|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83 |
Quote:
A vote by fans???
They are the least qualified IMO.
I guess I wasn't clear, it wasn't just only the fans but a collaboration of
1 fans
2 nflpa
3 players
4 teams, /ownership ,
because any one of these would have a conflict of interest probably.
Anyway players like JeMarcus Russel, and others who bust, wouldn't be costing clubs more than one seasons worth of guaranteed $,
and players like Tim Couch wouldnt have to get 7 million for their first contract and negotiate down in the 2nd contract, they could neg up because they would be eligible for a higher maximum after 3 years.
say you had 5 mill for 1-3, 7.9 for 3-6, and 9.1 for 6+ years. with a 3 million bonus for a top 10 player.
A player like ELi Manning , would get 5 m/ per yr for 1-3 with the incentive of a guaranteed year at up to 10.9 if he were a top 10 player in the league for yr 4, and actually he would only have to be a top 10 player at the time he signed his 2nd 3 yr contract to get that 32.7 for yrs 3-6
and he would still have the incentive to play well for a guaranteed year 7 with the possibility to make the most of anyone at 12.1 /per, if he were still a top 10 player 7 years into the league and he would be a free agent then anyway.
And if an Andrew Luck were the next Peyton Manning, or the next Ryan Leaf, he wouldn't cost a club more than 5.1 mill for the first contract, unless they kept him.
I still think both sides can win.
Hopefully they can have at least 13 games this year, anything less 
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
There isn't a sane argument in the world for letting the fans have any say whatsoever in any of this.
The fans don't own anything, they don't pay for anything (contrary to popular belief) and they don't receive anything. Like it or not, we are peripheral. We do not count.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111 |
Looks like the agents are getting involved. Quote:
Agent: “These guys are driving these players right off a cliff”
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on May 25, 2011, 9:51 AM EDT
Getty Images
We don’t know if it’s a groundswell or a grassroots movement just yet, but there appears to be growing support for the players and owners to sit down and negotiate once again.
Falcons running back Jason Snelling, Falcons linebacker Coy Wire, and Eagles kicker David Akers have all publicly expressed a desire to negotiate soon rather than continue to pursue a litigation/leverage strategy. And if the NFLPA* doesn’t want to negotiate, at least one agent wants to do it for them.
Agent Joe Linta wants to get a copy of ownership’s most recent proposal and present it to his players.
“I’d like to see it myself so when I talk to my 45 guys, I can show them what it is – since there is no union,’’ Linta told Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “I would like Mr. Rooney to forward the offer to me. I represent two percent of the union, I’m not insignificant. Let me ask you something, who has the players’ back more, the players union or the player’s agent? Why can’t I get copy of this and disseminate it to my players?”
Agents generally have their interests aligned with the players. But we’ve also seen many of them implore the NFLPA* via Twitter to negotiate with the league again or make a counter proposal. That runs counter to the current player strategy.
Ultimately, agents have similar interests to fans: They just want a fair deal done quickly, with labor peace to follow. Linta worries that this litigation strategy could wipe out the season, and he wonders if most players would really oppose the current NFL offer.
He thinks that top agents, who negotiate for a living, could help if they were kept in the loop.
“These guys are driving these players right off a cliff right now. I told a father of one of my players who got drafted, it’s 50-50 this season is not going to happen. These coaches are starting to go looney-toon too,” Linta said.
link
Crowded elevators smell different to short people...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
There isn't a sane argument in the world for letting the fans have any say whatsoever in any of this.
The fans don't own anything, they don't pay for anything (contrary to popular belief) and they don't receive anything. Like it or not, we are peripheral. We do not count.
Dude,... 
You're correct about us not receiving anything though,... 
The underlined part is very true too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
All of it is true.
No matter how much you want to play the paper trail game, we don't pay for anything. The owners pay EVERYTHING, and if you still want to play the paper trail game, the overwhelming majority of their expenses is covered by money from the TV networks.
Yes, the fans are the driving force behind revenues, but that doesn't mean diddly... it's no different than consumers being the driving force behind the economy.
When's the last time you got to tell the CEO of General Motors how to negotiate with the auto unions simply because you bought a car? Never... because you're/we're not part of the equation.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I wasn't looking for it to mean "diddly."
I agree that fans should have no say in terms of your position on union bargaining. And,..yes, TV money is the owners' big apple pie.
Where does THAT come from ? Go buy a beer, or a loaf of bread, or put your money in a passbook account. Butter, beans, bullets, bandages,...the marketing gurus advertise it on TV, we buy it, and the circle continues.
We common everyday citizens pay for EVERYTHING one way or another. Bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
Quote:
I wasn't looking for it to mean "diddly."
