Goodell Wary of NFLPA* Tactics

[Hostile]

Goodell wary of NFL without a draft, free agency rules

4/21/2011 8:36:12 AM

In a conference call with New York Giants fans (http://nfllabor.com/2011/04/20/commissioner-goodell-holds-conference-call-with-giants-fans/) on Wednesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell discussed the possibilities for the league if the players are successful in court against the NFL.

Goodell said, "That’s something that’s troubling to me a little bit because in the hearing, some of the lawyers for the players association talk about their vision of what would happen with the NFL and the types of things they would be challenging in court – everything from the draft to free agency rules. I think it would have a tremendously negative impact on the game of football and what everybody loves the game of football for and what has made us successful. I get concerned when I hear how the lawyers want to approach this and how they want to change the game for the players association. I think we have a great game that’s competitive. I think that the balance we have amongst teams is all part of our system. Aspects of those systems are always modified and changed and I’m willing to engage in that. But I think eliminating some of those aspects that I think have made our game — and frankly other sports, they are all part of other sports. The NFL has got an incredibly competitive and attractive game. We’ve got to make sure that we continue to make modifications. We’ve got to make it stronger, not weaken it."

[superpunk]

lock them out about it.

[Yeagermeister]

I agree. If they get there way there will be just like baseball. They will have elite teams and the rest might as well be farm teams.

[Hostile]

lock them out about it.You've been very comical throughout this. That one missed though.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

What do the players want to change exactly? They were cool withe the original CBA.

Then they made an offer giving back $300M. And they want the rookie wage scale.

[speedkilz88]

You've been very comical throughout this. That one missed though.It doesn't take much to amuse you then.:p:

[RS12]

Goodell wary of NFL without a draft, free agency rules

4/21/2011 8:36:12 AM

In a conference call with New York Giants fans (http://nfllabor.com/2011/04/20/commissioner-goodell-holds-conference-call-with-giants-fans/) on Wednesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell discussed the possibilities for the league if the players are successful in court against the NFL.

Goodell said, "That’s something that’s troubling to me a little bit because in the hearing, some of the lawyers for the players association talk about their vision of what would happen with the NFL and the types of things they would be challenging in court – everything from the draft to free agency rules. I think it would have a tremendously negative impact on the game of football and what everybody loves the game of football for and what has made us successful. I get concerned when I hear how the lawyers want to approach this and how they want to change the game for the players association. I think we have a great game that’s competitive. I think that the balance we have amongst teams is all part of our system. Aspects of those systems are always modified and changed and I’m willing to engage in that. But I think eliminating some of those aspects that I think have made our game — and frankly other sports, they are all part of other sports. The NFL has got an incredibly competitive and attractive game. We’ve got to make sure that we continue to make modifications. We’ve got to make it stronger, not weaken it."

These are the risks you take when you back out of a deal you already had in place. Some times you need to leave well enough alone.

[superpunk]

You've been very comical throughout this. That one missed though.
Write a post about it.

[Hostile]

Write a post about it.
I did. You just quoted it. Maybe you aren't awake?

[wileedog]

What do the players want to change exactly? They were cool withe the original CBA.



Unless this is Goodell blowing smoke, which is possible or even probable, he sounds like he is saying the lawyers have convinced the players to go for broke - no draft or FA restrictions. You know, slavery stuff.

Of course its a no lose statement for him, if people get mad at the NFLPA* they have the choice of saying nothing or publicly stating they don't really want want they are suing for in court.

[RW Hitman]

What do the players want to change exactly? They were cool withe the original CBA.

Then they made an offer giving back $300M. And they want the rookie wage scale.

are you aware that right now there is no CBA? at present, players are locked out but if it gets overturned, then things like the free agency and salary cap will be no more, so if players like the old CBA they better get to the table and negotiate ANY kind of CBA or football as we knew it will be unlike anything we had before and unlike other sports leagues of any kind

EDIT: I am sure the league will attempt to present some kind of order and status quo, but if one player objects then without a CBA in place, he can find just about any judge to toss FA and salary caps (amongst other things) out the door due to them being in violation of antitrust law. At present, that is exactly what the Brady lawsuit is in fact attempting to do (i am aware that it is a leverage tactic to get the league to try to get a CBA in place, but if the league and players cannot come to an agreement, then a judge will do the damage as requested)

[RW Hitman]

and yes, this would turn it into the haves and have nots because without a salary cap or profit sharing (as they both would be against antitrust law), the top teams could afford the influx of free agents who would no longer be required to meet any time frame to be unrestricted, while all those poor teams might not even be able to afford the players they have now

and yes, this is a risk you take when you take the court route to get what you want rather than mediate in good faith.

[The Quest for Six]

I agree. If they get there way there will be just like baseball. They will have elite teams and the rest might as well be farm teams.


The way the NY Mets are playing, they're so bad, they aren't even a farm team..

But if the NFLPA gets what they want in court, the NFL's popularity and revenue will take a serious hit, there wont be any competative balance as there is now, a couple good teams, the rest are there to try to make money, that's it..just like baseball, five or six good teams that have a chance to win a championship, the rest trying to make ends meet and make a profit..

[InmanRoshi]

Tagliabue probably said the alarmist nonsense when Reggie White and Freeman McNeil were fighting for free agency for players in courts in the early 90's. Of course, the game has done nothing but explode ever since the players got it. Give all 32 teams a chance to bid on the services of Peyton Manning's services this offseason in free agency would gin up a lot more interest in the sport than making it so that he can never, ever leave the Colts.

And there's a lot more parody in baseball than people give it credit for, and a lot less parody in football than people give it credit for. In the last 10 years, baseball has seen more different teams win a World Series than the NFL has seen Superbowl winners. The NFL is more split between the "have and have nots" than baseball can ever dream up, because football is split between the 6-8 franchises than "have" franchise QBs and the 22 teams that don't. The 22 teams that don't will not have a chance in hell of winning a Superbowl next year. The Patriots have won more Championships than the Red Sox have in the last 10 years, and the Steelers have won more Championships in the last 10 years than the Yankees have (and this is supposed to be the era of "parody era" in the NFL, getting away from the "dynasty era" of the 70's, 80's and 90's). But somehow Brady/Manning/Brees are asking for more than they're worth.

[arglebargle]

Negotiation. Two sides take outlandish positions so that they can give up parts to eventually meet somewhere in the middle.


