Lockout Watch: 4/29: Stay of injunction granted, LOCKOUT REINSTATED

[pimpumd]

The owners negotiated TV contracts at a lower price than market value to ensure payment in the case of a lockout. There is your fact. And Judge Doty is about to rule on the amount of damages ("treble" is the word your searching for here) the NFL will have to pay the players. So I've provided you with a fact and you've provided me with an opinion. Point to me.

Actually, no point for you...at least not yet. Even when find out what Judge Doty determines the damages to be in the television contract matter, you can most certainly expect that ruling to be appealed just as the antitrust litigation has been. That suit is far from over, just like the antitrust suit.

Look, there is no union if it's members say there isn't a union. That's legal. You might not like it but so what? Your opinion has nothing to do with reality. I think that most fans that support the owners in this mess are missing a glaring fact, that the owners don't want football to be played this season. Why else would they opt out of the CBA and then negotiate the TV contracts the way they did? The owners want to break the resolve of the players to force them to take a bad, one-sided deal. That means no 2011 season.

You saying there is no union because the players decertified does not make it fact, or legal. That is what the antitrust appeal is all about--and from the wording used in the 8th Circuit's ruling to extend the stay, it sounds like they're inclined to take the position that the players' decertification was, in fact, a sham. If that's the case, the NLRB has jurisdiction and the District Court (Judge Nelson) did not have the jurisdiction to enjoin the lockout. The way I look at it--if the Union decertified simply to get into Court on antitrust issues (which is otherwise precluded when the Union exists due to the collectively bargained agreement) and, after reaching a new agreement with the owners at some point in the future intends to re-certify, doesn't that seem like a sham decertification to you? The players want Union representation when it its beneficial to them, yet they disclaim the representation when its to their detriment. Hmmm....that seems like a sham to me. We'll see how that plays out.

The owners sued to NOT play football. Now if you can extricate your brain from all that cognitive dissonance maybe you can explain how this is the players fault again?

This is the biggest load of bull****. You should be ashamed for repeating this utterly false "sound bite" from D. Smith's interview yesterday. The Owners did not sue anyone. The players decertified their own union specifically so that THEY could sue the owners in an antitrust case. The only thing the owners did was appeal Judge Nelson's opinion. Appealing a suit in which you are the named Defendant does not constitute "suing" in any way, shape or form. I am an attorney, but I feel confident in saying that anyone should be able to tell the difference between one party appealing a case, in which it was the named Defendant, and the other party making strategic maneuvers in order to file a lawsuit as the Plaintiff.

[RawBBQSauce]

This is the biggest load of bull****. You should be ashamed for repeating this utterly false "sound bite" from D. Smith's interview yesterday. The Owners did not sue anyone. The players decertified their own union specifically so that THEY could sue the owners in an antitrust case. The only thing the owners did was appeal Judge Nelson's opinion. Appealing a suit in which you are the named Defendant does not constitute "suing" in any way, shape or form. I am an attorney, but I feel confident in saying that anyone should be able to tell the difference between one party appealing a case, in which it was the named Defendant, and the other party making strategic maneuvers in order to file a lawsuit as the Plaintiff.

^This. DeMaurice Smith is just trying to pull the heart strings of the fans. Both sides are evil in their own right.

[pimpumd]

Edited to include content in post #351.

[MartinC]

The owners sued to NOT play football. Now if you can extricate your brain from all that cognitive dissonance maybe you can explain how this is the players fault again

You just lost all credibility right here. The players are the party who sued and took this to Court and that is a fact. It might have been the players best shot at getting the best deal they could but it was a gamble because if they lose it gives all the leverage tonthe owners. Smith rolled the dice and it looks like he crapped out.

[Mark The Homer]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?347466-WP-Appeals-court-time-may-be-on-NFL%92s-side-in-labor-dispute-with-players&p=8305834#post8305834

[AKM311]

Does the NFL or owners get a share of the players endoresement deals?

This is a real question I am wondering.

[A Walton]

I actually don't. Because if everyone had to pick from less talented players, we would all still root for the Redskins. I honestly believe that the NFL is the one sport where it is less about the players than the team.

Respectfully disagree. The product becomes watered down. The chance of a better product elsewhere rises.

If what you propose were to come true, the NFL would die.

[AKM311]

Respectfully disagree. The product becomes watered down. The chance of a better product elsewhere rises.

If what you propose were to come true, the NFL would die.

I think the NFL can last 3 years without the top talent and by that time, new talent will have been developed from college.

