotiate extensions is that you are asserting that, without the franchise tag, there is nothing a team can do to keep a player around. The ability of a team to negotiate exclusively makes that 100% untrue. If a team wants to keep a player around it can, and should, offer him an extension of his current contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Sorry That's got to be the silliest explanation of what the players are hoping for.
All the above is what they want and what they hope to get. All points will be ruled (judged) on.
You don't add more demands hoping the judge will still award you the others. They are leaving it up to a judge to rule in their favor, because they know that their demands will never be agreed to by the owners. It all comes down to a paycheck and freedom to pick and chose their team.
Never mind that you spend 3-4 years turning them into something just to lose them with no compensation and that would be detrimental except for the few clubs that everyone would want to play for like NY, or Dallas. Those clubs would also attract the top College prospects every year, so in the end your left with a couple all star teams that will beat up on the bottom feeders year end and year out. Oh fun!
This is their proposal (Demands) to the League and why we are where we are today in litigation, because obviously these demands would seem miles apart from the deal that the owners put on the table.
If the player win their demands then parity will be gone in a few years and the greatest game on the planet will not be something I will care to be a fan of.
The owners are not without fault, but at least they have the forethought to see the bigger picture here.
Some of you won't realize what is at stake here until we lose it.
A players win here is a blackeye to the NFL and will be a loss to all but a few fans. make no mistakes about it.
The prof is right in front of you @__@ at the
MLB & NBA.
Some of you younger folks might be okay with those Leagues, but to me they are a sham. You couldn't give me a ticket to one of those games today unless my son was playing for one of those teams.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
You couldn't be any more off base.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
It's ok because they've fulfilled their contractual obligations to the team. I don't see how it could be any clearer than that.
The point about them being able to negotiate extensions is that you are asserting that, without the franchise tag, there is nothing a team can do to keep a player around. The ability of a team to negotiate exclusively makes that 100% untrue. If a team wants to keep a player around it can, and should, offer him an extension of his current contract.
So, I guess you'd have been ok with Kosar being free to leave,, or you'd be ok with Hillis being ok to leave or how about Dawson now.?
I absolutly don't want the players at the top of the game to be allowed to just leave.. That's how superteams in other sports are created. And they have messed up those other sports.
The NFL has done it right for many many years. I, for one, don't want to see an owner BUY a superbowl.. And I guarantee you, if players are allowed to move freely without regard for thier current club,, that's exactly what will happen.
Do you think for one second that the Cavs would have allowed James to move if they had the ability to Franchise him? I don't.
Now you have what is supposed to be a "Super' team in south beach and all it took was MONEY. (yeah, it's not working out as planned down there I know, but it has with the Yankees and with the Marlens in the past)
No sir,,,, No way do I want that to happen to the NFL...NO WAY.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Daman, I think it is a waist of time trying to tell some people around here what is in 'their' best interest. They would not know if it was staring them in the face.
This debate is out of our hands now.
I pray that the football Gods be swift and just and instills some wisdom to who will be deciding the fate of the future of this game.
If this turns in to another animal, then the game I loved will be just history without a happy ending to me and I think many others.
How anyone can spin the players demands as anything but detrimental to the fans is beyond belief to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc
I think where the franchise tag comes into play is when agents are playing hardball and asking for the moon and stars, and they can and will do that while under contract just to get their client to free agency.
with the tag, the team has a tool to fight back when that contract expires, which helps even the field a little.
Although I think a team should not be able to tag the same player in consecutive years.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Daman, I think it is a waist of time trying to tell some people around here what is in 'their' best interest. They would not know if it was staring them in the face.
This debate is out of our hands now.
I pray that the football Gods be swift and just and instills some wisdom to who will be deciding the fate of the future of this game.
If this turns in to another animal, then the game I loved will be just history without a happy ending to me and I think many others.
How anyone can spin the players demands as anything but detrimental to the fans is beyond belief to me.
I really wasn't trying to tell anyone what was or was not in thier best interest, I was just talking about what I think the league will turn into if the eliminate those designations.