Ok, but that was the argument that was being made... that it was supposed to mean something.
Quote:
We common everyday citizens pay for EVERYTHING one way or another. Bottom line.
Or, you're just not tracing it back one more step to where it's all being paid for by our employers.... or is it being paid for by the customers of the places we work... or their employers, etc....
Bottom line: the people that pay for it are the people that cut the checks for it directly. Where their money comes from is completely, totally moot.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I feel ya' there too Purp, but the money to cut the check comes from somewhere, and that is mostly from "sales." Moot ? -- maybe, but it still comes from us,...you & I.
I wasn't looking for a "fan vote" per se, just clarifying where I believe the money all comes from. I "vote" every time I elect not to 'go' or attend a game, but I have no control over how Bed, Bath and Beyond (the ottoman) and Miller Lite (the refreshment) spend their money after we give it to them while I'm sitting on the couch.
We might not cut the checks, but we pay Brother, make no mistake about it.
I'm sure Lay's likes me too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
It's all self-aggrandizing semantics.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Semantics, yes,....self-aggrandizing, well I think that means I would be most happy to pay  I don't mind spending though ! Believe me, we're on the same page,....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,589 Likes: 815
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,589 Likes: 815 |
I agree and think the agents can help in this process.
A. The know the lingo.
B. They represent the players in a much closer relationship then does the NFLPA.
C. As a collective group, they probably have more contact with the teams and the team representatives then does the NFLPA group.
Sooner or later, the 75% of the league....the guys who might carve out a 5-7 year, 2 contract career are going to decide they aren't being represented and aren't willing to give up 15% of their earning potential to stoke the ego of a union representative who stands a chance to be there 25 years and collect his while they give up theirs.
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: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
Quote:
I think that means I would be most happy to pay
no, it means intentionally adopting a point of view to give greater importance to yourself than is warranted.
I don't pay for anything with the NFL any more than clients of my employer bought my dinner for me last night.
All money comes from somewhere... you're just choosing the stop that includes you to give yourself partial credit in things. Why aren't you bypassing yourself and giving the credit to the Corps? After all, that is where YOUR money comes from, thus THEY are the ones that pay for it, not you.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,589 Likes: 815
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,589 Likes: 815 |
I agree with you.....fans don't own anything and don't pay for anything more then the entertainment value of the product being sold.
Car buyers don't pay for anything at Ford other than the cars offered for sale.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I can see your point but I respectfully disagree.
We, the fans, collectively, are the source of ALL revenue taken in by the NFL. If 50% of us stop watching, going, buying, it will take a while for that to move down the pipeline but fairly soon NFL revenues will drop by about 50%..It is possible for the owners to make up that loss themselves and continue to cut all the checks, this basically being your point, but my point is that without us, they won't keep doing that for very long.
Individually we are essentially meaningless. Collectively, and in our entirety, we are the End-All and Be-All of this business.
Self, we are ALL grand!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think that means I would be most happy to pay
no, it means intentionally adopting a point of view to give greater importance to yourself than is warranted.
I don't pay for anything with the NFL any more than clients of my employer bought my dinner for me last night.
All money comes from somewhere... you're just choosing the stop that includes you to give yourself partial credit in things. Why aren't you bypassing yourself and giving the credit to the Corps? After all, that is where YOUR money comes from, thus THEY are the ones that pay for it, not you.
I don't understand where you get off stating I am trying to be more important than the issue is. What the hell does the Marine Corps have to do with it ? Don't you pay taxes that fund THAT ? I know I do,...
I am extremely insulted.
I am gone. This Board officially sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,989 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,989 Likes: 362 |
Customers are the driving force of every single business on earth. That doesn't mean that they get a seat that the table at Ford/UAW negotiations, for example.
What can the business support .... what will the business pay ..... and what will people work for ..... those are the issues that matter.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
I'm sorry that you couldn't follow what I was saying and it is unfortunate that you took it personal. It wasn't.
To address your question, however, The Corps has just as much to do with it as my tax money does as your money does. Absolutely Nothing, which was my point. I'm sorry that you can't understand that.
Anyway, I'm done with this, it's moot.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,498 Likes: 146
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,498 Likes: 146 |
NFL Coaches Association files legal brief in support of players
May 25, 2011
The NFL’s coaches have not yet attempted to form a union. Though that day may eventually come, the trade association that represents the league coaches has taken its boldest action to date, filing a “friend of the court” brief in support of the players’ attempt to lift the lockout.