Remember 18 game season? Etc?

The problem with having legal types running things is that they think that a judicial solution is a perfectly reasonable way to do things instead of the court of last resort.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The way the NY Mets are playing, they're so bad, they aren't even a farm team..

But if the NFLPA gets what they want in court, the NFL's popularity and revenue will take a serious hit, there wont be any competative balance as there is now, a couple good teams, the rest are there to try to make money, that's it..just like baseball, five or six good teams that have a chance to win a championship, the rest trying to make ends meet and make a profit..

Why did the sport explode when the NFLPA 'won' back in 1989 and again in '2006?' Under your notion, the league would have folded in the subsequent 22 years?

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Why did the sport explode when the NFLPA 'won' back in 1989 and again in '2006?' Under your notion, the league would have folded in the subsequent 22 years?

Because new CBAs went in place to provide the basis for their growth. What the lawyers are talking about here is how bad they can threaten to make the NFL look like if players nveer have a players union again, with no CBA.

[adbutcher]

Tagliabue probably said the alarmist nonsense when Reggie White and Freeman McNeil were fighting for free agency for players in courts in the early 90's. Of course, the game has done nothing but explode ever since the players got it. Give all 32 teams a chance to bid on the services of Peyton Manning's services this offseason in free agency would gin up a lot more interest in the sport than making it so that he can never, ever leave the Colts.

And there's a lot more parody in baseball than people give it credit for, and a lot less parody in football than people give it credit for. In the last 10 years, baseball has seen more different teams win a World Series than the NFL has seen Superbowl winners. The NFL is more split between the "have and have nots" than baseball can ever dream up, because football is split between the 6-8 franchises than "have" franchise QBs and the 22 teams that don't. The 22 teams that don't will not have a chance in hell of winning a Superbowl next year. The Patriots have won more Championships than the Red Sox have in the last 10 years, and the Steelers have won more Championships in the last 10 years than the Yankees have (and this is supposed to be the era of "parody era" in the NFL, getting away from the "dynasty era" of the 70's, 80's and 90's). But somehow Brady/Manning/Brees are asking for more than they're worth.

I don't care how many facts you spew, I ain't listening.;)

If you cannot afford to lose then don't play the game. The owners knew they were going to win, until the law of the land got in the way. Poor owners.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because new CBAs went in place to provide the basis for their growth. What the lawyers are talking about here is how bad they can threaten to make the NFL look like if players nveer have a players union again, with no CBA.

Sure and the chances of that happening are just about nil.

Lets say the players win the case and the court (rightfully so) says that without the mutual consent of both parties in the form of a CBA, you cannot have a draft, cap, RFA, Franchise tags or the like.

What do you think will happen?

[Yakuza Rich]

There are stooges....and there is Roger Goodell. Uber stooge.







YR

[Chocolate Lab]

Unless this is Goodell blowing smoke, which is possible or even probable, he sounds like he is saying the lawyers have convinced the players to go for broke - no draft or FA restrictions. I know. Everyone says the players are *only* mentioning these things as a negotiating tactic, but how do we know that? How do we know they don't want to eliminate these things?

[wileedog]

And there's a lot more parody in baseball than people give it credit for, and a lot less parody in football than people give it credit for. In the last 10 years, baseball has seen more different teams win a World Series than the NFL has seen Superbowl winners.

I said this before in another thread, but I'll repeat it. Championships is too small a sample size to judge parity on. Any team can get hot at the right time or get a few lucky breaks and manage to win, while any good team can do the reverse, drop a few balls or get unlucky and lose.

The NFL is better now not only because a different team wins the SB, its because there is constant rotation of playoff teams. Yes the Pats and Steelers and some others get there a lot more consistently than others because they are well run organizations, but in general there are only a few teams that are pretty much ruled out at the start of the year.

In baseball, its nice and all that the small market Giants won the WS. However it was their first time even in the post-season in 7 years, and they lucked their way in because they are in a crappy division. The Yankees OTOH, while they haven't won as many championships as their money would suggest, have been in the playoffs 14 out of the last 15 seasons, coming from the AL East no less. And unlike the Pats or Steelers in football, the Yankees aren't a particularly well run team - they use $$$ to cover their mistakes.

The only small market team that competes consistently is the Twins, and that's because they have what many GMs consider to be the best scouting dept in baseball. To be expected to do that just to be competitive is not what is best for the league and not really much parity.

You're QB comment is valid, but also actually makes it worse. If there are only 8-10 playoff worthy QBs and you need a QB to compete, then you will always have the 8-10 richest teams at the top - because no one else will be able to afford those QBs in a completely unrestricted system.

[RoyTheHammer]

Wow Goodell.. wow.

Really trying to cement that legacy as the worst thing to ever happen to the game of football, eh?

[satam55]

Goodell wary of NFL without a draft, free agency rules

4/21/2011 8:36:12 AM

In a conference call with New York Giants fans (http://nfllabor.com/2011/04/20/commissioner-goodell-holds-conference-call-with-giants-fans/) on Wednesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell discussed the possibilities for the league if the players are successful in court against the NFL.

Goodell said, "That’s something that’s troubling to me a little bit because in the hearing, some of the lawyers for the players association talk about their vision of what would happen with the NFL and the types of things they would be challenging in court – everything from the draft to free agency rules. I think it would have a tremendously negative impact on the game of football and what everybody loves the game of football for and what has made us successful. I get concerned when I hear how the lawyers want to approach this and how they want to change the game for the players association. I think we have a great game that’s competitive. I think that the balance we have amongst teams is all part of our system. Aspects of those systems are always modified and changed and I’m willing to engage in that. But I think eliminating some of those aspects that I think have made our game — and frankly other sports, they are all part of other sports. The NFL has got an incredibly competitive and attractive game. We’ve got to make sure that we continue to make modifications. We’ve got to make it stronger, not weaken it."

:rolleyes: I could care less what Roger "NFL Owners' Puppet" Goodell is saying. We all know he just spewing the Owner's Propaganda.

All the pro-owner guys on this board have been saying this since talks broke off on March 11th and I still don't buy it. As has been stated on this board several times on this board, the players are only using the anti-trust lawsuit as leverage.

[DallasEast]

These are the risks you take when you back out of a deal you already had in place. Some times you need to leave well enough alone.
The owners' entire problem centers on the fact that greed clouded their better judgment when they agreed upon the last collective bargaining agreement. Luckily for them, they wrote in a loophole a la the opt-out option.