It will turn in the the mess that Baseball and Basketball are. The NFL has always stood above that garbage.. Sounds to me like the players want to screw up a good thing.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I would disappointed if Hillis left, and I was disappointed when the team elected not to extend Dawson (prior to him being tagged which I hope ultimately results in the deal he should've already been given). My disappointment, though, is because players that I think benefit my favorite team will no longer be playing for it. I won't be disappointed in the players themselves. I won't hold a grudge or ill will towards a player who tests free agency and finds a better deal elsewhere. My disappointment will simply be that a player I like and the team I root for were unable to reach a deal that was mutually agreeable to both parties.
As much as I detest the way LeBron James did my city and my team on national television, I have no issue with the fact that he wanted to go elsewhere. I said as much on this very forum the night the Cavs were eliminated from the playoffs. I've got major issues with how things went down, but he wanted to go and he fulfilled his contractual obligation to the team, so leaving the Cavs for another team was perfectly within his rights and I respect that.
You see, I want players who want to be here, who want to play for my team. Guys who don't want to be here aren't going to put forth 110%, and guys who aren't doing that are only hurting the team. If you're franchising a guy, chances are he'd rather be playing somewhere else. Players don't care about the tag's one year guaranteed salary. They want the long-term deal with the big signing bonus because it means security for them.
Something tells me that if an elite NFL player decided he wanted to come to Cleveland once his contract expired to play for the Browns, you wouldn't be crying foul. You do also realize that teams can only tag one player a year, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Now you have what is supposed to be a "Super' team in south beach and all it took was MONEY. (yeah, it's not working out as planned down there I know, but it has with the Yankees and with the Marlens in the past)
Actually, what it took was Pat Riley flashing five championship rings at LeBron and Chris Bosh, plus thinking there was some sort of magic "Easy" button as if life is like a Staples commercial. Not money, especially considering that the NBA has max contracts.
Not sure where you're going with the baseball references, as baseball has no salary cap unlike the NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
You couldn't be any more off base.
Really..... really because the NBA and MLB are such balanced and competitive games today  GMAFB huh!
And their rules would pale in comparison to the players demands.
You think talent will want to come here to Cleveland to play football when they won't come here or skip town in those other leagues.
Franchising a player ensures he will be paid accordingly, but that's not good enough for them. They want to be free to leave without compensation to the departing team and all the investment that was made there.
Any championship that is bought and paid for isn't worth the price of the trophy awarded imo. That's what we will be left with. That's what we are left with today in baseball and the NBA.
Let's see Lakers or the Yankee's that's what it comes down too the majority of years.
Such excitement and intrigue. Yeah that's what I want the NFL to look like.
Not!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
How many different teams have won the World Series in the past decade?
The NBA has been ruled by the Spurs and Lakers for most of the past decade, with the Pistons, Cavs and Celtics being the top Eastern Conference teams for the majority of that time. Which of those teams was assembled chiefly through overzealous spending in free agency again?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
They don't know where they're going. That's part of the problem with these discussions.
A lot of the people on here lead with their heart, not their head. They claim the players are looking for pie in the sky. When, in reality, the players are just fighting not to take a huge pay cut. Something that not one of the complainers on here wouldn't be in lock-step with if it was their paycheck.
While it may rankle a few, going to court will be the quickest way to solve this whole thing. Otherwise, this debacle would probably have taken the whole season down the drain.
I've said all along that we'd probably lose a month, maybe a month and a half of games. We'll see soon if I'm an optimist or a pessimist.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
They don't know where they're going. That's part of the problem with these discussions.
A lot of the people on here lead with their heart, not their head. They claim the players are looking for pie in the sky. When, in reality, the players are just fighting not to take a huge pay cut. Something that not one of the complainers on here wouldn't be in lock-step with if it was their paycheck.
While it may rankle a few, going to court will be the quickest way to solve this whole thing. Otherwise, this debacle would probably have taken the whole season down the drain.
I've said all along that we'd probably lose a month, maybe a month and a half of games. We'll see soon if I'm an optimist or a pessimist.
What huge pay cut? More miss information.
 If I where thinking with my heart I would side with the players here
I don't think that I would like it if they were being screwed by the owners.