All I know is if you took this entire Skins roster and put them on the Virginia Destroyers (I think thats the name), I am still watching a watered down skins roster for three years than the Virginia Destroyers.

But that is just me and we will just agree to disagree.

[A Walton]

I think the NFL can last 3 years without the top talent and by that time, new talent will have been developed from college.

All I know is if you took this entire Skins roster and put them on the Virginia Destroyers (I think thats the name), I am still watching a watered down skins roster for three years than the Virginia Destroyers.

But that is just me and we will just agree to disagree.

3 years.......you are right we will agree to disagree. How many season tix are going to get sold? Merchandise sales? TV ratings? Stadium revenues? Hell even fantasy football would be on shaky ground. I am just not buying that the XFL with NFL colors works.

[jflow78]

The owners negotiated TV contracts at a lower price than market value to ensure payment in the case of a lockout. There is your fact. And Judge Doty is about to rule on the amount of damages ("treble" is the word your searching for here) the NFL will have to pay the players. So I've provided you with a fact and you've provided me with an opinion. Point to me.

Look, there is no union if it's members say there isn't a union. That's legal. You might not like it but so what? Your opinion has nothing to do with reality. I think that most fans that support the owners in this mess are missing a glaring fact, that the owners don't want football to be played this season. Why else would they opt out of the CBA and then negotiate the TV contracts the way they did? The owners want to break the resolve of the players to force them to take a bad, one-sided deal. That means no 2011 season.

The owners sued to NOT play football. Now if you can extricate your brain from all that cognitive dissonance maybe you can explain how this is the players fault again?

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 12:28 AM ----------

That is not a fact. That's your opinion.

No it doesn't. The last CBA gave the players 60% of the TV contract money. That money pays their salaries. As stated in my earlier post, Judge Doty is about to rule to give the players triple damages because the owners did not live up to their legal obligation to negotiate in good fauith to maximize TV revenues for their partners, the players. I don't understand how this fact is lost on so many of you?

So, you think the owners getting some insurance in case the players decided to decertify and take this to court (which makes EVERYTHING take longer) means that the owners didn't want football? Do you have insurance on your home? If so, when do you plan on setting it on fire because you don't want a house? Your logic is completely flawed. The owners made the contracts as a way to get leverage in a labor issue, the same way the players decertified (BTW which they were planning no doing for over a year and obviously when the owners found out about it, they tried to take out some, in case this takes too long, insurance).

Here's your fact, the players walked away from the bargaining table first, the players took this to court first, the players are the ones attacking football and the way professional sports are run, and the players are just as guilty as the owners for not getting a deal done. I've not once said that this is ALL the players fault, but you demonized the Owners so harshly that there's no credibility, or ground for your argument to stand on. You can't vilify one side and make the other seem like they're perfect.

As far as the union goes and who wants to play football, both sides ONLYL want to play football under the circumstances THEY decide, that's why they're in the situation they're in. If the players JUST wanted to play football, they could have accepted any of the deals the owners placed before them and they would be playing football right now. It's ignorant to think that the only thing stopping them is because the owners just one day said, "Hell, I want to take a year off, I suddenly hate football and I'm going to take it away from everyone just because I can". And having a union is the FASTEST way to get a new CBA because, until they recertify the union, they CAN'T get a CBA done. So, the players are the ones who have made it impossible to get a new CBA, since it requires a union for any kind of collective bargaining.

Don't kid yourself about decertification, you and I and everyone else knows the union is going to recertify, that's a fact, and if you don't believe that, then you can come and say your apologies when they do that exact thing in a month or two. If the player's carried out their lawsuit to the end, there would be NO professional football league. The NFL would be sued over and over by different parties, which is what we're seeing now, since they're only protected by that when there is a union, so the players are applying pressure to get the terms they want, that's all it is. If they never recertified the union, ANY player could sue for collusion and it could happen over and over until someone actually carried the lawsuit out, the players don't want that because it would ruin the salary minimum for the 80% of the players that only make the minimum, then you'd see players suing players and it would never end. They are going to recertify, they are only hurting themselves in the long run if they don't. Sure, in the short term it's good for getting the pressure they want, but if they don't, then sports leagues would collapse.

Also, there's only so many times you can decertify and recertify a union before everyone stops believing you, that's part of the player's problem, they've already done this before, not to mention, everyone knows that they aren't planning on carrying their lawsuit through, and their comments have pointed to as much.