Still, they should have tried much harder to match their financial expectations with the CBA in 2006. They should have waged their battle back then instead of this year.

But oh no. Eventually, the owners choose to exercise their opt out option and planned to use a lockout to negotiate a better deal "years ahead" of schedule. The trade association countered that preemptive strike by implementing an equally long-range litigation plan. So now we're left with a bunch of courtroom non-drama which may end up deciding nothing long-term in the owners' point-of-view.

There's only one word for the entire mess: insanity.

[Dallas]

You've been very comical throughout this. That one missed though.

Comical? Is that what you call it?

I have a few other words describing it, but comical isn't among them. :eek:

[adbutcher]

The owners' entire problem centers on the fact that greed clouded their better judgment when they agreed upon the last collective bargaining agreement. Luckily for them, they wrote in a loophole a la the opt-out option.

Still, they should have tried much harder to match their financial expectations with the CBA in 2006. They should have waged their battle back then instead of this year.

But oh no. Eventually, the owners choose to exercise their opt out option and planned to use a lockout to negotiate a better deal "years ahead" of schedule. The trade association countered that preemptive strike by implementing an equally long-range litigation plan. So now we're left with a bunch of courtroom non-drama which may end up deciding nothing long-term in the owners' point-of-view.

There's only one word for the entire mess: insanity.

Very fair assessment. You know for a staff member you ain't half bad, lol.

[jimnabby]

The NFL is better now not only because a different team wins the SB, its because there is constant rotation of playoff teams. Yes the Pats and Steelers and some others get there a lot more consistently than others because they are well run organizations, but in general there are only a few teams that are pretty much ruled out at the start of the year.

In baseball, its nice and all that the small market Giants won the WS. However it was their first time even in the post-season in 7 years, and they lucked their way in because they are in a crappy division.

I can't tell the difference between what you're claiming for the NFL and MLB. The NFL is good because any team can luck into the playoffs (even though the Pats are there every single year), and MLB is bad because teams have to luck their way into the playoffs (and because the Yankees are there every single year).

A higher percentage of MLB teams have made the playoffs in the last decade than NFL teams, despite the fact that MLB has fewer playoff spots. The Giants won the WS last year, Tampa Bay was there a couple years ago, Florida won recently, Colorado, Detroit, etc. As you say, Minnesota's been consistently competitive, the A's had a very good run recently, Tampa Bay is on a very good run, etc. It's not clear to me that the Yankees and Red Sox have been all that much more dominant than the Pats, Steelers and Colts. Personally, I think it's 9 parts perception and perhaps (perhaps!) one part reality.

[DallasEast]

Very fair assessment. You know for a staff member you ain't half bad, lol.
Thanks, but don't tell Yeager how you feel. That guy is constantly putting me through the ringer because he's so jealous. He's always putting me down and ...

Hold up, I just received a pm ...

DE. This is the last time I'm gonna tell you! Take the gosh darn trash out! There are PBR cans everywhere! Hop to it, Skippy!!!

Dang it to heck!!! :bang2:

[JIGGYFLY]

are you aware that right now there is no CBA? at present, players are locked out but if it gets overturned, then things like the free agency and salary cap will be no more, so if players like the old CBA they better get to the table and negotiate ANY kind of CBA or football as we knew it will be unlike anything we had before and unlike other sports leagues of any kind

EDIT: I am sure the league will attempt to present some kind of order and status quo, but if one player objects then without a CBA in place, he can find just about any judge to toss FA and salary caps (amongst other things) out the door due to them being in violation of antitrust law. At present, that is exactly what the Brady lawsuit is in fact attempting to do (i am aware that it is a leverage tactic to get the league to try to get a CBA in place, but if the league and players cannot come to an agreement, then a judge will do the damage as requested)

If the injunction is overturned the last CBA will go into effect. have you not read anything concerning these negotiations.

[JIGGYFLY]

I know. Everyone says the players are *only* mentioning these things as a negotiating tactic, but how do we know that? How do we know they don't want to eliminate these things?

Because they were more than willing to play under the last agreement and they want an injunction to continue playing under the last agreement.

If they really wanted to eliminate those things they would just be willing to wait on the Brady lawsuit.

[jimnabby]

If the injunction is overturned the last CBA will go into effect. have you not read anything concerning these negotiations.Don't know about him, but it doesn't seem like you have. If the players get the injunction and the lockout is overturned, there's still no CBA. The lockout will end and the owners will likely impose the same rules for 2011 as the league played under in 2010, but that's very different from saying that the "last CBA goes into effect."

[Doomsday101]

I can't tell the difference between what you're claiming for the NFL and MLB. The NFL is good because any team can luck into the playoffs (even though the Pats are there every single year), and MLB is bad because teams have to luck their way into the playoffs (and because the Yankees are there every single year).

A higher percentage of MLB teams have made the playoffs in the last decade than NFL teams, despite the fact that MLB has fewer playoff spots. The Giants won the WS last year, Tampa Bay was there a couple years ago, Florida won recently, Colorado, Detroit, etc. As you say, Minnesota's been consistently competitive, the A's had a very good run recently, Tampa Bay is on a very good run, etc. It's not clear to me that the Yankees and Red Sox have been all that much more dominant than the Pats, Steelers and Colts. Personally, I think it's 9 parts perception and perhaps (perhaps!) one part reality.

Yeah and MLB attendance has been dropping for years. If the players want some lawyer to run the show great but the disparity will only benefit a few players while the majority loses.

During the last labor dispute even Upshaw was smart enough to tell Kessler to shut up about doing away with the draft.

[jimnabby]

Yeah and MLB attendance has been dropping for years.

Speaking of non sequiturs...

If the players want some lawyer to run the show great but the disparity will only benefit a few players while the majority loses.

During the last labor dispute even Upshaw was smart enough to tell Kessler to shut up about doing away with the draft.The labor dispute will end, and when it ends, there will be a salary cap, and a salary floor, and a draft. This is all just one big red herring.

[RoyTheHammer]

If the injunction is overturned the last CBA will go into effect. have you not read anything concerning these negotiations.

lol, thank you for saying something, because i was going to ask if he understood anything about what's going on at all. It sure doesn't seem like it..

[superpunk]

Comical? Is that what you call it?