The brief, refreshingly limited to only 14 pages and largely devoid of jargon, mumbo-jumbo, and/or gobbledygook, characterizes the league’s legal strategy in defending against the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit as “attempting an end-run around” the 2010 American Needle decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which stands for the notion that the NFL represents not one business but 32, making it subject to the Sherman antitrust law. More specifically, the coaches argue that the Norris-LaGuardia Act should not generally prevent court orders lifting lockouts, explaining that the league’s reasoning would apply to every possible labor dispute even if the employees contesting a group boycott (i.e., a lockout of a non-union workforce) had never been unionized.
Though the coaches have every reason to be concerned that they eventually will occupy the shoes of the players in an antitrust fight against the owners, the coaches may have overplayed their hand a bit by attempting to argue that they collectively will suffer irreparable harm if the lockout chews significantly into the ability of new coaches to be competitive in 2011. The NFL, like every professional sports league, represents a zero-sum proposition, with a winner for every loser, and a good team for every bad one. Thus, each year the coaches of the worst teams face the possibility of termination.
To the extent that the new coaches will be more likely to struggle in 2011 absent a full offseason, training camp, and preseason, that dynamic actually benefits the members of the NFLCA who are working for established coaching staffs. In other words, the 2011 season (if there is one) will yield good teams and bad teams, exposing the coaches of the bad teams to replacement. In that regard, 2011 will be no different than any other year, regardless of how long the lockout lasts. If anything, the truncated preparation time could help give the coaches of the bad teams a persuasive excuse for avoiding the hot seat, potentially resulting in fewer firings than in a normal year.
Regardless, the brief represents a clear, concrete, overt action by the NFLCA against the NFL, which could be a precursor to further efforts aimed at protecting coaches against heavy-handed ownership actions, either via the formation of a union or the filing of antitrust lawsuits. In the end, the fact that this brief could be a precursor to organized against by the coaches against the owners could be far more significant than anything said in the document itself.
web page
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134 |
This is kinda odd to me. The coachs are stuck in the middle on this issue between the owners and the players. They need to keep both sides in sync regarding matters on the field...
So I wonder how this plays out for the owners if the coaches sorta turn on them?
#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: 49,989 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,989 Likes: 362 |
However, I would imagine that the coaches are being paid whether games are being played or not ..... so I doubt that they are suffering any tangible harm, let alone irrepairable harm.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,589 Likes: 815
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,589 Likes: 815 |
Quote:
However, I would imagine that the coaches are being paid whether games are being played or not ..... so I doubt that they are suffering any tangible harm, let alone irrepairable harm.
Exactly. Coaches contracts are guaranteed, players are not.
It's why when a coach is fired you read about negotiating a buyout.
The team might not want to pay the guy for 2-3 more years, and the coach might not want his insurance to stop on termination day and may not want to wait 2-3 years while abiding by some non-compete/ restriction clause.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
However, I would imagine that the coaches are being paid whether games are being played or not ..... so I doubt that they are suffering any tangible harm, let alone irrepairable harm.
True enough, but I was thinking more along the lines of retribution at some point down the road for leaning the players way....
Just thinking out loud...
#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: 8,528 Likes: 6
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6 |
Drew Brees: Owners saw Gene Upshaw’s death as an opportunity Posted by Michael David Smith on May 26, 2011, 4:23 PM EDT As one of the named plaintiffs in the players’ lawsuit against the owners, Saints quarterback Drew Brees has closely monitored the labor situation. And he traces the current problems to the day the former head of the NFL Players’ Association died. But Brees doesn’t believe the problem is that Gene Upshaw’s death left the players without a leader. Instead, Brees says the owners perceived that the players were left without a leader, and they thought they could cash in on Upshaw’s passing. “Ever since Gene Upshaw passed away — I’m just going to lay it all out there — the owners saw blood in the water,” Brees told Jim Trotter of SI.com. “They felt like, ‘This is our opportunity to take a significant piece of the [financial] pie back at all costs, a piece that we will never have to give back again. This is our chance, while they don’t have leadership, while they’re scrambling to find a new executive director. This is our time.’” It’s incredibly distasteful to think about the owners celebrating the death of a Pro Football Hall of Famer who is one of the most significant figures in NFL history, but Brees believes that that’s how the owners viewed Upshaw’s death: A time when the players weren’t prepared to do anything other than accept what they were offered. “Their philosophy was, We’re going to give you a very subpar deal, a slap-in-the-face deal, and hope that you’ll accept it because hopefully we’ve intimidated you enough into thinking that this is a take-it-or-leave-it deal, and you’re just going to succumb to the pressure,” Brees said. “Well, guess what. We’re a lot more informed and educated than in the past, and we’re much better businessmen than you think and we’re going to stand up for what is right and what is fair. Fifty-fifty is fair. It’s been fair for the last 20 years and I think the game has done pretty well over the last 20 years. I think franchise values have gone up at a pretty good rate over the last 20 years. So you can’t sit here and tell me that the system is broken.” The players wanted to keep playing under the deal they negotiated under Upshaw’s leadership, and now that the owners have opted out of that deal, Brees says the players remain united. “This fight was brought to us, and we feel like we were backed into a corner,” Brees said. “We’re trying to fight our way out of it.” web page Neither side will be happy until this season is missed. Frankly they deserve a baseball type backlash. BTW didnt the owners opt out before Upshaw was even diagnosed with cancer?
