Official Lockout Thread

[HoosierCat]

There appears to be some reason for optimism. Reports are now coming out that negotiations are moving along and that a "framework" for a deal is expected in the next couple of weeks.

[HoosierCat]

FWIW Peter King says he thinks there will be a deal inside a month.

[HoosierCat]

NFL asks owners to be prepared to stay late at next week's meeting. Possibly to look over/vote on a new deal.

[ArmyBengal]

Those f*ckers should be prepared to stay late EVERY DAY.

I mean it's not like we currently have football going on right ??

EVERY effort should be made to ensure the season isn't lost.

Anything short of that is just added bullsh*t and another reason to hate both sides of the argument.

F*CK THESE GUYS !!!

[cincyhokie]

If anything ends up destroying football (or any sport) it will be money. It won't be the fans or lack of fan support, although that might be an effect from the issue with money and greed. So what we're seeing and have been seeing slowly since the beginning of free agency is more and more emphasis on money (duh). Both sides are to blame. TV and media are to blame. ESPN is to blame. Bigger, faster, better. More, more, more.

It's been interesting to watch. The NFL with it's seemingly unstoppable popularity but that's all an illusion. Everything has it's limit. A law of diminishing returns. As money becomes more and more of the powerful focus, less and less fans will be engaged in the game. Sure, we'll come back after the lockout but I don't think things will be the same. In fact, for me, I think the playoffs and Superbowl have become stale and anti-climatic. A team wins the Superbowl and we forget about that within a week. Onto the draft or who's been charged with the next crime or tweeted something controversial. That'll get you months of frontline press. Stale. Lame.

Seat tickets expensive and rising? Yep. Don't be suprised if someday soon we're forced to watch games via pay per view. Just look at LA. There's 5 teams lined up to head BACK out to LA, the same city that has lost 2 NFL teams. One of those interested teams being Minnesota. Who's got better fans? Minnesota or LA? Who's got more tradition? However, who's got more money?

It's all starting to feel cheapened and superficial. Maybe that's just me or maybe it's because the Bengals are terrible, I don't know. I just know I don't like it.

[jjakq27]

If anything ends up destroying football (or any sport) it will be money. It won't be the fans or lack of fan support, although that might be an effect from the issue with money and greed. So what we're seeing and have been seeing slowly since the beginning of free agency is more and more emphasis on money (duh). Both sides are to blame. TV and media are to blame. ESPN is to blame. Bigger, faster, better. More, more, more.

It's been interesting to watch. The NFL with it's seemingly unstoppable popularity but that's all an illusion. Everything has it's limit. A law of diminishing returns. As money becomes more and more of the powerful focus, less and less fans will be engaged in the game. Sure, we'll come back after the lockout but I don't think things will be the same. In fact, for me, I think the playoffs and Superbowl have become stale and anti-climatic. A team wins the Superbowl and we forget about that within a week. Onto the draft or who's been charged with the next crime or tweeted something controversial. That'll get you months of frontline press. Stale. Lame.

Seat tickets expensive and rising? Yep. Don't be suprised if someday soon we're forced to watch games via pay per view. Just look at LA. There's 5 teams lined up to head BACK out to LA, the same city that has lost 2 NFL teams. One of those interested teams being Minnesota. Who's got better fans? Minnesota or LA? Who's got more tradition? However, who's got more money?

It's all starting to feel cheapened and superficial. Maybe that's just me or maybe it's because the Bengals are terrible, I don't know. I just know I don't like it.

I couldn't agree more. Tell me how the NFL makes money (or will make more money) with a team in LA? No one will go or even watch it on TV after the first year or two. The original LA Chargers, the LA Rams and the LA Raiders all have come and gone in the last 60 years. It's a different world out there. I am not sure why the keep trying to cram a team in LA.

And I think that within 10 years the NFL will be exclusively be on the NFL network. I hope Time Warner and the NFL can settle their differences. I would gladly trade three of my home shopping channels, a religious channel and a few others for the NFL network or MLB network.

[cincyhokie]

If anything ends up destroying football (or any sport) it will be money. It won't be the fans or lack of fan support, although that might be an effect from the issue with money and greed. So what we're seeing and have been seeing slowly since the beginning of free agency is more and more emphasis on money (duh). Both sides are to blame. TV and media are to blame. ESPN is to blame. Bigger, faster, better. More, more, more.