I have a few other words describing it, but comical isn't among them. :eek:

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8619/imahorses.jpg
(http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/068/111/small/im_a_horse.jpg)

[Doomsday101]

Speaking of non sequiturs...

The labor dispute will end, and when it ends, there will be a salary cap, and a salary floor, and a draft. This is all just one big red herring.

I think in the end your right however it was Upshaw who put the muzzle on Kessler about the draft Smith does not seem to be inclinded to do so.

[RW Hitman]

If the injunction is overturned the last CBA will go into effect. have you not read anything concerning these negotiations.

where did you read that? the NFL had a legal right (loophole) to throw out that old CBA. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the right of the owners to lockout the players.

if the courts throw out the lockout, that does not change the fact that there is no CBA. NFL had a legal right written in the CBA to opt out in 2011.

so yes, without the lockout (with the lockout too), the ONLY reason the players have an antitrust case against the NFL is because there is no CBA as of now (since the owners opted out)

[JIGGYFLY]

Don't know about him, but it doesn't seem like you have. If the players get the injunction and the lockout is overturned, there's still no CBA. The lockout will end and the owners will likely impose the same rules for 2011 as the league played under in 2010, but that's very different from saying that the "last CBA goes into effect."

Your right my wording was off.

My point was that there would still be a draft and other restrictions and most likely they will be the same as the last CBA.

I don't know how that is very different :confused:

[JIGGYFLY]

where did you read that? the NFL had a legal right (loophole) to throw out that old CBA. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the right of the owners to lockout the players.

if the courts throw out the lockout, that does not change the fact that there is no CBA. NFL had a legal right written in the CBA to opt out in 2011.

so yes, without the lockout (with the lockout too), the ONLY reason the players have an antitrust case against the NFL is because there is no CBA as of now (since the owners opted out)

The reason for an injunction is to lift the lockout and if it is lifted do you think the owners are going to have no draft or FA for everybody?

If you read anything concerning the injunction it has been said that most likely the CBA rules of 2010 would be in effect.

[RW Hitman]

lol, thank you for saying something, because i was going to ask if he understood anything about what's going on at all. It sure doesn't seem like it..

oh but I will say it, you obviously haven't. There is no CBA at moment, and a judge throwing out the lockout doesn't change that.

Players will still have to negotiate with the owners to get one, geesh you guys just wanna totally have everyone else BUT the owners to decide the future of the NFL I guess... :rolleyes:

[RoyTheHammer]

Don't know about him, but it doesn't seem like you have. If the players get the injunction and the lockout is overturned, there's still no CBA. The lockout will end and the owners will likely impose the same rules for 2011 as the league played under in 2010, but that's very different from saying that the "last CBA goes into effect."

Its not very different at all.. the same things that the last CBA had in place would still be in effect.

[theogt]

Unless this is Goodell blowing smoke, which is possible or even probable, he sounds like he is saying the lawyers have convinced the players to go for broke - no draft or FA restrictions. You know, slavery stuff.

Of course its a no lose statement for him, if people get mad at the NFLPA* they have the choice of saying nothing or publicly stating they don't really want want they are suing for in court.Here's the statement:

...some of the lawyers for the players association talk about their vision of what would happen with the NFL and the types of things they would be challenging in court...What he has said is that "some" of the lawyers (i.e., as many as one lawyer) have discussed their "vision". It has already been widely reported that one of the NFLPA lawyers has stated his personal preference is for a draft-less, free agent-less NFL. That is just his personal preference and was not represented as the view of the players.

Second, Goodell referenced the "types of things [the players are] challenging" in the courts. In the litigation, the players are challenging multiple anti-competitive aspects of the NFL and the draft. This does not mean the players want to abolish the draft and free agency. In fact, the NFLPA has stated that it does not wish to abolish the draft and free agency. Rather, the litigation is merely a bargaining tool in negotiations. If I have the power to destroy your business, that's a pretty big bargaining chip if we're doing business, no?

He's not blowing smoke. He's just restating public information. There should be no concern among fans, in my opinion, that the players actually want to abolish the draft or free agency, however.

[RW Hitman]

The reason for an injunction is to lift the lockout and if it is lifted do you think the owners are going to have no draft or FA for everybody?

If you read anything concerning the injunction it has been said that most likely the CBA rules of 2010 would be in effect.

do I think the NFL or players want that (no draft or FA for everybody)? no i don't think anyone wants that, but the owners would still have to renegotiate a CBA.

The players may be ok, probably would be ok with the owners just reinstating the old CBA, but the owners would have to make that move. Will they do it if the lockout is lifted, I would say no. Why? because then they can atleast get the players to negotiate for a new one.

[RoyTheHammer]

do I think the NFL or players want that (no draft or FA for everybody)? no i don't think anyone wants that, but the owners would still have to renegotiate a CBA.

The players may be ok, probably would be ok with the owners just reinstating the old CBA, but the owners would have to make that move. Will they do it if the lockout is lifted, I would say no. Why? because then they can atleast get the players to negotiate for a new one.

The point is.. if the lockout is ordered to be lifted by the judge, business would go on as usual using the rules that the last CBA put in place. So while there wouldn't officially be a new CBA until both parties agreed to one, the season would be played with the same rules of the old CBA.

The owners don't have to agree to this.. this is what will happen if the court rules to lift the lockout.

[Doomsday101]

do I think the NFL or players want that (no draft or FA for everybody)? no i don't think anyone wants that, but the owners would still have to renegotiate a CBA.

The players may be ok, probably would be ok with the owners just reinstating the old CBA, but the owners would have to make that move. Will they do it if the lockout is lifted, I would say no. Why? because then they can atleast get the players to negotiate for a new one.

With who? There is no NFLPA to negotiate a CBA.

[zrinkill]

Comical? Is that what you call it?

I have a few other words describing it, but comical isn't among them. :eek:

:laugh2:

spizzunkfly is not funny on purpose.

[RW Hitman]

With who? There is no NFLPA to negotiate a CBA.

and there is no CBA either, that is my point

[InmanRoshi]

The NFL is better now not only because a different team wins the SB, its because there is constant rotation of playoff teams.

That's also mostly attributed to the fact that football allows more of their teams to enter into their playoff system, while baseball makes their playoffs more exclusive to the top regular season performers. Approx 38% of the teams in the NFL make the playoffs every year, while only 27% of the teams in baseball get to participate in the playoffs.