Last edited by Mourgrym; 05/26/11 05:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134 |
Wait a moment,, after the last labor agreement was signed with Tags and Upshaw co-helming the deal Who was it that said that Upshaw sold out to the owners. Was that Favre?
Anyway, one thing about Upshaw and Tags, they got the job done.. so for my money, that duo did a better job than Smith and Goodell are doing now..
#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: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
The owners opted out of the CBA approximately 3 months prior to Gene's diagnosis and passing.
I think your comment that neither side will be happy until the season is missed is ludicrous. Neither side wants to lose a season because losing a season is losing money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53 |
jc/
Lets not forget that most people believe that the players got the better side of that last deal and that many believe that Tags pushed that deal through quickly to "seal his legacy" as he didn't want the work stoppage....And in so doing the Owners got a crappy deal...Now Brees is going off about the owners grabbing something and never having to give it back????? What about the players greed and what they grabbed the last time with the thought of never having to give it back????
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: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
I think your comment that neither side will be happy until the season is missed is ludicrous. Neither side wants to lose a season because losing a season is losing money.
I don't think either side wants to lose this season.
However, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the owners could use losing the season as a bargaining ploy.
They can withstand the monetary loss much better than the players. The long-term benefit may outweigh the short-term sacrifice.
If they "starve" the players for a while, the owners' negotiating stance becomes much stronger.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6 |
I think your comment that neither side will be happy until the season is missed is ludicrous. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,673 Likes: 674
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,673 Likes: 674 |
Personally, I think the players get way too much of the pie. I can see clubs paying the SUPER Stars huge, but unproven rookies and slugs get millions. I'd rather see that money go to expansion. I wouldn't mind seeing the prices of tickets freeze or come down for a while either.
I'd like to see players paid a flat rate for their position with bonuses for playing time, making plays and most importantly wins. I know if I owned a team that played like the browns of late, I wouldn't like paying premium for the product produced.
Get us to the playoffs and you earn triple, suck and you can tighten your belts! That might make a difference to some of these guys.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 05/27/11 03:34 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83 |
Quote:
Lets not forget that most people believe that the players got the better side of that last deal and ... ...
the Owners got a crappy deal...Now Brees is going off about the owners grabbing something and never having to give it back????? What about the players greed and what they grabbed the last time with the thought of never having to give it back????
Ya What he said.
I want to note that even in Bree's argument he had to cite the rise in value of a franchise. That would support my assumption that just operating revenues and costs don't justify the rising (annually rising) contracts that happen with slotting.
If Brees and Manning and Brady want to go play for the Turbo Chickens vs the Robots then it isn't going to matter who will watch. Somebody has to stand up for these Teams and the fact that they have built a legacy, a standard over the last 30+ years and it can only be measaured one vs another.
How could anyone know how well the Turbo Chickens could be unless we could someday see them play against the Raiders or the Cowboys because in football the greatness can only be displayed against the greatness of the competition.
I mean some Value has to be assigned to the opportunity these players, even if they ARE the best in the world , the opportunity they have to play on a team against the best competion that appears on the schedule.
If the Colts were the only team, and they had to play something like high school quality teams, they would be like the globetrotters and nobody would watch.
If Manning and Brees and Brady, want to start their own league, well they had something like that in the 80's with the USFL and it was awful, even when folks had 500 yard games it was like well the entire USFL sucks except for that player so it wasn't worth watching.
So if they can start another league and think people will watch, good luck with that.
Like it or not, some of these players are benefiting from the fact that these Teams have had a continual product from before they were born, and some of the interest and fans of the Vikings or Steelers or Redskins or even the Saints, some of that interest is due to the fact that these teams represent a City and they have for decades and that didn't come from the greatness of ANY of the players (current) and some VALUE has to be assigned to that.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,845 Likes: 108
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,845 Likes: 108 |
If either side, especially owners, sets this season aside, the NFL will probably get pressure or "fixed" by a different arm of the government getting involved. Lot of money, lot of votes, little sympathy from many. Why the favored status if you don't bring the game. That kind of intrusion and "help" is very scary indeed.