Both sides are wrong in this and both sides need to grow up.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 years.......you are right we will agree to disagree. How many season tix are going to get sold? Merchandise sales? TV ratings? Stadium revenues? Hell even fantasy football would be on shaky ground. I am just not buying that the XFL with NFL colors works.

It's a short term issue. Eventually NFL rosters would be replenished with the best talent out there. They are the only league that can pay players what they'll want to make. So, even if the current crop of players all boycotted the NFL for the rest of their respective careers, it would take 3-5 years for the NFL to completely rebound. Hell, every 5 years we have a new list of superstars anyway. In 2006, it was Favre, LT, TO, etc. They are now out of the league (for a third time, hahaha), backups, or has-beens in 2011.

[Devastate]

That is not a fact. That's your opinion.

No it's fact, if you think other wise than you have an agenda, and a delusional one at that. Have the owners stalled at all? sure but to place it all on the owners is a display of narrowminded idiocy.

[JPCreativelab]

No it's fact, if you think other wise than you have an agenda, and a delusional one at that. Have the owners stalled at all? sure but to place it all on the owners is a display of narrowminded idiocy.

+1

[Unforgiven]

See, i just completely disagree with this. I am a manager for a fairly large construction company. Our carpenters are our "product" also. Without the carpenters, we can't operate. We could get rid of them, but some of them have skills that might not be easy to find elsewhere. I disagree with the point. I don't see how NFL players are anything more than employees. They claim to be partners, but a partnership is not "We feel like we are partners". You are, or you arent. If you are a partner you can not be fired, yet players can be cut whenever the owners want to. If the players are partners they share in every expense and every profit. They don't.

I don't buy the window or injury thing either. I raced motocross since i was 4 years old. I suffered several major injuries, including one crippling one. I've been in and out of knee surgery constantly since i was 18. I can't stand up for longer than an hour without severe pain, and its likely ill be in a wheelchair in my 30's. I had to quit because of my injuries just after i got my pro license. I made no millions, i made no thousands. But you know what? I did it because i liked doing it, and i wanted to make money playing a game. I knew the risks, and the possible consequences, and now i reap them. If you don't want to be crippled, don't try and make millions by playing a game, get a real job like everyone else.

Sorry if i come off douchey sounding Unforgiven, I'm not trying to be a dick. These players just drive me nuts when they use their injuries as an excuse for money and sympathy. They make millions of dollars playing football, money that really isnt deserved. It could be used much better on teachers, police officers, and military...and would probably be much more gratefully earned....but thats not the way things are....yet all we hear is pissing and moaning. We live in a capitalist country. Business is based on profit, and the government does not interfere. The owners don't feel like they are making enough money anymore for their troubles...so they are taking more. Don't like it? You have the right to find a new job, that's capitalism. You have the right to call the owner's liars and ask to see the books. They have the right to give you the finger and remind you not to let the door hit you in the ass.

We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

Though I'm not seeing how you're comparing carpenters to NFL players are being a product. What the carpenters build is their product, people don't pay to sit there and watch them build the house, they pay for physical product that is the end result of their labor. The product of the NFL is the game you watch play out each day, which is the players. There is memoribilia I suppose but the true product is watching them play.

I'll just leave the risk thing out, because logically if you generate so much profit for your company, the risk shouldn't even matter I suppose.

I think the problem people have is they get bit resentful toward players because they get paid an absurd amount to do something that really isn't even remotely as beneficial to society as people who are soldiers/teachers/firefighters/etc. People really need to let that go and stop using it as a reason to hate them and just realize they get paid that much because the work they do generates an absurd amount of profit.

On another note, I actually have a question that I don't have any clue as the answer to. When is the last time an NFL owner lost money or failed to generate a profit on his franchise?

I'm curious because people keep saying the owners tage a huge risk, but it always seems they never fail to make money hand over fist. If I find out that owners regularly lost money or have lost money in the past 20 years then I'll have to rethink my stance on this, but just from what I've read about the NFL most of the time, it doesn't seem like a big risk to own an NFL team. (Edit: I do realize some teams in bad markets like Jacksonville don't generate profit like the Redskins, but just asking the question in general)

[Darth Tater]

Partners truly care about the long-term sustainability of a business, that is the long-term business profitability of the business is their primary concern and are willing to sacrifice near-term personal profit for the long term profitability of the business endeavor. The consistent requests by the players PROVE that they are not partners but actually are short-term suppliers of an exclusive resource required by the business.

