Sea Ray Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 I don't think the de-certification surprised the owners. Their dismay was for PR reasons. I'm sure they are prepared.As for the treble damages, as I understand it that's dependent upon the de-certification holding. They were a union when those contracts were made. I think the owners have a goodcase to make that de-certicfication is just a strategy to screw the owners (just like the owners' strategy in negotiating tv deals) and that the players intention is to re-unify afterwards. In the meantime since there is no union to negotiate with, why do the owners have to agree to anything? Can't they just impose whatever system they want? The bottomline is this thing is bound for the courts for awhile now and not the bargaining room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 The bottomline is this thing is bound for the courts for awhile now and not the bargaining room.The courtroom is a bargaining room. One side gets a few good rulings, then a deal suddenly gets made. You are right, without a union, the owners can just impose any system they want. But the players will try to interfere with that through the courts. I believe they've already asked the court for an injuction stopping the lockout. If that happens, the court will impose rules for the season, probably similar to the rules they used last year. I don't know the answer to the legitimacy of the decertification. I'll try to find out if the motivation behind the decertification can render it illegitimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Top players a no-show on Draft Day?/>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6216135&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_6216135 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Top players a no-show on Draft Day?/>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6216135&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_6216135I for one won't miss them. I always thought the interviews were stupid. I would think that this policy would hurt the kids more than anyone. I would think it's a once in a lifetime thrill for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 I don't know the answer to the legitimacy of the decertification. I'll try to find out if the motivation behind the decertification can render it illegitimate.Florio had a post on that subject a few days back./>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/league-claims-decertification-came-too-early-to-avoid-sham-defense/Basically, it boils down to: yes, it can, except the league agreed not to argue that it could, unless the players filed an antitrust suit before the CBA expired, which they might have depending on your definition of "expired."Hope that helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Throughout this whole process I keep thinking about the marginal players that are likely to get cut within the next season or two that will probably not benefit at all from the goings-on taking place right now. Talk about taking one for the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Throughout this whole process I keep thinking about the marginal players that are likely to get cut within the next season or two that will probably not benefit at all from the goings-on taking place right now. Talk about taking one for the team.Sucks to be them huh? And BTW isn't Carson Palmer with his retirement threat throwing himself into this vary scenario, or will any new rules apply to players both past and present? It hard to make sense of it all right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Throughout this whole process I keep thinking about the marginal players that are likely to get cut within the next season or two that will probably not benefit at all from the goings-on taking place right now. Talk about taking one for the team.Sucks to be them huh? And BTW isn't Carson Palmer with his retirement threat throwing himself into this vary scenario, or will any new rules apply to players both past and present? It hard to make sense of it all right now.Yes it does suck to be them. He doesn't need the money.....he's sitting on $80M! If they get something close, how hard to they push to cover these fringe players or guys likely to be out of football next season?It's very screwy at this point. Kinda hard to negotiate with en entity that doesn't exist anymore.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Throughout this whole process I keep thinking about the marginal players that are likely to get cut within the next season or two that will probably not benefit at all from the goings-on taking place right now. Talk about taking one for the team.Actually, this isn't true at allOne of the NFLPA's arguments is that the owners gave up money in the TV/satellite contracts in exchange for the lockout insurance money. They argue that had the NFL negotiated those contracts in good faith and with the player's best interests in mind, they would have taken more money in place of lockout insurance, and ergo, there would have been more money that would have been available under the cap. Ergo, they are owed more money for PAST years. Further, now that it is a class action suit, all players would played during the run of those contracts are covered; and since it is an antitrust suit, not only can they be awarded what they are owed, but the award is tripled.So, to sum - even marginal players are looking at the possibility of a HUGE payout from the lawsuit, whether or not they play another down or notThe payout is not guarenteed, of course - they have to win the lawsuit and subsequent appeals. But the judge who likely will preside over said case has already indicated substantial inclination towards the NFLPA's view in his writeup of a previous decision in the favor of the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Throughout this whole process I keep thinking about the marginal players that are likely to get cut within the next season or two that will probably not benefit at all from the goings-on taking place right now. Talk about taking one for the team.Actually, this isn't true at allOne of the NFLPA's arguments is that the owners gave up money in the TV/satellite contracts in