It's been interesting to watch. The NFL with it's seemingly unstoppable popularity but that's all an illusion. Everything has it's limit. A law of diminishing returns. As money becomes more and more of the powerful focus, less and less fans will be engaged in the game. Sure, we'll come back after the lockout but I don't think things will be the same. In fact, for me, I think the playoffs and Superbowl have become stale and anti-climatic. A team wins the Superbowl and we forget about that within a week. Onto the draft or who's been charged with the next crime or tweeted something controversial. That'll get you months of frontline press. Stale. Lame.

Seat tickets expensive and rising? Yep. Don't be suprised if someday soon we're forced to watch games via pay per view. Just look at LA. There's 5 teams lined up to head BACK out to LA, the same city that has lost 2 NFL teams. One of those interested teams being Minnesota. Who's got better fans? Minnesota or LA? Who's got more tradition? However, who's got more money?

It's all starting to feel cheapened and superficial. Maybe that's just me or maybe it's because the Bengals are terrible, I don't know. I just know I don't like it.

I couldn't agree more. Tell me how the NFL makes money (or will make more money) with a team in LA? No one will go or even watch it on TV after the first year or two. The original LA Chargers, the LA Rams and the LA Raiders all have come and gone in the last 60 years. It's a different world out there. I am not sure why the keep trying to cram a team in LA.

And I think that within 10 years the NFL will be exclusively be on the NFL network. I hope Time Warner and the NFL can settle their differences. I would gladly trade three of my home shopping channels, a religious channel and a few others for the NFL network or MLB network.

That's a great point. However, I think it has more to do with draw LA will have on TV ratings and sponsorship. Alot of people will watch LA play to love them or hate them and it won't matter how many people show up in the stands. See, that's the way it's been setup. It's all about the attractive markets rather than the fanbase support.

We all see the trend. Does ANYONE honestly see it heading in a direction that's good for the FANS? Ideas such as getting rid of the draft aren't that far fetched. Competetive balance will take a hit with this new CBA. Then the next CBA will come along and more of the competetive balance will be comprimised. As long as the major markets are generating revenue and people in those markets are supporting the league, the league will make decisions to accomodate the NY's and the LA's.

[ArmyBengal]

If the draft goes away, I would be lost.

As a Bengals fan, it's usually the best part of the season.

Renewed feelings of hope, the look of the future, etc.

No draft = depression setting in.

Come to think of it, I should be use to it considering the past two decades as a Bengals fan huh ??

[HoosierCat]

Those f*ckers should be prepared to stay late EVERY DAY.

I mean it's not like we currently have football going on right ??

According to an ESPN story today, the reason they have been asked to be prepared to stay late is that a handful of owners are unhappy with the parameters of the new deal.

A handful of NFL owners -- at least two of which are from AFC teams -- believe the parameters of the deal being discussed don't adequately address the original issues the league wanted corrected from the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, according to sources.

It is one of the primary reasons team officials are being prepped to stay an extra night in Chicago at Tuesday's owners meetings. It's not to potentially vote on a new collective bargaining agreement, as many suspected; it actually is to try to fend off some of the resistance that is mounting from a handful of NFL owners, according to sources.

How much you want to bet that one of those unhappy owners is Mike Brown?

[membengal]

Of course it is. But he was one of the two unhappy last time around, and after the fact, if I understand right, a LOT of his fellow owners came to understand that he was right. Leading to the current labor situation.

[ArmyBengal]

Well, seeing as how they don't need every owner to agree, I don't really care that a handful of owners have issues.

Isn't there going to be someone that gets their feelings hurt when it's all said and done anyway ??

I don't remember exact numbers, but I think they only need like 75% of the owners to agree on the new terms when it comes to vote.

That's like 8 owners having to object if my math skills are correct and yes, Mike Brown is probably one of them.

Then again, him and Ralph Wilson were the only two objecting last time and it would appear they were correct.

I don't really care about all of that, I just want to see it get done so I can watch games this fall and play fantasy football.

Is that so much to ask for ??

Oh yeah, I know the lawyers are a "must have" in the process, but does it surprise anyone that when they were brought back into the mix, sh*t started going downhill again ?? I'm not hating on lawyers overall, just in this situatuion. I had a couple really good lawyers help me in a couple different situations and they were awesome. Money well spent on my end. However......

[HoosierCat]

Of course it is. But he was one of the two unhappy last time around, and after the fact, if I understand right, a LOT of his fellow owners came to understand that he was right. Leading to the current labor situation.

