B55Green Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Skip, fast forward, all works for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJL Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 if a coach got pissed off about this and quit could the owners hire a new coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRookie Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 if a coach got pissed off about this and quit could the owners hire a new coach? I would think so. The beef is between the NFL and the NFLPA (players association). The coaches haven't been affected by the lockout and appear to be caught somewhere in the middle. The only affected transactions are those involving players the way I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 if a coach got pissed off about this and quit could the owners hire a new coach? The only coaches good enough to get away with this (aka still find a good job with another team afterwords) are too invested in their current team to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 The only coaches good enough to get away with this (aka still find a good job with another team afterwords) are too invested in their current team to do that. Yeah, NFL coaching jobs are like hitting the lottery. They just don't come around often, so I don't see anyone attacking the guy that hired them. Usually (as we saw with Zorn) the coach will put up with a lot of **** before he does anything to end his employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Yeah, NFL coaching jobs are like hitting the lottery. They just don't come around often, so I don't see anyone attacking the guy that hired them. Usually (as we saw with Zorn) the coach will put up with a lot of **** before he does anything to end his employment. Exactly. And there's a good chance that anyone quitting over the lockout would be black-listed by the owners, and out of work. The UFL is always hiring, I'm sure. And like I said, the coaches good enough to get another job anyways are too invested in their current teams/situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 @JimIrsay Jim Irsay About a third of NFL Owners n town,the sentiment is let's get out of the courts n get2 collective bargaining n get this thing solved to 2019 AdamSchefter Adam Schefter Rulings on expedited appeals typically come 30-45 days after, so it looks like we'll be into July before sides get legal ruling they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 But that's not the ruling that the FANS are waiting on. When is the ruling for the "stay" supposed to take place? Still this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan1523 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I guess while all this is going on there will no negotiating on the CBA.... I hate this political crap. This whole situation is just so infuriating. If they could get that done, then none of this court stuff would even matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 From what I'm reading in Schefter tweets - FAN important date is 6/3 for hearings but could be 30-45 days after that on decision AdamSchefter Adam Schefter Rulings on expedited appeals typically come 30-45 days after, so it looks like we'll be into July before sides get legal ruling they want. AdamSchefter Adam Schefter Circle June 3 on your calendear. 8th circuit has granted owners' request for expedited appeal, and it will be heard that day in St. Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 From what I'm reading in Schefter tweets - FAN important date is 6/3 for hearings but could be 30-45 days after that on decisionAdamSchefter Adam Schefter Rulings on expedited appeals typically come 30-45 days after, so it looks like we'll be into July before sides get legal ruling they want. AdamSchefter Adam Schefter Circle June 3 on your calendear. 8th circuit has granted owners' request for expedited appeal, and it will be heard that day in St. Louis Okay, but none of this has to do with the ruling that the fans are really waiting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Okay, but none of this has to do with the ruling that the fans are really waiting on. You talking about FA and lockout lift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 You talking about FA and lockout lift? Yes. There should be a ruling some time this week on the stay. That was only a "temporary stay" that was given to the owners, so that the court had more time to deliberate and decide if the injunction should be granted to the players or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Honestly, I wouldn't want a FA with rules from 2010 as speculated. The market would be 10x worse than last year with a bunch 30 year olds and no opportunity to fill needs. I'd rather them get this whole stinkin' thing resolved and move on with a legitimate off-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 How is almost a month from now "expedited?" :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel25 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Can somebody explain to me exactly what's goin on? Is the lockout the owners' choice? Could they decide to lift it on their own? Could individual owners decide to allow their teams to practice? I understand nobody can sign free agents. Even if they haven't came to an agreement, why not allow the coaches to communicate with players? My assumption is they don't want players to get hurt doing any team activity, but what about going over film or studying playbooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted May 5, 2011 Author Share Posted May 5, 2011 How is almost a month from now "expedited?" :doh: When it's taken 4 YEARS for Sean Taylor's murderers to come to trial, you're complaining about a month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 How is almost a month from now "expedited?" :doh: obviously you're note familair with the court system. maybe thats a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrecker Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Yes. There should be a ruling some time this week on