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

[AKM311]

Watching OTL and Vinny is on which is funny to begin with. But Bob Ley just asked if there would be any rouge teams that would allow players in to work out and stuff, and Chris Mortensen of course said the Redskins would be a candidate for that. Why?

Because we don't ever follow teams and Snyder always does whatever he wants.

Not implying that it's a bad thing.

---------- Post added April-26th-2011 at 06:26 PM ----------

Tris....I am not arguing with you, but I think your view point is very one-sided and very bias. I responded to one of your posts in the previous page.

I think you need to see both sides of this situation. Your making some bold statements as if you know exactly what transpired over the last two years.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Watching OTL and Vinny is on which is funny to begin with. But Bob Ley just asked if there would be any rouge teams that would allow players in to work out and stuff, and Chris Mortensen of course said the Redskins would be a candidate for that. Why?

Snyder.

[Wrong Direction]

That all sounds awful.

Which is why both sides really do want a CBA.

[The Tris]

That all sounds awful.

Then Goodell's scare tactic has worked.

I think you need to see both sides of this situation. Your making some bold statements as if you know exactly what transpired over the last two years.

Here is the owner's POV - the previous CBA was heavily favored towards the players, and/or unsustainable given the nature of today's NFL (with the primary argument being the massive debt services required for stadium construction [never mind the massive assist from local gvmts/tax payers]).

Fine, then they should have actively sought to negotiate a new CBA once they opted out in 2008. Instead, they actively prepared for a lockout (see: TV contracts), and avoided any negotiations until after the 2011 season (unless you can prove the owners sought to negotiate with the player before then).

To say they are innocent in bringing us to the point of litigation is ludicrous. That is my biggest issue - the response to yesterday's ruling shows just how unweilding the owners are in this process and what a puppet Roger Goodell is.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Then Goodell's scare tactic has worked.

The players union wouldn't want that either. That would be the death of the NFL as we know it.

[The Tris]

The players union wouldn't want that either. That would be the death of the NFL as we know it.

Of course they wouldn't - Goodell is suggesting in his oped that that is what they are actively seeking thought this litigation process - which is a bold faced lie.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Of course they wouldn't - Goodell is suggesting in his oped that that is what they are actively seeking thought this litigation process - which is a bold faced lie.

Goodell is a puppet for the owners.

I don't despise him in the way that most do, I just think the owners are a bunch of greedy, out of touch old men who apparently don't realize how much damage they're doing to the league.

[Wrong Direction]

Fine, then they should have actively sought to negotiate a new CBA once they opted out in 2008. Instead, they actively prepared for a lockout (see: TV contracts), and avoided any negotiations until after the 2011 season (unless you can prove the owners sought to negotiate with the player before then).

They both actively prepared for a lockout. The players position isn't a dumb one, it's a position that had been deliberated over extensively. I'm not taking sides at all, but master-labor negotiations are almost always about one side wanting a better deal. Otherwise there would never be any labor strife. Just wanting a better deal doesn't make the owners wrong.

I do think D Smith is so far winning the day. It's early though. The owners know that players will feel a lot of heat in August. Their strategy almost certainly includes taking game checks to try to break the union. The question is whether D Smith can maintain his ranks under this pressure.

Unfortunately, this thing is far from over, IMO. The legal maneuverings are really fascinating at this point because not all outcomes of the NFL losing are good at all for the players union. Even a loss might get players to the table to protect some of the rules they've previously fought for.

[The Tris]

I consider there to be a difference between the perparations made by one side, and the reactions made by another.

If you set something in motion, I have a hard time symphasizing with you complaining about the results of your actions.

[Wrong Direction]

I consider there to be a difference between the perparations made by one side, and the reactions made by another.

If you set something in motion, I have a hard time symphasizing with you complaining about the results of your actions.

What if you set it into motion because three franchises can't compete under the current rules (Minnesota, Jacksonville and Buffalo) and others (Cincinnati) have debatable ability to compete.

It's not as simple as "you started it."

[btfoom]

What if you set it into motion because three franchises can't compete under the current rules (Minnesota, Jacksonville and Buffalo) and others (Cincinnati) have debatable ability to compete.

It's not as simple as "you started it."

Exactly, both sides in this are almost equally to blame. The owners set up deals to cover them, expecting a lockout and the players didn't feel the need to talk, either, as they know they are in pro-player (union) courts.

Here's the bottom line, the NFL (and other sports leagues) are NOT the same as a regular business. Having bad teams in certain cities is bad for the whole league, not just those cities. The reason the NFL is so far ahead of MLB, NBA, and NHL is that they really try to provide a league where every team has a legit shot to compete, maybe not year to year, but at least they can have a 2-3 year plan where they can legitimately go from 4-12 to 12-4. That is why people go/watch the games and the league gets stronger.

It is much easier to side with the players, as they are the ones you see every week, competing for 'your' team. In the end, they are every bit as 'greedy' as the owners and want as much for themselves as the owners do, so keep that in mind. There are no saints in this debacle.

[Wrong Direction]

There are no saints in this debacle.

Nope. Just millionaires and billionaires fighting for as much as they can get. I don't blame either side, it's just the way it works.

The only thing I'd like to see come out of this is enough support, be it through a stadium fund or revenue sharing, to make sure Minnesota and Buffalo are somewhat protected. I don't care about Jacksonville. They might as well move to L.A. as far as I'm concerned. Florida just doesn't support major sports teams, and a new stadium really won't help them change that calculus.

[The Tris]

What if you set it into motion because three franchises can't compete under the current rules (Minnesota, Jacksonville and Buffalo) and others (Cincinnati) have debatable ability to compete.

