tr1 Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 You and MrSilverMac are really out to lunch on this, aren't you? Even he admitted in a previous post that he doesn't know what the offers presented by the owners said, yet you guys keep carrying on like you have a clue when you're both ignorant as hell on this topic. You should either just stop, or use your keyboards to look up what was offered before using them to type uniformed posts. What we do know is that the owners bargained a TV contract that had contingencies for an anticipated lock out. That's pretty much bargaining in bad faith. The owners have dictated this disruption in the NFL...for anyone to say otherwise is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I don't care whose fault it is, who's wrong or right, just get a deal done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Jones Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 What we do know is that the owners bargained a TV contract that had contingencies for an anticipated lock out.That's pretty much bargaining in bad faith. The owners have dictated this disruption in the NFL...for anyone to say otherwise is foolish. I'm agreeing with Tr1 about something...perhaps it's time for me to rethink my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 As if the court of public opinion means anything. Oh, really? Some broke dude thinks you are a bad owner? Who gives a **** By all accounts the players just want 50%, which is what they had before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Some broke dude thinks you are a bad owner? Who gives a ****. In this situation it's sadly true, though it shouldn't be. The broke ass dude who pays to watch that bad owner's team should carry a little weight. And in large groups should easily be a deciding factor. No fans = no league, but the majority of fans seem all too willing to look past all of this and get back to business as usual of getting gouged for everything that has to do with football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The players are the problem. The owners gave them an offer and their idiot leader, DeMaurice turned it down and decertified because he has an ego to build. The players have far more to lose, and they will most likely lose tomorrow. They would be wise to fire D Smith and sign the original owner's offer, and quick! ---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 09:50 PM ---------- What we do know is that the owners bargained a TV contract that had contingencies for an anticipated lock out.That's pretty much bargaining in bad faith. The owners have dictated this disruption in the NFL...for anyone to say otherwise is foolish. You want to blame the owners for getting everything they can from the TV networks?! The nets were apparently peeing themselves to sign those deals because they know that the NFL brings in eyeballs like no other televised events. The owners knew that, and they also knew that getting such a deal (provided the nets were "dumb" enough to give it) would provide them a BIG advantage in negotiating with the players. It doesn't make the owners evil. It makes them smart. And if you still have a problem with it, then blame the networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 The players are the problem. The owners gave them an offer and their idiot leader, DeMaurice turned it down and decertified because he has an ego to build.The players have far more to lose, and they will most likely lose tomorrow. They would be wise to fire D Smith and sign the original owner's offer, and quick. You want to blame the owners for getting everything they can from the TV networks?! The nets were apparently peeing themselves to sign those deals because they know that the NFL brings in eyeballs like no other televised events. The owners knew that, and they also knew that getting such a deal (provided the nets were "dumb" enough to give it) would provide them a BIG advantage in negotiating with the players. It doesn't make the owners evil. It makes them smart. And if you still have a problem with it, then blame the networks. Yeah, I don't get why the owners looking ahead and trying to protect their interests makes them evil. I guess every single person who owns any type of insurance policy is evil then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Yeah, I don't get why the owners looking ahead and trying to protect their interests makes them evil. I guess every single person who owns any type of insurance policy is evil then. Unbelievable that you would call others ignorant and post the above quote after claiming to be so well read on the subject: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379"In his 28-page ruling, Doty criticized special master Stephen Burbank for legal errors and erroneously concluding earlier this month that the NFL can act like a self-interested conglomerate when in fact it is bound by legal agreements to make deals that benefit both league and player. Doty instead declared that the NFL violated its agreement with the union, which had asked that the TV money be placed in escrow until the end of any lockout. A hearing, yet to be scheduled, will be held to determine potential damages for the players as well as an injunction involving the TV contracts." I can't imagine why anyone would think that the league was making a shady deal after reading that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Unbelievable that you would call others ignorant and post the above quote after claiming to be so well read on the subject:I can't imagine why anyone would think that the league was making a shady deal after reading that... Right. A Union-pocketed judge declaring such things (which may actually be overturned, try keeping up with the here and now, not an article from three months ago) was so enlightening on the situation. Even the blind kids in the Amish community saw that one coming. There is a huge difference in preparing and protecting one's interests and under-handing deals. One judge's view on it does not put a stamp on it. If the NFLPU had made a deal for escrow holdings, why did it take them over two years to see that the deal was broken? Where were the union's overseers on this account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Right. A Union-pocketed judge declaring such things (which may actually be overturned, try keeping up with the here and now, not an article from three months ago) was so enlightening on the situation. Even the blind kids in the Amish community saw that one coming. There is a huge difference in preparing and protecting one's interests and under-handing deals. One judge's view on it does not put a stamp on it. If the NFLPU had made a deal for escrow holdings, why did it take them over two years to see that the deal was broken? Where were the union's overseers on this account? The owners negotiated that deal in bad faith. Spin, sling mud, lie, cry, *****, moan, plug your ears, close your eyes, do whatever you need to do to keep telling yourself that the owners didn't make an underhanded deal. The owners had an obligation to negotiate a deal that had the best interests of all parties on the NFL side of things, not what was in the best interest of their business earnings. My guess is that any judge that has ever found in favor of the laborer in a labor dispute was in your opinion a "labor-pocketed judge." The owners tried to create a situation that would allow them to basically make as much money in a locked out year of their making as they would if football had been played while the players made nothing but you still think that the owners never wanted a lockout to happen. Too funny. Oh, and your question about why it took the NFLPU two years to file a grievance regarding the money? At what point BEFORE they filed their grievance could they have filed it? There hadn't been a lockout and thus no need to put any money in an escrow account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.