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,989 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,989 Likes: 362 |
Finally some good news about this whole mess. Miles left to travel, but real progress made in NFL talks. http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/15...de-in-nfl-talksIt's not time to break out the party hats just yet. Or your team underwear. Or that stinky jersey you tossed into the back of the closet out of frustration from watching rich men and even richer men fighting over billions. But maybe, just maybe, you might want to put that champagne glass, and Fantasy scouting report, within arm's reach. There is a still a great deal of work to do, and any progress could unravel any day, hour or minute, but it appears NFL owners and players have made significant headway in reaching a new labor agreement, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions. One high-ranking member of the former union estimated to me a new deal could be reached within two to three weeks. "This is the most optimistic I've been in many months," he said. But, like many sources, he urged extreme caution, saying talks could easily break down, and weeks from now we could be back at the beginning, with the name-calling and the ticking clock. "There's a great deal of animosity to work through," he said. That's putting it mildly, but in recent days, as training camps approached, and both owners and players saw the frightening but realistic prospect of missed games on the horizon, negotiations have been able to cut through that distrust like a steel-hulled ship through Arctic ice. In essence, what tore the two sides apart -- money -- might bring them back together. Initially, the fight was about owners and players wanting to keep more of it. Now, they've become civil over the fear of losing it. These recent talks have been more productive than all the other discussions and mediations combined, the official said. This has allowed the two sides to proceed at a more urgent pace than before. What could slow the progress is the ruling of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals expected sometime in early July. I'm told both sides may want to wait and see how the court rules on the lockout before finalizing any deal. Progress might also be delayed by good, old-fashioned distrust, which could raise its ugly head at any time. Nevertheless, progress was definitely made. The largest sign this negotiation was radically more successful than others was the announcement by Judge Arthur Boylan, who canceled mediation set for next week, saying the owners and players were in settlement discussions. The NFL and NFLPA later released a joint statement confirming the two sides had been in talks. Owners and players issuing joint anything is akin to cats and dogs living together. Based on discussions with several different sources, there are three main reasons there has been some movement. First, and most important, the key lawyers for both sides weren't present during these rounds of talks. Jeff Pash, lawyer for the owners, is particularly despised by trade association officials. Second, owners with more at stake in the lockout, like New England's Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones from Dallas, have in recent weeks been able to sway some of the more hard-line small-market owners to more moderate positions. Owners like Jones, who have billion-dollar stadiums, can't afford to miss games, because missed games could potentially lead to missed payments on stadium debt. Kraft and Jones in particular have been very vocal in wanting to get a deal done sooner than later. Similarly, some players have spoken to NFLPA head DeMaurice Smith over the past few weeks, asking him to step up talks with the owners, and Smith did. Now the question becomes: Can the owners and players keep the momentum going? Or will months and years of distrust send this dispute back to the courts, where a season would likely be lost? There is a still a great distance to go, but don't cancel those Fantasy drafts just yet.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,146 Likes: 134 |
Bout time,,, Thanks for the read Ytown
#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: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
'Last big legal battle' of NFL lockout waged in court today Published: Friday, June 03, 2011, 6:00 AM By James Varney, The Times-Picayune NOLA.com On an august playing field today, some of the finest players only scholars would pay to watch might decide the fate of the nation's most popular sport. The National Football League is at legal loggerheads with its players, and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis is hearing the case. The 2011 season could hang in the balance. Officially, the case at hand is slotted as Tom Brady et. al. v. the NFL. It is but one of three legal balls in the air right now, but for a variety of reasons its adjudication may prove decisive. The court could rule to either lift the owner-imposed lockout, a decision that would presumably green-light the 2011 season; allow the lawsuit and the lockout to continue; or toss out both the lockout and the lawsuit. Here is how the field is set on the eve of battle. The players Three judges will hear and rule on the case, the same panel that voted 2-1 last month to stay a district court injunction against the lockout. For those keeping score at home, the two judges who sided with the league and voted to lift the lockout injunction, Duane Benton and Steven Colloton, were appointed by President George W. Bush; the lone dissenter, Kermit Bye, is a Bill Clinton appointee. Arguing before them will be a pair of former solicitor generals: Ted Olson for the players, and Paul Clement for the owners. Both served as the government's top lawyer before the Supreme Court under Republican administrations and are reportedly close friends, although they have found themselves on opposite sides of other headline cases. Olson, whose wife was killed in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, recently fought against a California initiative banning same-sex marriages, while Clement recently resigned from King & Spaulding, an Atlanta firm, when it decided to drop the House of Representatives as a client on behalf of the Defense of Marriage law. Olson will be joined by David Boies, a celebrated trial lawyer perhaps best known for his lead role on the losing side in Bush v. Gore after the 2000 presidential election. Gabe Feldman, a Tulane University law professor and sports law expert, did not cite the judges' political resumes, but he believes the ultimate decision will break along the same 2-1 lines. "In some respects the writing is on the wall -- it would be a significant surprise if they came to different conclusions," Feldman said. "I'd be surprised if the judges change their mind because it is a purely legal issue. This is just all about how three judges determine federal statutes." Feldman, who will serve as a legal analyst on the NFL Network today, agrees the hearing will be crucial. "I think both sides recognize this is the last big legal battle," he said. The case Absent any evidentiary bombshells, the