If football eliminated their wildcard spots and only allowed the 4 division winners into the playoffs, we would likely be seeing mostly the same cast of characters every year even more than baseball. When's the last time a new team other than the Colts won the AFC North? Chargers have pretty much dominated the AFC West in the recent era, as (sadly) have the Eagles in the NFC East since Reid became HC.

[Doomsday101]

and there is no CBA either, that is my point

I'm interested in seeing how the NLRB rules.

[RW Hitman]

The point is.. if the lockout is ordered to be lifted by the judge, business would go on as usual using the rules that the last CBA put in place. So while there wouldn't officially be a new CBA until both parties agreed to one, the season would be played with the same rules of the old CBA.

The owners don't have to agree to this.. this is what will happen if the court rules to lift the lockout.

as long as no one has a problem with it, and as long as Manning and the other guy drops their antitrust lawsuit. Saying this, their is no CBA in place and ending lockout doesn't change that. The NFL can say "hey we are going to drop the draft, salary cap, and anything that makes us in violation of antitrust laws" and they would get away with it because their is no players union and no CBA in place to say otherwise. Same goes for the players, they can simply challenge the current setup by going to court (which is what Manning and Brady are doing exactly) and any judge will say the draft (FA, salary cap, profit sharing) is in violation of US antitrust laws and must be abolished (because their is no CBA currently in place).

The owners opted out of the old one, so that one is done and gone. no bringing it back with out signatures from both owners and players UNION.

Now do you think the owners will just say "oh well we tried" and just agree to sign an extension of the old CBA? why would they when they can still negotiate for real for a new one.

[Doomsday101]

That's also mostly attributed to the fact that football allows more of their teams to enter into their playoff system, while baseball makes their playoffs more exclusive to the top regular season performers. Approx 38% of the teams in the NFL make the playoffs every year, while only 27% of the teams in baseball get to participate in the playoffs.

If football eliminated their wildcard spots and only allowed the 4 division winners into the playoffs, we would likely be seeing mostly the same cast of characters every year even more than baseball. When's the last time a new team other than the Colts won the AFC North?

Baseball has 6 division winner (3 in the NL and 3 AL) and 2 wildcard teams they also have 2 fewer franchise compared to Football.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With who? There is no NFLPA to negotiate a CBA.

Decertifying does not mean that they ceased to exist.

Certification is a means by which firms can avoid antitrust liability. they don't have that any more. Poor them.

[RW Hitman]

I'm interested in seeing how the NLRB rules.

tell me more, what is there jurisdiction and why are they being summoned? something about the right of the NFLPA to decertify based on good faith or something like that?

seriously would like more info on where they fit in

[jimnabby]

Baseball has 6 division winner (3 in the NL and 3 AL) and 2 wildcard teams they also have 2 fewer franchise compared to Football.
Yes, so 8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs in baseball, and 12 out of 32 in the NFL. 27% vs. 38%, as he said. He did mistype the number of divisions in the NFL, but his point is still valid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Baseball has 6 division winner (3 in the NL and 3 AL) and 2 wildcard teams they also have 2 fewer franchise compared to Football.

The point that should be taken from where your debate has gone to is that this supposed huge disparity in the parity between the leagues is an illusion.

IOW, its not true.

Baseball is dwindling because of steroids. they have had ups and downs since their last labor deal was struck but ever since Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro and McGwire pulled their shenanigans it has made them look bad.

Its not a labor deal that causes issues. Its a work stoppage.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm interested in seeing how the NLRB rules.

I'm not. Its being arbitrated in Federal Court. Quite obviously their jurisdiction supersedes that of the NLRB.

[Doomsday101]

Decertifying does not mean that they ceased to exist.

Certification is a means by which firms can avoid antitrust liability. they don't have that any more. Poor them.

The Union cease to exsist and there are downsides for the players by decerifications. Yes they can sue the owners


Are there any other risks to dissolving the union?
Yes. Players will also lose all of benefits contained in the CBA. This includes pensions, insurance benefits and medical benefits. Other benefits of the union, such as control over agent certification and group licensing rights, could also come under attack. Additionally, if the union no longer exists, the owners will be free to implement any rules they want (including, for example, removing the minimum player salary and the salary floor).

http://www.catscratchreader.com/2011/3/12/2046158/nfl-players-union-is-no-more-so-what-does-that-mean

[Doomsday101]

I'm not. Its being arbitrated in Federal Court. Quite obviously their jurisdiction supersedes that of the NLRB.

Hate to tell you but this is not a 1 way battle.

[Yakuza Rich]

The real hoot for me is Goodell complaining about lawyers negotiating the game....and he's a lawyer.

That's about as hypocritical as it gets.

Honestly, I have no hope for the future of the NFL as long as Goodell is commissioner.




YR

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Union cease to exsist and there are downsides for the players by decerifications. Yes they can sue the owners


Are there any other risks to dissolving the union?
Yes. Players will also lose all of benefits contained in the CBA. This includes pensions, insurance benefits and medical benefits. Other benefits of the union, such as control over agent certification and group licensing rights, could also come under attack. Additionally, if the union no longer exists, the owners will be free to implement any rules they want (including, for example, removing the minimum player salary and the salary floor).

http://www.catscratchreader.com/2011/3/12/2046158/nfl-players-union-is-no-more-so-what-does-that-mean

There is no CBA. As for the rest? Oh noes AGENTS GONE WILD!!!

And sure they can implement any rules they want as individuals. They start trying to fix prices multilaterally and its not going to be pretty for them.

Market forces drive prices for labor up in this market. All producers can negotiate with all consumers. What a novel concept. :rolleyes:

[DallasEast]

The point is.. if the lockout is ordered to be lifted by the judge, business would go on as usual using the rules that the last CBA put in place. So while there wouldn't officially be a new CBA until both parties agreed to one, the season would be played with the same rules of the old CBA.

The owners don't have to agree to this.. this is what will happen if the court rules to lift the lockout.True enough. However, the real issue isn't whether the season will be played.

Yes, players want that to happen so that they can get paid. Probably most fans do as well because they'll "die" if they can't get their annual "fix".

The owners will be constructing plans for getting a more owner friendly collective bargaining agreement done in the future, if they haven't already gotten contingencies in place. That's what the NFL truly has in store for all parties--namely, long-term uncertainty.

These billionaires didn't opt out of the last CBA on a lark. They're in this to win it and a significant hunk of a $9 billion dollar pie is the prize.