I don't think a lot of owners "came to understand" anything. Rather, they knew the deal favored the players when they signed it -- but they weren't ready to go nuclear at that point because they weren't financially prepared for a strike. They signed it to buy time in order to do that (by, for example, negotiating a new TV deal that paid them even if there were no games).

[membengal]

Of course it is. But he was one of the two unhappy last time around, and after the fact, if I understand right, a LOT of his fellow owners came to understand that he was right. Leading to the current labor situation.

I don't think a lot of owners "came to understand" anything. Rather, they knew the deal favored the players when they signed it -- but they weren't ready to go nuclear at that point because they weren't financially prepared for a strike. They signed it to buy time in order to do that (by, for example, negotiating a new TV deal that paid them even if there were no games).

Nice spin.

[jjakq27]

Of course it is. But he was one of the two unhappy last time around, and after the fact, if I understand right, a LOT of his fellow owners came to understand that he was right. Leading to the current labor situation.

Isn't he on the current negotiating team? I thought I heard that a few weeks ago.

[HoosierCat]

Isn't he on the current negotiating team? I thought I heard that a few weeks ago.

Mike's on the league's labor committee, IIRC. He was in on negotiations earlier in the process but I haven't seen his name mentioned among owners who have been taking part in the latest talks.

[BengalszoneBilly]

I haven't seen his name mentioned among owners who have been taking part in the latest talks.

Probably why progress in the negotiations is now being made.

[HoosierCat]

Nice spin.

Not at all. The lockout was always the plan.

[membengal]

No, the spin part is you finding any way you can to slag Brown. Perhaps if Brown had been listened to back in '06, we are not at this juncture now.

[HoosierCat]

No, the spin part is you finding any way you can to slag Brown. Perhaps if Brown had been listened to back in '06, we are not at this juncture now.

First, where did I "slag Brown?" Second, they didn't need Mike to tell them it was a bad deal. They knew that. And they immediately began planning to opt out in 2008 and lock out in 2011.

[membengal]

No, the spin part is you finding any way you can to slag Brown. Perhaps if Brown had been listened to back in '06, we are not at this juncture now.

First, where did I "slag Brown?" Second, they didn't need Mike to tell them it was a bad deal. They knew that. And they immediately began planning to opt out in 2008 and lock out in 2011.

That's ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. Your thesis is that the owners all KNEW it was a bad deal but entered into it anyway, just to lay in wait and hatch this for 2011? That's crazy. In your view, they burned five years worth of money because...why, exactly? You think they all knew it was a bad deal but signed it anyway? Why in the f**k would they do that?

Simpler and less insane take...Brown and Wilson saw it was not a good deal and voted against it last time around. History showed Wilson and Brown were right as there were ample reports that there fellow owners came to state, on several occasions, that they should have listened to Wilson and Brown more.

But acknowledging that doesn't fit with your general Mike-Brown-is-always-the-stupid thesis that is your default position. And the thing that always amazes me with the constant Mike-Brown-is-the-antichrist stuff on here is that, for some of you, everything he does is s**t. Which actually obscures those times when he DOES do s**t things. But not everything Mike Brown does is s**t. And voting against the 2006 deal, which he and Ralph were given a lot of criticism for, was most certainly something it was later determined was the right position to take. And most certainly he and Wilson were on an island on that.

So, here we are again, a deal maybe being framed, and reports come out that at least two AFC teams don't like it. That is, I agree, more than likely Ralph and Mike again. Question is, will the other owners listen to them this time around, or override them again? Since I like football, even whatever it is the Bengals play, I hope they override Mike and Ralph again. But that won't make those two any less right this time around either.

Your boy Florio:

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/15/vindicated-by-labor-fight-ralph-wilson-isnt-gloating/

And some more:

/>http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/bills/11295

Hey, this too!:

/>http://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/5/20/2181868/giants-owner-says-2006-cba-extension-was-a-mistake and http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/20/owners-continue-to-wallow-in-their-2006-blunder/

“We made a mistake, no question about it. And we deserve criticism for making that mistake. The players, themselves, have acknowledged that they made a great deal back in 2006 and there were a number of us, myself included, who didn’t fully understand what we were doing in 2006. We understood pretty quickly, within about a year after that. At the end of the day, we’re businessmen who love football and we want to get a deal done that makes sense for our businesses and that’s good for the game and allows the game to grow. There is a deal there to be made that would be fair for both sides.”

- New York Giants owner John Mara on the 2006 CBA extension.

Wow! Mara is so effin' cagey, he voted for it knowing it was a bad deal in 2006, but then lied about knowing it was a bad deal in 2006 so he could admit it wasn't until 2007 he realized it was a bad deal! Diabolical!