case hinges chiefly on the judges' take of the NFL's argument. This is three-pronged and has not changed since District Judge Susan Nelson rejected all of them when issuing her injunction against the lockout. First, the NFL argues that the federal Norris-LaGuardia Act makes the lockout legal. Lockouts are an accepted tactic in labor disputes and as such cannot be judged prejudicially, according to the league's briefs, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act was designed to remove anti-trust courts from labor disputes. In lifting the injunction, Benton and Colloton indicated they found that argument compelling, and Feldman noted that alone provides a strong signal of how they will rule after today's hearing. Should the 8th Circuit stick to that narrow ground, the most likely scenario would be the owners' lockout remains in force while the crux of the case -- the players' antitrust lawsuit against the league -- returns to Nelson and the district level. But the appeals court could go further should it embrace the other two prongs of the NFL's brief, namely that the league's congressional exemption from anti-trust law means the players have no standing to bring suit and that the proper venue for deciding all this is the National Labor Relations Board, not a courtroom. If a panel majority accepts either of those arguments, it could throw the matter out of court. In its most recent brief, filed May 26, the NFL urged the appeals court to take this additional step. "This Court should reverse the District Court's improper injunction, but should also make clear that the solution to this dispute over terms and conditions of employment lies with the labor laws and not in the antitrust courts," the brief said. On the surface, the third prong has the least chance of success. As Boies noted somewhat wryly in oral arguments before Nelson, no lawyer wants to come before a judge arguing the matter at hand is none of the court's business. But the core question of whether the players have standing to file the antitrust lawsuit may have more legs. It also goes to one of the other legal balls floating around the labor impasse that began in March when the owners, unambiguously claiming the prior collective bargaining agreement made football less profitable for them than they think it should be, exercised their right to break away from the extant deal. When settlement talks went nowhere, the players disbanded their union, a step they believe allows them to operate as independent agents and thus file the suit. The league, however, paints the union's dissolution as a sham, a tactic the players have used before while seeking to force the matter into the courts and away from the bargaining table. Consequently, the NFL has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, and the league's high-powered legal team maintains it is the board, not the federal court, that must rule on the topic. But by all accounts that complaint floats in abeyance -- it as if, Feldman said, all other avenues have shut down while the case on the main stage runs its course. The same is true for a ruling by District Judge David Doty that the owners colluded to pool television money to cushion any financial hardships that might result from a lockout. Indeed, the players have maintained the owners have planned a lockout all along and therefore never negotiated in good faith before the prior labor agreement expired. In theory, Doty could slap a fine of $100 million or more on the owners, but legal experts said the players would be hard-pressed to turn that ruling into cash that would give them a monetary lifeline if the lockout drags on, because the owners would appeal the ruling and the matter would wend the usual slow course in the federal judiciary. Moving right along That crawl has not afflicted the matter at hand today. In fact, the federal courts have fast-tracked the lawsuit. It is highly unusual for a case to be filed in March, and then go through district court and appeals rulings -- and then face another appeals court hearing -- in less than three months. Feldman expects the quick pace to continue. "It could be anywhere from two weeks to a month and a half," he said. "My guess is closer to two weeks, but it's all just a guess." Similarly, it is unusual for the judiciary to take the documents in a case out of its cyberspace archive and make them available to all online in something close to real time, but that is what the 8th Circuit, citing enormous public interest, has done with Brady v. NFL. The court often mulls the propriety of executing a man, but such life and death issues apparently pale in the public's mind next to the question of whether professional football will be played as usual this fall. And that timeline, should the 8th Circuit panel's 2-1 majority in favor of the NFL hold, looks shaky. Both sides are seeking leverage in the court, and the owners' share would rise considerably with a victory. That would mean the lockout continues, and the chances clubs could open training camp in July and play any sort of preseason schedule diminish. The losing side would still have appeal options, but Feldman considers them long shots. Unless there is a particularly controversial element to the panel's ruling, or there exists a number of 8th Circuit judges who would likely dissent from it, the court is unlikely to accept a request to hear the matter en banc. And particularly if the judges stick to the narrow issue of the lockout, an appeal to the Supreme Court would likely be rejected as that body would have no interest in hearing just one thread of the case. On the other hand, if the panel were to reverse its prior thinking unexpectedly, that would mean the lockout was lifted. Under that scenario, the NFL would probably play the 2011 season under the same rules that governed the 2010 season, and negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement would resume. Whether that process ever ends amicably remains unclear. Players, including Saints quarterback Drew Brees, have used increasingly barbed language as the lockout continues, accusing the owners of offering no elasticity at the bargaining table. Intermittently since March, federal judges have ordered the two sides to return to negotiations, but they have proved fruitless. On Thursday, word leaked the sides were talking yet again outside of Chicago, although "to characterize it as progress might not be accurate," a source told The Associated Press. Indeed, a terse joint statement offered no indication of progress. "The parties met pursuant to court mediation," it read. "Owners and players were engaged in confidential discussions before Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan. The court has ordered continued confidentiality of the mediation sessions." James Varney can be reached at jvarney@timespicayune.com or 504.717.1156.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,498 Likes: 146
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,498 Likes: 146 |
Quote:
Gabe Feldman, a Tulane University law professor and sports law expert, did not cite the judges' political resumes, but he believes the ultimate decision will break along the same 2-1 lines.