An injunction reverses the lockout. Who cares? Appeals to reinstate the lockout falls through. Who cares? The season is played without an agreement between owners and players. Who cares?

Who cares? The owners, that's who. The best thing that can happen regardless of court actions and number of games played this fall is a new CBA which the owners will embrace. Whether the trade associations loves it is irrevelent in their eyes.

Somebody runs the National Football League. It may take time and battles (legal or not) may be lost, but something concrete will eventually be decided. My hopes is that it will be much sooner rather than later, but if games in 2011 or 2012 or whenever most be sacrificed to achieve that goal, so be it.

My motto? Squash the money issue so soundly that it doesn't rear its ugly little head again anytime soon. It's just too much dang money on the table and the pot is just going to keep growing. Greed is a powerful motivator. Better put the right party in charge of it or this nonsense will continue unabated. The future of the NFL depends on it.

[Doomsday101]

There is no CBA. As for the rest? Oh noes AGENTS GONE WILD!!!

And sure they can implement any rules they want as individuals. They start trying to fix prices multilaterally and its not going to be pretty for them.

Market forces drive prices for labor up in this market. All producers can negotiate with all consumers. What a novel concept. :rolleyes:

Yeah 5% of the player would stike it rich and 95% would be out in the cold. Benifets gone, medical gone, retirement gone.it is not a 1 way street. As much as you would like to think so.

[Stautner]

I agree. If they get there way there will be just like baseball. They will have elite teams and the rest might as well be farm teams.

The Yankees won the World Series in 2000 and again in 2009. In between 8 different teams won. Several other teams got to the World Series and lost. The Giants weren't supposed to make the playoffs last year much less win the WS. Neither were the Rangers. Overall, from 2000-2010 15 different teams made it to the World Series, which is the same for the NFL from 2000-2010.

MLB has stretches ocassionally where the Yankees string something together, just as the NFL has stretches where the Patriots or others ocassionally string something together.

There are things not to like about the way MLB does things, but the idea that the same handful of teams dominate year after year is false.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah 5% of the player would stike it rich and 95% would be out in the cold. Benifets gone, medical gone, retirement gone.it is not a 1 way street. As much as you would like to think so.

Give me one empirical example of this or some economic model that backs up this notion, please. Right now the lower tiered players can only negotiate with one club now they could sell their services to anyone.

I am sure owners like Dan Snyder will splurge on high priced players just as i am sure that there will be other owners that will choose to go with a more rounded approach.

Right now everyone but the elite and tenured has to deal with being beholden to the team that drafts or signs them completely for three years and then for another two years there is RFA.

All of these serve to control prices for the lower tiered players for firms.

Now how it would all come out in the wash without price fixing, who knows? You certainly do not and all you are doing is fearmongering.

There is no CBA where i work and amazingly i get health care coverage.

AMAZING!!!

[Doomsday101]

One empirical example of this or some economic model that backs up this notion. Right now the lower tiered players can only negotiate with one club now they could sell their services to anyone.

I am sure owners like Dan Snyder will splurge on high priced players just as i am sure that there will be other owners that will choose to go with a more rounded approach.

Right now everyone but the elite and tenured has to deal with being beholden to the team that drafts or signs them completely for three years and then for another two years there is RFA.

All of these serve to control prices for the lower tiered players for firms.

Now how it would all come out in the wash without price fixing, who knows? You certainly do not and all you are doing is fearmongering.

There is no CBA where i work and amazingly i get health care coverage.

AMAZING!!!

Some players will make out as far as your health care great but a company is not required and not all do have health care. Again if you think this is a 1 way deal for players only then your wrong. The reason the players got the benifets they have is because of CBA

[burmafrd]

But the nfl has fewer teams that have not been in the playoffs then MLB. Outside of the Rams, Browns and raiders, in the last 5-6 years who has not been in the playoffs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Some players will make out as far as your health care great but a company is not required and not all do have health care. Again if you think this is a 1 way deal for players only then your wrong. The reason the players got the benifets they have is because of CBA

Which was negotiated collectively. Without one you have to negotiate deals individually. There is nothing to say that players cannot demand health care, 401ks or cheezwiz.

Seeing that the pool of labor is so small and then demand so great i imagine any rep with a lick of sense could manage at least the cheezwiz.

My friend takes the can of cheezwiz and eats it directly out of the can. No cracker nothing. Grosses me out. Its like eating a spoonful of mayonnaise.

[Hoofbite]

Give me one empirical example of this or some economic model that backs up this notion, please. Right now the lower tiered players can only negotiate with one club now they could sell their services to anyone.

I am sure owners like Dan Snyder will splurge on high priced players just as i am sure that there will be other owners that will choose to go with a more rounded approach.

Right now everyone but the elite and tenured has to deal with being beholden to the team that drafts or signs them completely for three years and then for another two years there is RFA.

All of these serve to control prices for the lower tiered players for firms.

Now how it would all come out in the wash without price fixing, who knows? You certainly do not and all you are doing is fearmongering.

There is no CBA where i work and amazingly i get health care coverage.

AMAZING!!!

You seem to be behind the players primarily because of the legalities of the draft, free agency and such.

If it were expected that the removal of the "price fixing" would be detrimental to the league, would you still support the players?

I'm not asking your opinion on the matter. I'm not asking if you think a "free market" NFL system would be detrimental.

I'm asking if you would still support such a system if it was widely believed that the entire product would suffer?

[Doomsday101]

Which was negotiated collectively. Without one you have to negotiate deals individually. There is nothing to say that players cannot demand health care, 401ks or cheezwiz.

Seeing that the pool of labor is so small and then demand so great i imagine any rep with a lick of sense could manage at least the cheezwiz.

My friend takes the can of cheezwiz and eats it directly out of the can. No cracker nothing. Grosses me out. Its like eating a spoonful of mayonnaise.

They would do so with no player miminum, yes the Mannings would make big buck many of the lower end guys would not since they can be easily replaced college is loaded with avg. Right now there is a minimum agreed to by the NFL and NFLPA. Outside of the pay check again there are benifets that the Owners would not be forced to pay out. These deal are not 1 sided as you try to claim.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They would do so with no player miminum, yes the Mannings would make big buck many of the lower end guys would not since they can be easily replaced college is loaded with avg. Right now there is a minimum agreed to by the NFL and NFLPA. Outside of the pay check again there are benifets that the Owners would not be forced to pay out. These deal are not 1 sided as you try to claim.