But, hey, yeah, Mike and Ralph were simply two of many who knew it was a bad deal at the time. Sure.

[HoosierCat]

That's ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. Your thesis is that the owners all KNEW it was a bad deal but entered into it anyway,

Stop it. It's not "my thesis." Again, it's just what happened.

In fact, shortly after the league's management and union concluded a collective bargaining agreement in March 2006, the owners began to consider the possibility of a lockout. Both sides took a step closer to that when the NFL Players' Association decertified Friday after extended talks. Why, the owners began to wonder five years ago, did they agree to a deal that gave the players nearly 60 percent of the league's income?

Although both sides prospered under the arrangement, the owners were not happy with it from the beginning. They believe their investments in their teams entitle them to greater profits, and a number of them have borrowed huge sums to build new stadiums. They watched as NHL owners used a lockout of the 2004-05 hockey season to impose a hard salary cap on players who pledged to fight any cap, so they know it can work.

The word "lockout" became a popular term among owners. According to witness testimony and documents filed in recent litigation over NFL television contracts, a lockout was on the agenda of all NFL owners' meetings in 2007 and early 2008. The NFL demanded that documents and testimony from Goodell and others in that litigation be kept under seal and away from public view, but excerpts and fragments were described in public documents filed last week in federal court in Minneapolis.

In your view, they burned five years worth of money because...why, exactly? You think they all knew it was a bad deal but signed it anyway? Why in the f**k would they do that?

Because if they hadn't signed it, what's going on now would have happened in 2006 and they weren't ready for it.

Internal NFL documents and testimony from Goodell two months ago show that the owners knew early in 2008 that "in order for them to get a new labor deal that works for them, they need to be able to sustain a lockout, which requires financing and requires proper planning." Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told his fellow owners that they "needed to realistically assume they were locking out in 2011" to obtain a CBA that "worked for them."

As for your whole I-always-think-Mikey-is-stupid rant, again, where did I say anything like that? Haven't I spent the last few posts agreeing that, from the owners' point of view, the '06 deal was a bad one? Isn't that what Brown said? Sheesh.

[TJJackson]

Mike-Brown-is-always-the-stupid

Clarification

In matters related to football, absolutely true

In matters related to lining his pockets with money and/or preventing said lining from being removed, he is as smart as they come

not everything Mike Brown does is s**t. And voting against the 2006 deal, which he and Ralph were given a lot of criticism for, was most certainly something it was later determined was the right position to take. And most certainly he and Wilson were on an island on that.

The vote in question is categorized under the 'lining his pockets' part

Allow me to add that I only care about the football part, and so for me, yes, pretty much everything he does is sh!t.

[ArmyBengal]

I'm more than willing to give credit where credit is due, but also take a large sh*t where appropriate as well.

Mike Brown has his fair share of both. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground with him.

While he may have been right (and he was) back in 2006, I simply didn't care and I don't care if he's one of the few that object to the way things are progressing now. As a fan, I simply want to watch football and hopefully see my team win a championship. When it comes to Mike Brown, I don't think his knowledge, or lack thereof, will make a difference in what I as a fan wants.

I made the comment earlier that there can be a handful of owners that don't like what is going on with how things are progressing, because if 75% of the owners like, a new deal will get done. So right or wrong, I just want football to return.

[HoosierCat]

While he may have been right (and he was) back in 2006, I simply didn't care and I don't care if he's one of the few that object to the way things are progressing now.

FWIW I expect that Brown will vote against this deal, too, because (per all reports so far) it will not address revenue-sharing, which has always been his main objection.

[ArmyBengal]

While he may have been right (and he was) back in 2006, I simply didn't care and I don't care if he's one of the few that object to the way things are progressing now.

FWIW I expect that Brown will vote against this deal, too, because (per all reports so far) it will not address revenue-sharing, which has always been his main objection.

And there's part of the disconnect between what the owners want and what the fans expect.

I don't think there's a fan out there that really cares how revenue sharing impacts their team.

I know I don't. After everything is said and done, the organization will go about doing things as they always do.

It won't affect things that directly impact me as a fan.

Seat prices ?? Can't afford them already.

Concession prices ?? See above and reason to tailgate if I could afford it.

Jersey prices ?? There's a really good sweatshop in China with spot on knockoffs that don't cost sh*t or line the pockets of Mike Brown.

Team might leave ?? Whatever, so long Mike Brown...