"In some respects the writing is on the wall -- it would be a significant surprise if they came to different conclusions," Feldman said. "I'd be surprised if the judges change their mind because it is a purely legal issue. This is just all about how three judges determine federal statutes."
BINGO...Professor Feldman and I agree.
This case is more about the political makeup of the 8th circuit court than it is about the rule of law...9 republican appointed judges and only 2 democrat appointed judges...the 8th circuit court is the most republican dominated court in America.
Hopefully, most football fans will understand the politics of this case and not see the outcome as anything other than what it is..a well orchestrated political maneuver by the owners.
I'm sure the players and their lawyers have already factored in a loss in this case and are working on their next court case.
This process will continue until the owners and players reach a mutual agreement that is fair to both sides.
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
or, they could have kept things out of the courts in the first place and just hammered on the negotiating table instead of both sides crying to their lawyers. perhaps, in this case, I'm the idealist though.
anyway, not surprising that it's Jerry Jones and Kraft that are pushing for a deal. they are likely closer to siding with the players than most owners because if things devolved away from the current system, the big money / big market teams would be able to compete easier.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,989 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,989 Likes: 362 |
Jerry Jones broke with the "normal" method of getting a stadium as well. He paid for his own ..... so he has huge bills coming due.
I would also add that if the players hadn't played games with decertification and walking away from the negotaiting table months ago, there might have been more progress towards a deal by now. However, they had to try and play legal games rather than trying to negotiate in good faith.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Yahoo Sports agrees with you http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ak...or_union_052511Quote:
For all of his shouting and table pounding and proclamations that the NFL Players Association “went to the mattresses” with the NFL, here is where DeMaurice Smith has his decertified union two months into the lockout: about to argue a case it will probably not win in a labor battle his constituents will soon tire of fighting.
The NFLPA’s rhetoric in the months leading up to this spring’s work stoppage never matched the issues. Nothing was serious enough to warrant a shutdown. Nobody will ache for the rookies who won’t get $40 million guaranteed in whatever new deal emerges, while the splitting of $1 billion in a league that has made so many rich is hardly a horrible problem to have. And yet the leaders of the players union were dying to decertify as far back as 2008, apparently screening executive director candidates on their willingness to push the nuclear option.
AdChoices
DeMaurice Smith (right) with Colts player representative Jeff Saturday.
(Getty Images)
So now we are mired in the doldrums as each side waits to go through the motions with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, a body that has already signaled its intent to uphold the lockout. All of this is less a legal wrangle – if it ever was one – than a bout between egos tussling to see who can claim momentum and thus a victory before sitting down to the negotiations which could have been done in March.
At stake is only the football season.
The blame for this lockout should be shared equally. Fingers have rightly been pointing at the NFL’s owners for starting this mess. They are easy to hate right now, complaining of weak annual returns while sitting on civic assets worth north of $1 billion in some cases. In many instances, they extorted their communities for gleaming stadiums which only helped to fatten their wallets. They cut a labor deal they never wanted in 2006 to protect Paul Tagliabue’s legacy, then blew it up two years later, attempting to illegally squirrel away television money as a lockout fund.
Still, to scream at the owners while ignoring the NFLPA leaders’ behavior in the sandbox is misguided, for the NFLPA pushed this drive to the cliff in the final days of civility. Back when Judge David Doty ruled the NFL couldn’t collect its lockout stash from the television networks, the players were gaining momentum. They got the owners to bend. The owners even agreed to show parts of their books. It wasn’t everything, but it was something more than they offered before – a real sign of progress – only to have the players reject the attempt.
