skinpride1 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 The Nfl is probably upset with the way Synder has thrown money at coaches!!I seen a link on another site saying that this will be looked into by the Nfl!!I think it was in the washington post,can't find it now.Anyway, I think the nfl should not put a cap on the coaches!!!!I'm sorry if other Teams don't put the effort out like we do and they get awarded for being lazy,go figure!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 The Nfl is probably upset with the way Synder has thrown money at coaches!!I seen a link on another site saying that this will be looked into by the Nfl!!I think it was in the washington post,can't find it now.Anyway, I think the nfl should not put a cap on the coaches!!!!I'm sorry if other Teams don't put the effort out like we do and they get awarded for being lazy,go figure!!!! You CANNOT put a cap on coaches because coaches and the owners do not have a CBA, nor is there any coaches union To do so would consititute a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. Coaches are not "labor" they are part of management, therefore there will not be a cap on coaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 You CANNOT put a cap on coaches because coaches and the owners do not have a CBA, nor is there any coaches unionTo do so would consititute a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. Coaches are not "labor" they are part of management, therefore there will not be a cap on coaches Well said, hadn't heard it explained that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 You CANNOT put a cap on coaches because coaches and the owners do not have a CBA, nor is there any coaches unionTo do so would consititute a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. Coaches are not "labor" they are part of management, therefore there will not be a cap on coaches This is good to know, because we clearly have an advantage over most teams because of Snyders willingness to field the best possible team. He's made many errors in his years as an owner, but he is finally starting to come around -- thanks to Joe Gibbs. He has realized that continuity is the answer, especially when you have the best coaches at their respective positions in the game. Great Job Joe, GW, and Dan --- lets keep it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Miami picked up Mularkey and Dom Capers...other teams are catching on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Where does it end? Will they cap how much the concession workers make? Will they budget every team's expense structure? Not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 You CANNOT put a cap on coaches because coaches and the owners do not have a CBA, nor is there any coaches unionTo do so would consititute a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. Coaches are not "labor" they are part of management, therefore there will not be a cap on coaches So you are saying the nfl can't set the wages on it's coaches?hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 So you are saying the nfl can't set the wages on it's coaches?hmmm That is exactly what I am saying Unless the coaches form a union, and negotaite a CBA with the owners, then no the NFL cannot put any cap on coaches salaries because that would be collusion and in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1916 However, the coaches will never form a union because they are part of "management" So thusly you would never have this situation occur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 That is exactly what I am sayingUnless the coaches form a union, and negotaite a CBA with the owners, then no the NFL cannot put any cap on coaches salaries because that would be collusion and in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1916 However, the coaches will never form a union because they are part of "management" So thusly you would never have this situation occur. That is good to know !!So the nfl can talk about it all they want, it just isn't going to happen unless a coaches union is formed!!! :peaceout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 The Nfl is probably upset with the way Synder has thrown money at coaches!!I seen a link on another site saying that this will be looked into by the Nfl!! Probably another fan site whose team doesnt have an owner willing to spend the dough on coaches. Oh wait, thats ALL OF THEM. SHF, nice use of "thusly" and an excellent explanation. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Well done SHF. Other comments and a couple of paragraphs from the stories hwere this other board may have gotten this from here as well. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 SHF, nice use of "thusly" and an excellent explanation. :applause: Thusly, therefore, and however are some of my favorite words We may need to stick an explantion on this concept as well as why Sinorice Moss sucks, just so we can stop the repetitive threads about drafting Sinroice, or a salary cap on coaching staffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 That is exactly what I am sayingUnless the coaches form a union, and negotaite a CBA with the owners, then no the NFL cannot put any cap on coaches salaries because that would be collusion and in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1916 However, the coaches will never form a union because they are part of "management" So thusly you would never have this situation occur OWN3D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txkid Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 There will never be a cap with no CBA for a particular group. The Seahawks know this and spend a fortune for their front office. Snyder is just trying to do the same for the coaching staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 OWN3D Whats that say I can't read leet. You hackers and your crazy internet babble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SittingBull Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Definitely wont have an effect on how much we pay our coaches but might have an effect on revenue sharing. Just more ammo for the cheap/non-motivated owners to use to line their pockets with our franchises money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Moss Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 No need for a cap on coaching salaries. It’s ridiculous when you contrast it to what the players make OR what coaches in other sports make. And revenue sharing is overrated. Only 4 major markets have been in the Super Bowl in 20 years—5 if you want to count Pittsburg, which is really NOT a major market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'm not trying to dish what "Skinshokiefan" is saying.I think he is telling the truth!!I would like to know if anyone can find some kind of link to the "Sherman act laws" and if they really would apply to the Nfl?I just want to make sure the Nfl isn't going to "chalk" another one up against the Skins that's all!!!I read another post here wondering the same as I and I'm still not sure if there can't be a cap put on the coaches,just need some real evidence thats all!