[A Walton]

I am trying to figure out if any of your guys would do it differently if you were in their shoes (ie players). They are fighting for their worth. I see no problems in that at all.

Maybe my viewpoint is a bit simplified but I see it as the owners want them to work more for less.

For me they just need to get to the ultimate compromise and be done with all the chest puffing. They both already know what they are willing to concede in this fight. They have both already have lost the PR battle for the fans so just man up and get this done.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I am trying to figure out if any of your guys would do it differently if you were in their shoes (ie players). They are fighting for their worth. I see no problems in that at all.

I doubt I would do it any differently, but that doesn't mean that my actions when put in that situation would be in the best interests of the sport or the fans. Everyone is entitled to try to get the best deal for themselves. Hell, I asked for a salary at my last job that was above market value so technically I'm guilty of that. But I wouldn't posture about it.

Maybe my viewpoint is a bit simplified but I see it as the owners want them to work more for less.

That's entirely possible, but that again doesn't mean it's wrong. What if, in peoples' opinions, the players make too much at this point? Should the owners never be able to try to make the split fair again just because they made a "bad" deal last time?

For me they just need to get to the ultimate compromise and be done with all the chest puffing. They both already know what they are willing to concede in this fight. They have both already have lost the PR battle for the fans so just man up and get this done.

I agree. I won't care who "won" this dispute 10 minutes after it's announced. I am a fan of the NFL and ultimately just care that they play games in 2011 and forever after that.

[AKM311]

I am trying to figure out if any of your guys would do it differently if you were in their shoes (ie players). They are fighting for their worth. I see no problems in that at all.

Maybe my viewpoint is a bit simplified but I see it as the owners want them to work more for less.

For me they just need to get to the ultimate compromise and be done with all the chest puffing. They both already know what they are willing to concede in this fight. They have both already have lost the PR battle for the fans so just man up and get this done.

Here is what I don't like. This thing could have been hammered out without the courts. They have enough smart men on there team to come to an agreement. But they chose this path. The last time they took the NFL to court, made sense. Back in the early 90s. Because they were under paid.

But to say players are under paid at this point is ridiculous. If players are getting $10M a year, they are nto underpaid. If minimum wage is 750k for vets and 400k for rookies, they are not under paid.

Do they have the right to get there fair share, absolutely. But its the way they are going about it, that I don't like. I really can't stand De Smith. I think with the latest ruling, both sides should be at the table and have an agreement in 2 weeks. But the players still won't go to the table with a real motive to get a deal done. They want the courts to do it. They are about to get smacked around in 3 weeks.

[Son of Gadsden]

We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

Though I'm not seeing how you're comparing carpenters to NFL players are being a product. What the carpenters build is their product, people don't pay to sit there and watch them build the house, they pay for physical product that is the end result of their labor. The product of the NFL is the game you watch play out each day, which is the players. There is memoribilia I suppose but the true product is watching them play.

That's a fair point. However, Carpenters create the goods that people want, therefore without carpenters there is no product. It works the same for almost everything. Because in my OPINION, the players point that "we are the product" is invalid.

I'll just leave the risk thing out, because logically if you generate so much profit for your company, the risk shouldn't even matter I suppose.

The risk always matters, no matter how much profit you take in. However, its normal to feel that way, because to us, a that much money just seems infinite....that's why we don't have it.

I think the problem people have is they get bit resentful toward players because they get paid an absurd amount to do something that really isn't even remotely as beneficial to society as people who are soldiers/teachers/firefighters/etc. People really need to let that go and stop using it as a reason to hate them and just realize they get paid that much because the work they do generates an absurd amount of profit.

True, the resentment exists a lot for that reason. However, the same resent is shown to the owners and on a much higher level. They are the evil corporate business owners with the cigars in their mouths laughing at the misfortune of the underclass and ripping us all off as often as possible. This is simply a stereotype and should be regarded as one. You don't get a ridiculously successful business from ripping people off, you make the newspaper for ripping people off. This stereotype is pushed by people such as our current president in order to create resentment towards the upper class so more taxes can be sucked out. (which actually end up coming from the lower class but now we are getting into politics, nvm) In short, the same can be said for the owners, so the two opinions offset.

On another note, I actually have a question that I don't have any clue as the answer to. When is the last time an NFL owner lost money or failed to generate a profit on his franchise?