exchange for the lockout insurance money. They argue that had the NFL negotiated those contracts in good faith and with the player's best interests in mind, they would have taken more money in place of lockout insurance, and ergo, there would have been more money that would have been available under the cap. Ergo, they are owed more money for PAST years. Further, now that it is a class action suit, all players would played during the run of those contracts are covered; and since it is an antitrust suit, not only can they be awarded what they are owed, but the award is tripled.So, to sum - even marginal players are looking at the possibility of a HUGE payout from the lawsuit, whether or not they play another down or notThe payout is not guarenteed, of course - they have to win the lawsuit and subsequent appeals. But the judge who likely will preside over said case has already indicated substantial inclination towards the NFLPA's view in his writeup of a previous decision in the favor of the players.My comments were based on a negotiated agreement not a court ordered settlement. If that happens this is going to end badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 All negotations a full stop until the hearing April 6 (because the players say they won't be bothered to negotiate until after that hearing). Once the judge rules, if the players win, in theory free agency could start then, but...I am still guessing the NFL will appeal any advese ruling. Another bit of time if they do, and it gets pushed back further.I had been neutral on this in terms of "blame" but the last week has made me question whether the players ever negotiated in good faith. It feels like they have wanted to decertify and get to court no matter what. Add in that they are trying to f**k with, in their own way, draft day, and they are not playing the PR game well right now. Not that that matters of course, in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Screw the players, they make too much anyway. Lift the ban on "performance enhancing" substances and lets start to enjoy the NFL the way it was meant to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 ...but the last week has made me question whether the players ever negotiated in good faith. It feels like they have wanted to decertify and get to court no matter what. If you look at the context within which the players' wanted to get to court no matter what, you realize it wasn't no matter what.The owners opted out of the CBA. The owners want the players to take a huge pay cut. The players don't think they should have to take a pay cut because:1. The league is more popular than ever.2. League revenues are steady or rising, with new revenue streams adding to the total every year (online content licensed to others, NFL website, NFL network tv channel, Mike Brown raised price to $1.25 for pop in the pop machine in the pro shop at PBS, etc.)3. Without a chance to see financials, players are just supposed to "trust" the owners that the league is in financial trouble. What evidence is there that the league is in financial trouble?So the players wanted into court no matter what, but only in the context of ownership insisting on a large cut in pay, and opting out of the CBA and locking the players out to bring about that cut in pay. The Wall Street Journal printed an article yesterday that said the owners had stockpiled enough cash to make it through a season with no revenue, that means even without the broacasting money they had been counting on in case of a lockout. So they were ready. Who really brought this whole thing about? Who really prepared for and instigated this brawl?The owners are like an opponent who lies in wait with a weapon, attacks with said weapon, then whines bloody murder when the other side picks up their own weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Screw the players, they make too much anyway. I assume you'll express your opinion to Ced the next time you see him in the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Screw the players, they make too much anyway. I assume you'll express your opinion to Ced the next time you see him in the club.F*ck Cedric, he's lame. He's not worth the money and I never liked Cedric to begin with... That's why I took care of his girl for him while he was back home in Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Screw the players, they make too much anyway. I assume you'll express your opinion to Ced the next time you see him in the club.F*ck Cedric, he's lame. He's not worth the money and I never liked Cedric to begin with... That's why I took care of his girl for him while he was back home in Texas I hope you're joking,.. I've never had a problem with you and believe you know alot of ppl,.. But i have no respect for someone who cheats or causes cheating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Screw the players, they make too much anyway. I assume you'll express your opinion to Ced the next time you see him in the club.F*ck Cedric, he's lame. He's not worth the money and I never liked Cedric to begin with... That's why I took care of his girl for him while he was back home in Texas I hope you're joking,.. I've never had a problem with you and believe you know alot of ppl,.. But i have no respect for someone who cheats or causes cheatingNo buddy I'm not joking.. he's a douchebag anyway, he played her like a fool so it only makes it fair. She was a really good friend of mine and like I said, he did her wrong. I don't know your situation, but these girls today are all out for... ya know... there are no morals in a lot of chicks. Being a pick-up artist has taught me a lot about the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/15/nflpa-draft-boycott/index.html?eref=sihpPeter King says a possible alternate draft event is a possibility. In it the players don't show up for the draft. Goodell announces the pick, then at a different hotel the player gets up, goes on stage, and is greeted by a bunch of his teammates. It would devalue the draft show the NFL puts on.They should go one step further. The players should adopt a rule that no player does any media appearances, interviews, etc., with any of the broadcast partners of the NFL. No ESPN, no