the stay. That was only a "temporary stay" that was given to the owners, so that the court had more time to deliberate and decide if the injunction should be granted to the players or not. It looks now that it could be an "indefinite temporary stay". The judges are saying that they may choose just not to rule on it. WTF? http://arizonacardinals.thefootballfanshop.info/arizona-cardinals-news/nfl-lockout-8th-circuit-court-of-appeals-may-not-rule-on-stay/ A ruling in the NFL appeal of the injunction that was put into place by Judge Nelson to end the lockout was expected either Wednesday or today. Over the course of the day Tuesday, most were expecting the ruling to come down. The NFLPA* (not technically a union) in the morning was bracing itself for a full stay, meaning the lockout would continue being in effect. However, the ruling never came then there were other rumors going on. The Clerk of the Court came out and stated that, rather than rule to keep the stay in place until the court date on June 3 when the case will be heard, that the court may simply not make a ruling, which would mean the same thing as if they had ruled to stay it. If this is the case, the court is simply dropping the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 44 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 It looks now that it could be an "indefinite temporary stay".The judges are saying that they may choose just not to rule on it. WTF? http://arizonacardinals.thefootballfanshop.info/arizona-cardinals-news/nfl-lockout-8th-circuit-court-of-appeals-may-not-rule-on-stay/ A ruling in the NFL appeal of the injunction that was put into place by Judge Nelson to end the lockout was expected either Wednesday or today. Over the course of the day Tuesday, most were expecting the ruling to come down. The NFLPA* (not technically a union) in the morning was bracing itself for a full stay, meaning the lockout would continue being in effect. However, the ruling never came then there were other rumors going on. The Clerk of the Court came out and stated that, rather than rule to keep the stay in place until the court date on June 3 when the case will be heard, that the court may simply not make a ruling, which would mean the same thing as if they had ruled to stay it. If this is the case, the court is simply dropping the ball. Can you imagine the money being spent on all this just to have the court come out and say that they are going to just kick this can on down the road for someone else to rule on. Only people happy right now are the lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 When it's taken 4 YEARS for Sean Taylor's murderers to come to trial, you're complaining about a month? Well, that's true .. those scumbags should have been tried by now. But that's a murder trial, and I know those things are dragged on forever (shouldn't be) because of endless admissibility arguments over evidence . But a month for a case that could be heard by TOMORROW seems pretty excessive, considering that training camps are just weeks away. It's not like they haven't been talking this out since the season ended in February. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentskin Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 This is frustrating to me also. I really dont understand why they would not allow teams to trade players under contract before/durring the draft. Nothing that happens with the CBA is going to effect current contracts. It is also puzzling to me how anybody can argue that this is not doing permanent harm to the players AND the teams. If this drags on and cuts into OTA's, training camp and or the preseason the product on the field ie player performance will suffer and that means less money for FAs in 2012 and less revenue for teams in ticket and merchandise sales. I would like to see the 8 District Court lift the stay and the NFL put the 2010 rules in place so they can get back to work, sign FA and trades. Every FA w/ 6 yrs or more will find the best deal and sign. If you are a 4-5 yr guy then you may have to decide to negotiate w/ your current team for a long term deal, sign a 1yr tender or wait for a new CBA in hopes that the UFA rules go to 4 or 5 yrs. I would bet though that if they put the 2010 rules in place they will stay for 2011 and any new CBA rules would go into effect starting March 2012. I would be happy with that. Put 2010 rules in place now, get back to negotiating on May 16 as agreed and wrap this thing up by June so we (players, owners and fans) can concentrate on some NFL football. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgeh Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 It looks now that it could be an "indefinite temporary stay".The judges are saying that they may choose just not to rule on it. WTF? http://arizonacardinals.thefootballfanshop.info/arizona-cardinals-news/nfl-lockout-8th-circuit-court-of-appeals-may-not-rule-on-stay/ A ruling in the NFL appeal of the injunction that was put into place by Judge Nelson to end the lockout was expected either Wednesday or today. Over the course of the day Tuesday, most were expecting the ruling to come down. The NFLPA* (not technically a union) in the morning was bracing itself for a full stay, meaning the lockout would continue being in effect. However, the ruling never came then there were other rumors going on. The Clerk of the Court came out and stated that, rather than rule to keep the stay in place until the court date on June 3 when the case will be heard, that the court may simply not make a ruling, which would mean the same thing as if they had ruled to stay it. If this is the case, the court is simply dropping the ball. This is getting increasingly confusing (and frustrating). Nelson lifts the lockout and gives a lengthy report as to her reasons. By declining to make a ruling the appeals judges would turn (*edit*) their temporary stay into a more permanent one without having to say why they were doing so. If they really didn't want to make a ruling, why not let the original decision stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.