I'm curious because people keep saying the owners tage a huge risk, but it always seems they never fail to make money hand over fist. If I find out that owners regularly lost money or have lost money in the past 20 years then I'll have to rethink my stance on this, but just from what I've read about the NFL most of the time, it doesn't seem like a big risk to own an NFL team. (Edit: I do realize some teams in bad markets like Jacksonville don't generate profit like the Redskins, but just asking the question in general)

That's something neither you or I have any idea of, therefore can not generate a real opinion of. Without the books, we have no idea. And the books are simply, none of our damn business. I doubt anyone is losing money and no owners are arguing that. They are not generating profits they want, and if they arent, they deserve a new deal. The last one was extremely onesided anyway, maybe its the players turn to be on the bad end.

[Pedro]

..... Without the books, we have no idea. And the books are simply, none of our damn business. I doubt anyone is losing money and no owners are arguing that. They are not generating profits they want, and if they arent, they deserve a new deal. The last one was extremely onesided anyway, maybe its the players turn to be on the bad end.

So they aren't losing money, just not making what 'they want' so they 'deserve' a new deal?

All they need do is show where the money goes and prove the previous deal was lopsided in favour of the players. Of course if showing all the financial information re: where the money ends up wouldn't show the previous deal was lopsided then it's worth fighting tooth and nail to not allow access.

Sports isn't like a normal business. Where you're born won't decide, for most people, their preferred choice of cola like it does the sports teams they support. If your choice of cola tasted nasty you wouldn't keep spending money on it for 10 years etc. How good a product an NFL franchise has doesn't have the same bearing on the viability of the business like in the real world. Heck you can play fantasy football with no clue and still make money, see: Redskins, Washington.

Given that hold I think the owners should show the evidence to back up their claims, and a new cba could and should be drawn up based on reality. When the new cba is due to run out at some point in the future the next one should be done in the same way. All the facts on the table and a deal done that is as fair to both sides as possible.

[Son of Gadsden]

So they aren't losing money, just not making what 'they want' so they 'deserve' a new deal?

All they need do is show where the money goes and prove the previous deal was lopsided in favour of the players. Of course if showing all the financial information re: where the money ends up wouldn't show the previous deal was lopsided then it's worth fighting tooth and nail to not allow access.

Sports isn't like a normal business. Where you're born won't decide, for most people, their preferred choice of cola like it does the sports teams they support. If your choice of cola tasted nasty you wouldn't keep spending money on it for 10 years etc. How good a product an NFL franchise has doesn't have the same bearing on the viability of the business like in the real world. Heck you can play fantasy football with no clue and still make money, see: Redskins, Washington.

Given that hold I think the owners should show the evidence to back up their claims, and a new cba could and should be drawn up based on reality. When the new cba is due to run out at some point in the future the next one should be done in the same way. All the facts on the table and a deal done that is as fair to both sides as possible.

The deal is lopsided, no one has denied that. The owners get 42% of revenue, the players get 58%. The players had a huge win in the last CBA, it was simply a bad deal. The players, of course, want to stay with the bad deal and their point is "You made a bad decision, live with it." In business, that is justified...you make bad decisions, you have to live with them. The owner's argument is they want to adjust prices according to increasing expenses. This is fact. What it costed 10 years ago to fly 53 guys across the country isnt the same as it costs today. Gas prices are up, medical prices are up, everything is up. However, we all know that is an excuse. The real reason is that the revenues are up and they want to get more of them than they are getting.

That is where the opinions come out. However, the bottom line is they are the owners and they can do whatever the hell they want with their money (and as the owners of the team it is, in fact, their money). And if the players refuse to take a paycut, they lose their jobs, which is happening right now. That's capitalism, and the 8th Circuit is now educating the players on it.

The owners owe nothing to the players. I simply just refuse to agree that sports are different than a normal business. I think sports are different than a normal business because the players want that to be so, but it is not. The players also think they are partners because they want to be, but that is also not so. The owners have absolutely no legal obligations to show their books, and if it was fair for them to show their books, the laws would force them to. The law leans towards the poor and working class whenever absolutely possible. And its honestly probably not about what the players see. The owners dont want to be compared to each other. There are tons of politics involved that are legit reasons as to why they dont want to show their books, and anyone who thinks it would be rational for them to do so simply doesnt know business.

However, don't get me wrong, im not defending the actions of either side. I agree with a previous poster, both sides are wrong and need to grow up. The players are no more mature or justified in their actions than the owners. Just to me the players are really making asses out of themselves, and i hate it. I liked the Saints alright before, now i cant wait to see them fail.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Anyone gona' be on top of this **** today?

Thanks in advance.

Hail.