FOX, no NFL Network, no ABC, etc. They get nothing from the players. Instead, interviews and appearances are done only with non-affiliated media outlets. If the owners bitch, the players can just say sorry, I can't drive somewhere to promote your league since you cancelled my health insurance when you locked me out. If I get in a wreck I won't be covered. Can't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 They should go one step further. The players should adopt a rule that no player does any media appearances, interviews, etc., with any of the broadcast partners of the NFL. No ESPN, no FOX, no NFL Network, no ABC, etc. They get nothing from the players. That works for me just fine, mostly because I'm in the group that thinks the televised draft hasn't gotten better in recent years, just more bloated. As a result I'll support any trimming of the fat. IMHO a player boycott of the draft wouldn't hurt the owners in any meaningful way. All it would accomplish, beyond allowing the owners to saturate the media with their message during the offseasons most heavily watched event, is dictate how the event is broadcast. For example, I'd expect more analysis of the picks. Fewer puff pieces. More game tape reviewed and highlites shown. Fewer shots of prospects staring vacantly at their cell phones. More interviews with team owners, GM's, head coaches, and even coordinators. And best, no more shots of the last guy waiting in the green room. In short, a player draft the way it used to be before the NFL began selling the event as a form of broad entertainment worthy of prime time viewing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Being a pick-up artistCANTSTOPLAUGHING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 They should go one step further. The players should adopt a rule that no player does any media appearances, interviews, etc., with any of the broadcast partners of the NFL. No ESPN, no FOX, no NFL Network, no ABC, etc. They get nothing from the players. That works for me just fine, mostly because I'm in the group that thinks the televised draft hasn't gotten better in recent years, just more bloated. As a result I'll support any trimming of the fat. IMHO a player boycott of the draft wouldn't hurt the owners in any meaningful way. All it would accomplish, beyond allowing the owners to saturate the media with their message during the offseasons most heavily watched event, is dictate how the event is broadcast. For example, I'd expect more analysis of the picks. Fewer puff pieces. More game tape reviewed and highlites shown. Fewer shots of prospects staring vacantly at their cell phones. More interviews with team owners, GM's, head coaches, and even coordinators. And best, no more shots of the last guy waiting in the green room. In short, a player draft the way it used to be before the NFL began selling the event as a form of broad entertainment worthy of prime time viewing.More from the Cowboy's war-room! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 The more the players do to f**k with the draft, the more they will annoy the general public. While Hair is right that the event has gotten way too bloated (the extra day is still stupid), it is something that clearly most NFL fans enjoy and look forward to. And while I could care less about hearing from draft picks on draft day at the podium and what not, anything which feels like the players are trying to mess with what is the last good day that NFL fans have to look forward to for awhile just makes no sense from a PR standpoint.As for the rest of it, COB, the whole point is that the owners clearly have forwarded the postion that they need some sort of giveback with this deal. Bargaining was one way to deal with that, and I still think would have been the quickest and fairest way to a deal. Litigation is protracted, messy, and opens up the chances of a judge f**king with the general system (doomsday stuff like the draft being abolished etc). None of which makes me particularly fond of the players' tactics at this point. They had nice leverage with Doty's ruling about the illegality of the owners' strike fund, I think a deal could have been forged short of rushing to decertify. And it appears to me they have been hellbent on decertifying for awhile now.And, while we are here, it is a sham decertification. At first chance, they will re-form the union, and will carry on as a union in the meantime, just without the name. Not a fan of these kinds of in-name-only tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 I hear what your're saying Mem, and I think you speak for the majority. I was listening to the radio yesterday, and it sure seemed like most callers were anti players by a wide margin.In their defense, the players had a contract through 2012. If it were up to the players, the agreement would still be in place. If it were up to the players, there would be football as usual right now.The owners have a several year plan in place. Part of the plan was to opt out of the cba, then lock the players out. Both of which they have done. They could have continued with football even after the union decertified. They chose to end football instead.My point is that this whole thing is a product of the owners' actions. And it is no accident. They planned this whole thing, and they've planned and prepared for a season without football, going so far as to take money from the players to fund that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsbengalsbucks Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 I have to say if I was one of the draft prospects, I tell the union to go suck a stick. These kids have worked hard to be able to have the chance to be there, dont use them as pawns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 Being a pick-up artistCANTSTOPLAUGHINGIt's funny right, glad I made you laugh... Its hard sometimes. I mean I've always had game but once you really learn the science of attraction you understand how women are wired. It's no bulls**t man. Get out of the house and try it TJ, you can find me at the clubs downtown pullin' 10's! As far as the topic goes.... screw the players. If they don't want to play, find replacements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.