I think that their demands are totally unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
When this whole mess started, I was agianst the Owners, ya know, cause they're all "billionaires" or whatever... Then as it went on, I was in the middle, "It's everyones fault.." kind of thing... And while now, I'm still closer to the middle, the one person I see to blame, is DeMaurice Smith. First off, the use of the word "dig" is super duper annoying, and someone that apparently is a high class lawyer, I would assume would have better vonacular then that... But secondly, it appears to me, that at NO point, was he ever interested in making ANY deal... He wants to show the world the Owners books, so that any team that seems to be making any profit (Say Jerry Jones used Jerry Jones money instead of Cowboys money to build his stadium? The Cowboys then might be showing a large gain.) and twist it and show the world "See! See! They're Lying! Give us everything we want!" If the players had not decertified, and gotten locked out, eventually they would have fallen to the pressure and given in before the start of the season, But you cannot tell me, that BECAUSE we're going in a COURT ROOM, that it means the situation will move FASTER. That's just ridiculous... Appeal, Appeal, Appeal... I don't even know why I'm replying, apparently shep is the only one on this board that's qualified to post in this thread anyways...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
How many different teams have won the World Series in the past decade?
The NBA has been ruled by the Spurs and Lakers for most of the past decade, with the Pistons, Cavs and Celtics being the top Eastern Conference teams for the majority of that time. Which of those teams was assembled chiefly through overzealous spending in free agency again?
I can't believe you are trying to argue this point.
I said that there would be a few (key word) teams year end and year out.
The majority of the time and that's how it is.
There is no balance in the NBA or MLB.
And they still have a draft. Take that away and you might as well script the games as in a movie.
For those teams you mention there are 3 others who haven't had a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Why should the owners have the right to restrict free agency for certain players?
Quote:
So you think it is ok that they invest millions upon millions in these people...developing them from players with potential (some with hidden potential) to players that are meeting or exceeding potential, only to have other people bear the fruits of that investment?
Freedom to leave your job for a different/better one for everybody!
(except for the players that the owners don't want to have that freedom)
The way it is now the incentive for being the best at what you do is being stuck at a place you may not like, playing for a coach and/or system you may not like.
If you or I or the bulk of the NFL players don't like our jobs we are free to move on. That's free agency. But the best players get tagged and have to stay put. Every off-season we hear of players who are angered at being tagged and not enjoying the freedom that the majority of the players are allowed.
Everybody has the same salary cap. If I screw mine up and can't afford you all I have to do is franchise tag you and you're stuck with me. You now have no freedom to sign a lucrative, long-term deal with anyone else. If I'm not cap strapped but simply don't wish to commit to a lucrative, long-term deal with you all I have to do is tag you and you're stuck with me all the same.
The tags restrict the best players from the freedom to compete in a competitive market.
It's all fine and good to see the club's position in this and I see it as well. But I believe that if you are one of the best workers at your company and could garner a much better paycheck somewhere else but can't because the owner of your company can restrict you from doing so I believe you'd see the player's side of it too.
Quote:
That is like Apple creating the IPod or IPhone but never being allowed to sell it because Samsung stole the rights to do so.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. No one is stealing anything.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Can't be done in Football. And I like it that way.
It still can't be done. No one can afford to load up the way they do in baseball. There's only so many high priced players an NFL team can afford to absorb.
Quote:
It's a Quid Pro Quo (sp) kinda thing Ddub.. Franchising a guy or taging him comes with a price tag.. sometimes it's a big chunk of money.
A big yearly salary for one single year. Same guy can sign with someone else at the same time for a long-term deal with a huge front-loaded signing bonus which is often worth several times the one year deal his club is tagging him for. To the player, that's insurance again injury for one thing. Ever notice how fighting angry some players get when they've been tagged. It sure ain't because they got this great one-year deal. It's because that one-year deal could very well be their last. A new team is willing to pay a heavy bonus just to get you on their team. That's a lot to miss out on.
Another thing they lose is the freedom to get away from a situation he's not happy with. Same right that you, me or the majority of the other players have the freedom to do.
Quote:
we are going to have to just agree to disagree on this Ddub,
No problem. I'm glad to disagree with you anytime bro.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Tell me this, why is it OK for players to just leave a franchise that has drafted, then paid, then nurtured and trained them to be worthy of a franchise tag?
It's not the team that made them worthy. It's the player. They pay, nurture and train them all, but only the best players become "worthy of a franchise tag". You can't make that happen for a lesser man. It's the player. Somewhere along the line you have to give the credit to the player for becoming one of the best.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Ahh Yes, Civil disagreement.. I kinda like it 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
We can go on like this for years.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement: Part Three
|
|