One source with knowledge of the negotiations said the message delivered by the players’ leadership was that the show of demanding the owners’ books had become too valuable a PR move to give up. Then, after threatening to blow up the talks with decertification and lawsuits, they did just that – leaving many to wonder if this is what they wanted to do all along.
But why? Decertifying and getting the courts to rule the lockout illegal was always a long shot. The Eighth Circuit loomed with a history of favoring business in labor matters. Yes, the union won free agency in a similar fashion in the early 1990s. It became a big part of the narrative of the NFLPA’s previous leader, Gene Upshaw, who often spoke fondly of those days. And it became a great selling point to the players, who have never had the stomach for a true labor dispute the way their colleagues in other sports have. What wasn’t peddled nearly as well was a very real risk that the court option would slam into a wall, cornering the players and leaving them with nowhere else to turn.
“Look at it this way: If the union loses a decertification lawsuit, then it has gone and shot everything it has,” said Michael Cramer, director of the University of Texas Sports and Media program, who went through labor disputes in baseball and hockey. “You drew a 13 at the blackjack table and now you’ve got to go back to the negotiating table with nothing. Who would have bet they’d win a decertification lawsuit? You just don’t do it.”
Cramer, who was part of a group that looked seriously at buying at least two NFL teams in recent years, is amazed the labor situation has gone this far – shaking his head at the actions of both players and owners who are fronted by leaders so desperate to establish their dominance.
“This is so unbelievably easy to solve – that would be if there was leadership on either side,” Cramer said. “This is a contract that should be agreed to tomorrow. That these two goofballs [Smith and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell] are waiting around for the courts to tell them what to do to get this solved is crazy.”
Then again, the NFLPA – which has spent heavily on outside legal fees in recent years – loves litigation. It always seemed the preferred weapon of Upshaw, who was criticized later in life for ignoring important issues such as disability and retirement benefits in favor of quick and easy revenue increases which keep current players happy. Smith was supposed to represent a change from those days.
Instead, we get bizarre moments such as his recent address to graduates at the University of Maryland, in which he ended an otherwise inspiring speech by pleading with the students to scream “You suck!” in an imitation of the drunken louts at Terrapin and Washington Redskins games.
“And for anybody who would ever think that it is the wrong thing to do to care so much that you’re willing to risk everything because it is right, reserve those two words for them,” he said to the crowd as graduates and parents stared dumbfounded.
Let’s hope the owners and players are secretly negotiating even as the court date looms, because it’s hard to believe the players are going to want to “risk everything” on oversized blather and a Hail Mary they had little chance to complete.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426 |
Looks like more waiting. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...s-to-negotiate/Oral arguments end, judge encourages sides to negotiate Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on June 3, 2011, 12:50 PM EDT Now we wait. Again. Oral arguments have concluded Friday in St. Louis, where the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals heard arguments regarding whether Judge Susan Nelson’s lifting of the lockout will be overturned or not. Judge Kermit Bye encouraged both sides to continue working towards an agreement in coming days. Albert Breer of NFL.com reports Bye said the ruling will come in “due course” and that would be one “neither side would like.” Bye reportedly encouraged the two sides to work their problems out on their own. The question now becomes whether the Eighth Circuit will monitor negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA* and possibly hold their ruling if progress is being made. Players and owners have a window to make some progress in the meantime. As fans, we can only hope they begin to feel the urgency.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
If the Colts were the only team, and they had to play something like high school quality teams, they would be like the globetrotters and nobody would watch.
If Manning and Brees and Brady, want to start their own league, well they had something like that in the 80's with the USFL and it was awful, even when folks had 500 yard games it was like well the entire USFL sucks except for that player so it wasn't worth watching.
So if they can start another league and think people will watch, good luck with that.
Like it or not, some of these players are benefiting from the fact that these Teams have had a continual product from before they were born, and some of the interest and fans of the Vikings or Steelers or Redskins or even the Saints, some of that interest is due to the fact that these teams represent a City and they have for decades and that didn't come from the greatness of ANY of the players (current) and some VALUE has to be assigned to that.
I pulled part of your quote I wanted to highlight and is at the crux of players and their lawyers using the courts to break the NFL and losing the anti trust exemption. The players want unlimited salary cap like baseball. and what would the fans get out of this? A quasi USFL, or MLB version where a few teams become the globetrotters and the rest of the NFL become the washington Generals and suck. How long would the Golden goose NFL keep laying eggs when fans of small markets realize they are nothing but farm clubs for NFL versions of the yankees. Do YOU want to PAY to watch that? Not me.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement Part 5
|
|