It's not as simple as "you started it."

Says you.

Until they release financials, you are simply basing those statements on assumptions.

And let's not pretend that those teams have had strong or responsible ownership.

---------- Post added April-26th-2011 at 03:23 PM ----------

Nope. Just millionaires and billionaires fighting for as much as they can get. I don't blame either side, it's just the way it works.

Except 90% of the people locked out are not multimillionares.

[AKM311]

Here is the owner's POV - the previous CBA was heavily favored towards the players, and/or unsustainable given the nature of today's NFL (with the primary argument being the massive debt services required for stadium construction [never mind the massive assist from local gvmts/tax payers]).

Fine, then they should have actively sought to negotiate a new CBA once they opted out in 2008. Instead, they actively prepared for a lockout (see: TV contracts), and avoided any negotiations until after the 2011 season (unless you can prove the owners sought to negotiate with the player before then).

To say they are innocent in bringing us to the point of litigation is ludicrous. That is my biggest issue - the response to yesterday's ruling shows just how unweilding the owners are in this process and what a puppet Roger Goodell is.

First off, the players filed the lawsuit. They didn't have to, but they did. The NFL has stated they would have extended the calendar year until a CBA was reached.

The players didn't even review the NFL latest offer and just decertified?

Speaking about decertification...Do you believe it is a sham? I do! They know, everyone knows it. It is straight for litigation. De Smith is known by everyone to negotiate through litigation. This was his goal from the beginning. I am not going to negotiate with someone when I know they have no real intention to come to an agreement outside of court.

I don't really need to discuss further, because I am not trying to convince you. I just think both sides are at fault here. Big time fault here. However, just reading your posts makes me believe this is alllll on the owners. That's what I don't agree with. But in the end, we are just opinions with no bearing on the outcome.

[88Comrade2000]

Nope. Just millionaires and billionaires fighting for as much as they can get. I don't blame either side, it's just the way it works.

The only thing I'd like to see come out of this is enough support, be it through a stadium fund or revenue sharing, to make sure Minnesota and Buffalo are somewhat protected. I don't care about Jacksonville. They might as well move to L.A. as far as I'm concerned. Florida just doesn't support major sports teams, and a new stadium really won't help them change that calculus.

No, noone deserves protection. Minny is free to leave after 2011 and they probably will.

[Wrong Direction]

No, noone deserves protection. Minny is free to leave after 2011 and they probably will.

I understand the sentiment, but that sure stinks for people who have been fan since Anthony Carter, or even the purple people eaters.

State budgets aren't what they were in the 90's. Those teams that didn't get new stadiums are now at a distinct disadvantage as opposed to the teams that did.

[The_Godfather]

Nope. Just millionaires and billionaires fighting for as much as they can get. I don't blame either side, it's just the way it works.

Last time I checked, there's a lot of players in the NFL that aren't members of the millionaire or billionaire clubs.

[Wrong Direction]

Last time I checked, there's a lot of players in the NFL that aren't members of the millionaire or billionaire clubs.

Yeah, they're all poor unfortunate orphans.

[The Evil Genius]

Last time I checked, there's a lot of players in the NFL that aren't members of the millionaire or billionaire clubs.

Minimum player salary is almost 10x the median HOUSEHOLD income in the U.S.

Hard to feel sorry for either the players or the owners.

[The Tris]

Yeah, they're all poor unfortunate orphans.

I guess you have no tears for all the ancillary NFL employees then?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I guess you have no tears for all the ancillary NFL employees then?

I'm sure everyone does...but they aren't players in this feud, they are just impacted by it. The labor situation doesn't include stadium workers or team secretaries, it is players vs. owners. Therefore, WD is correct that it's a rich group of men vs. a richer group of men. Even if the label "millionaires" isn't completely accurate, it's still rich vs. richer.

[Wrong Direction]

I guess you have no tears for all the ancillary NFL employees then?

Of course I do, but life happens and most people don't have guarantees. Besides, if the players are so concerned about the ancillary employees, maybe they'll step up and give more back and save the people in cities that might not even have teams in a few years.

See? Two can play that game.

I really am not taking sides at all. I don't think most of us have clue about the underlying law, precedents or even the underlying labor deal at issue. I just don't think it's as simple as "the owners are bad because they want a better deal." Maybe the current deal is unsustainable for the league over the long run? Who knows? All I do know is, like it or not, they have the right to go through all of these legal machinations in order to get the best deal they can. The players have the right to fight them every step of the way. The fans have the right to vote with their wallet. This is the system, and we're fans of the product that system has created up to this point.

I hope you're not an NBA fan. Rumors are that their labor situation will make the NFL look like an episode of the Brady Bunch.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I hope you're not an NBA fan. Rumors are that their labor situation will make the NFL look like an episode of the Brady Bunch.

I heard that somewhere. Luckily, I hate basketball so to me it just means less shows bumped to play that stupid game. I think I heard MLB is approaching a similar situation again also.

[Wrong Direction]

I heard that somewhere. Luckily, I hate basketball so to me it just means less shows bumped to play that stupid game. I think I heard MLB is approaching a similar situation again also.

I think the NBA has legit profitability issues across a lot of teams. Owners want to take money from the players.

MLB has inter-owner issues, I think, because of the financial imbalance between NY/Bos and the rest of the league. I think they actually have a decent relationship with players now, but you never know. Their agreement is coming up soon too.

[Pedro]

State budgets aren't what they were in the 90's. Those teams that didn't get new stadiums are now at a distinct disadvantage as opposed to the teams that did.

The NFL are on course to have to divulge all their accounts, IMO this will be the major block against stadium subsidies going forward. Got to wonder what they want kept hidden?