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'm not trying to dish what "Skinshokiefan" is saying.I think he is telling the truth!!I would like to know if anyone can find some kind of link to the "Sherman act laws" and if they really would apply to the Nfl?I just want to make sure the Nfl isn't going to "chalk" another one up against the Skins that's all!!!I read another post here wondering the same as I and I'm still not sure if there can't be a cap put on the coaches,just need some real evidence thats all!!! The only sport that is exempt from the Sherman Act is Major League Baseball. There is some good info in this link. http://www.thesportjournal.org/2005Journal/Vol8-No1/SCJ_04_antitrust.asp Impact of Antitrust Law on Professional Football Much like the NBA, the National Football League (NFL) has been sued numerous times for antitrust violations by a number of different fronts. Also like the NBA, the greatest volume of antitrust disputes has arisen from lawsuits brought by individual and association of players. In one of its earliest challenges, the NFL was sued in 1950 after a former NFL player, William Radovich, who was trying to return to the league, was denied entrance on the basis of disloyalty. Radovich spent two years playing in a rival football league American Football League (AFL) and when he attempted to return to the NFL he was suspended for 5 years. He alleged that his suspension was in violation of antitrust laws. The court dismissed Radovich’s claims on the grounds of baseball’s exemption from antitrust violations (Radovich v. National Football League, 1956). In a landmark case involving NFL players and the league, Antony Brown and eight other developmental squad players brought a class action suit against the NFL. The plaintiffs alleged that the NFL engaged in price-fixing in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The District Court awarded the players trebled damages but the lower Court’s decision was later reversed by the Appellate and Supreme Courts. The Supreme Court concluded the following: “an alleged restraint on competition imposed through the collective bargaining process affects only the bargaining parties, and has no impact on the product market, the non-statutory labor exemption shields those parties from antitrust liability” ("Brown v. Pro Football, Inc." 1996). In a lawsuit involving a competitor league the AFL sued the NFL for violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. The AFL alleged that the NFL had established a market monopoly. The Court ruled in favor of the NFL on the basis of insufficient evidence of the NFL’s intent to monopolize (American Football League v. National Football League, 1963). In 1984 the United States Football League (USFL) brought suit against the NFL for antitrust violations. The USFL alleged that the NFL pressured major television networks not to firm an agreement with them. The jury ruled in favor of the USFL holding that the NFL had unlawfully monopolized major league professional football. The jury rejected all other USFL claims and awarded the plaintiffs 3 dollars in trebled damages (Cozzillio & Levinstein, 1997). Because the NFL has a 75-mile radius home territory restriction on franchise teams as well as a requirement for unanimous voting by team owners on franchise relocation, the league has suffered continuous antitrust litigation by NFL team owners attempting to relocate their teams. For instance, in 1978 the Los Angeles Rams decided to relocate from the Coliseum to a new stadium, the "Big A," in Anaheim, California. The NFL and its members did not approve the relocation and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission filed suit against the NFL for unlawful restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. After a first mistrial the jury in the second trial ruled in favor of the Coliseum and awarded the plaintiffs $50 million dollars in damages ("Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 1984). Furthermore, Oram (2000) suggested that the subsequent relocation of the Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis in 1985 and the Jets relocation from New York to New Jersey in 1986 without NFL opposition would not have been possible if not for the favorable Los Angeles Coliseum ruling (Oram, 2000). For the past few years the NFL has repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to gain exemption from antitrust violations on relocation restrictions by asking Congress for exemption (Cozzillio & Levinstein, 1997). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Snyder should be allowed to pay his employees whatever he wants. It's his business. If he wants to pay his janitors more than most guys pay their CEOs, thats his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Thanks!!! Hof44, that is some good stuff and great link!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 You CANNOT put a cap on coaches because coaches and the owners do not have a CBA, nor is there any coaches unionTo do so would consititute a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. Coaches are not "labor" they are part of management, therefore there will not be a cap on coaches As long it is not called a cap the NFL could pass some rules to make it harder to pay a lot for coaches. You can creatively make it where management is not paid what they should be, happens in any business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 nfl is in it to make money, dont forget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.