Lets take Sam Hurd as an example.

3 years ago, he was a promising young receiver. He had made strides as a receiver and was superb on special teams.

We lowballed him with that minimum offer. You are saying a guy like San Hurd who would them be able to negotiate with ANY team would get less money?

You are sure of that?

[Hoofbite]

Lets take Sam Hurd as an example.

3 years ago, he was a promising young receiver. He had made strides as a receiver and was superb on special teams.

We lowballed him with that minimum offer. You are saying a guy like San Hurd who would them be able to negotiate with ANY team would get less money?

You are sure of that?

What about a guy like Jesse Holley who really offers nothing but special teams play?

You think any owner would offer that guy equal to or more than the current vet minimum if they didn't have to and had some other guy who was marginally worse but willing to take significantly less?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You seem to be behind the players primarily because of the legalities of the draft, free agency and such.

If it were expected that the removal of the "price fixing" would be detrimental to the league, would you still support the players?

I'm not asking your opinion on the matter. I'm not asking if you think a "free market" NFL system would be detrimental.

I'm asking if you would still support such a system if it was widely believed that the entire product would suffer?

I support the players to choose what they want.

I do believe that the best thing for the rank and file players is to remove things like controls beyond a contract between the two parties. IE exclusive rights and restricted free ageny.

And define detrimental to the league. That just sound like the made up horse**** that Goodell has been selling us for 3 years.

If it measn that some firms might have a chance to fail. Oh well. A whole ton of players fail every year. i do not see much crying over them.

And the NFL makes so m8uch money its not even funny. The only thing that is going to kill that momentum is this thing causing games to be lost. There is empirical evidence of that.

Everything else is just made up fearmongering. OH NOES THE OWNERS MIGHT NOT MAKE AS MUCH MONEY!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What about a guy like Jesse Holley who really offers nothing but special teams play?

You think any owner would offer that guy equal to or more than the current vet minimum if they didn't have to and had some other guy who was marginally worse but willing to take significantly less?

they don't have to sign anyone. your making assumptions on slalary structures that 32 different teams might or might not have.

All i am saying that Jesse Holley will get a better deal when there is more than one team he can make a deal with.

Competition is a good thing.

[Idgit]

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8619/imahorses.jpg
(http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/068/111/small/im_a_horse.jpg)

You spelled 'horse' wrong here. And 'Hur,' I think. But I totally get what you're saying.

[Stautner]

I support the players to choose what they want.

I do believe that the best thing for the rank and file players is to remove things like controls beyond a contract between the two parties. IE exclusive rights and restricted free ageny.

And define detrimental to the league. That just sound like the made up horse**** that Goodell has been selling us for 3 years.

If it measn that some firms might have a chance to fail. Oh well. A whole ton of players fail every year. i do not see much crying over them.

And the NFL makes so m8uch money its not even funny. The only thing that is going to kill that momentum is this thing causing games to be lost. There is empirical evidence of that.

Everything else is just made up fearmongering. OH NOES THE OWNERS MIGHT NOT MAKE AS MUCH MONEY!!!


The difference is if players fail, there are other players to replace them and the league goes on unharmed. If teams fail, the league suffers, and eventually could fail. This isn't a chicke/egg thing - the league does, and has to, come first. That might soound cold, but that's teh fact, and it applies to businesses of all kinds. Ford can replace an engineer or an assembly line worker much easier than someone can start a new car company.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The difference is if players fail, there are other players to replace them and the league goes on unharmed. If teams fail, the league suffers, and eventually could fail. This isn't a chicke/egg thing - the league does, and has to, come first. That might soound cold, but that's teh fact, and it applies to businesses of all kinds. Ford can replace an engineer or an assembly line worker much easier than someone can start a new car company.

Then they can petition congress to bail them out just like Chevy then.

NFL franchises are making so much money its not even funny.

$7 BILLION.

A not for profit company amongst them was making a profit in the worst economic climate in 70 years.

Rigging the game so its impossible for a business to fail at the detriment of a free market is bad enough but doing it when they are doing so well compared to the average american firm fixing the game is reprehensible.

NFL owners are not even remotely in any danger unless they continue to lock players out and miss games.

That is what will hurt the league without a doubt. That has empirical evidence.

[Hoofbite]

they don't have to sign anyone. your making assumptions on slalary structures that 32 different teams might or might not have.

All i am saying that Jesse Holley will get a better deal when there is more than one team he can make a deal with.

Competition is a good thing.

Competition? You mean the type of competition a few thousand athletes would present Jesse Holley with?

Gimme a break. If Jerry was able to go out and sign a guy who could give 80% of Jesse Holleys production for half as much, he'd do it.

You can't tell me that Austin Lowbar (who last I heard was out of a job) wouldn't take 100K right now to fill Holleys spot.

And please, give me a minute to chuckle at the thought of you supporting both competition and the abolishment of the mechanisms that promote competition within the league.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Competition? You mean the type of competition a few thousand athletes would present Jesse Holley with?

Gimme a break. If Jerry was able to go out and sign a guy who could give 80% of Jesse Holleys production for half as much, he'd do it.

You can't tell me that Austin Lowbar (who last I heard was out of a job) wouldn't take 100K right now to fill Holleys spot.

Oh so now you know what Jerry and the other 31 owners motivation and financial out looks are. i am noticing a trend here.

Well i counter that assertion with one of my own.

We are talking about a competitive sport where teams do EVERYTHING they can to try and win. I contend that some owners will pay a premium for that 20% improvement in production as they have shown time and again in free agency as if that is not to be the case.

You see the deals those average safteies got last year?

Oh but now they will not over pay for marginal talent. Now all of a sudden they will be miserly when it comes to player aquisition. All 32 of them to boot.

:rolleyes:

Sure there will be the Mike Browns and Jeff Luries of the world but then again they might put an emphasis on those lower tier guys.

We do not know and you are just making crap up and inserting it for the truth.

[Stautner]

Competition? You mean the type of competition a few thousand athletes would present Jesse Holley with?

Gimme a break. If Jerry was able to go out and sign a guy who could give 80% of Jesse Holleys production for half as much, he'd do it.

You can't tell me that Austin Lowbar (who last I heard was out of a job) wouldn't take 100K right now to fill Holleys spot.

And please, give me a minute to chuckle at the thought of you supporting both competition and the abolishment of the mechanisms that promote competition within the league.

Agreed. The competition exists for the players in demand. No one is going to get in a bidding war for Jesse Holley. For the Jesse Holley type player it will be a take it or leave it offer with a nominal salary.

[Stautner]

Oh so now you know what Jerry and the other 31 owners motivation and financial out looks are. i am noticing a trend here.

Well i counter that assertion with one of my own.

We are talking about a competitive sport where teams do EVERYTHING they can to try and win. I contend that some owners will pay a premium for that 20% improvement in production as they have shown time and again in free agency as if that is not to be the case.

You see the deals those average safteies got last year?

Oh but now they will not over pay for marginal talent. Now all of a sudden they will be miserly when it comes to player aquisition. All 32 of them to boot.

:rolleyes:

Sure there will be the Mike Browns and Jeff Luries of the world but then again they might put an emphasis on those lower tier guys.

We do not know and you are just making crap up and inserting it for the truth.

Those average safeties are starting level safeties, even if lower end starters. That is not the same as a No 4 or 5 WR who will be lucky to see the field except on ST's.

[Beast_from_East]

Cry me a river Goodell, you and the owners should have thought about this before yall opted out.


What the hell did you think was going to happen? That the players would just say "anything is fine with me, I just want to play".



Anybody with 1 ounce of gray matter in their brain could have seen this coming. The owners opt out, the union decertifies, lawsuits filled, ect......

[speedkilz88]

The real hoot for me is Goodell complaining about lawyers negotiating the game....and he's a lawyer.

That's about as hypocritical as it gets.

Honestly, I have no hope for the future of the NFL as long as Goodell is commissioner.




YR
Goodell is not a lawyer, now Tagliabue was a lawyer. Goodell was an economics major and started working for the nfl in 1982.

[Rack Bauer]

Lets take Sam Hurd as an example.

3 years ago, he was a promising young receiver. He had made strides as a receiver and was superb on special teams.

We lowballed him with that minimum offer. You are saying a guy like San Hurd who would them be able to negotiate with ANY team would get less money?

You are sure of that?

lol, Hurd a promising receiver.

What NFL have you been watching?

And low-balled? He got paid for how he produced.

[dogberry]

I'm more concerned with the NFL resembling the English Premier League.

Oh well if all the money starts flowing to the upper classes of players in the NFL, the plebes will be revolting and form a union.

Maybe the plebes will put in a $2 million minimum salary.

The ultimate goal is to form 32 self governing football communes. The players will grow radishes together and each get a turn being the quarterback.

Down with the farcical aquatic t*rt who now reigns over the NFL. Stop the repression.

[Hoofbite]

Oh so now you know what Jerry and the other 31 owners motivation and financial out looks are. i am noticing a trend here.

Remind me again what the lockout is over? It's about money. Paying less to players, means more for the owner. It's not that difficult to figure out.

Well i counter that assertion with one of my own.

We are talking about a competitive sport where teams do EVERYTHING they can to try and win. I contend that some owners will pay a premium for that 20% improvement in production as they have shown time and again in free agency as if that is not to be the case.

Everything?

Many teams don't even spend as much as they could. If they were doing everything, you'd think they be willing to keep up with Snyder. If you got the extra cash to make your team better and you're doing everything, you bet your *** you're getting into bidding wars and using up all the money you can.

You see the deals those average safteies got last year?

Oh but now they will not over pay for marginal talent. Now all of a sudden they will be miserly when it comes to player aquisition. All 32 of them to boot.

:rolleyes:

Sure there will be the Mike Browns and Jeff Luries of the world but then again they might put an emphasis on those lower tier guys.

We do not know and you are just making crap up and inserting it for the truth.

Making crap up? Why do you think there is a minimum salary in the first place?

Seriously, think about why there would be a minimum salary.

Do you really think the lowest paid player in that system wouldn't make a dollar less than the lowest paid player now?

Do you believe that?

If you do, you're delusional. Certified delusional.

[Hoofbite]

lol, Hurd a promising receiver.

What NFL have you been watching?

And low-balled? He got paid for how he produced.

And now there's discussion that he may get moved because his salary isn't worth his role at this point.

[speedkilz88]

Hurd made a little under 2 million last year. He got paid really well for a bottom of the roster STs guy that can come in as a 4th wr.

[5Stars]

Oh so now you know what Jerry and the other 31 owners motivation and financial out looks are. i am noticing a trend here.

Well i counter that assertion with one of my own.

We are talking about a competitive sport where teams do EVERYTHING they can to try and win. I contend that some owners will pay a premium for that 20% improvement in production as they have shown time and again in free agency as if that is not to be the case.

You see the deals those average safteies got last year?

Oh but now they will not over pay for marginal talent. Now all of a sudden they will be miserly when it comes to player aquisition. All 32 of them to boot.

:rolleyes:

Sure there will be the Mike Browns and Jeff Luries of the world but then again they might put an emphasis on those lower tier guys.

We do not know and you are just making crap up and inserting it for the truth.


You just should log-off, fuzzy...I really hate to see you getting spanked around here with all that fuzzy logic!

I mean, come on man...
:rolleyes:

[5Stars]

:eek:

Fuzzy took my advice and logged off...
:laugh2:


(maybe he went to hit a stick...you know, get his thoughts together)
:laugh2:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:eek:

Fuzzy took my advice and logged off...
:laugh2:


(maybe he went to hit a stick...you know, get his thoughts together)
:laugh2:

I went to go work out. Started p90x yesterday and just did plymometrics. Is basically a bunch of jumping around.

I also like how the lot of you say:

"1 million dollars is a lot of money, they should just be happy."

its a $7 billion dollar industry with prce controls.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those average safeties are starting level safeties, even if lower end starters. That is not the same as a No 4 or 5 WR who will be lucky to see the field except on ST's.

Sure they were. How many of them are top 10% players in the league?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol, Hurd a promising receiver.

What NFL have you been watching?

And low-balled? He got paid for how he produced.

No he got paid the minimum amount that the team could without losing rigths to him and nothing more.

And yes. Dont you remember when both eh and Austin came out and the arguments how who would be the better receiver. Romo would gush about him and he would actually get playing time?

I have been watching the same one as you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Goodell is not a lawyer, now Tagliabue was a lawyer. Goodell was an economics major and started working for the nfl in 1982.

Yup hes been a cronie for the trust from the very beginning.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Remind me again what the lockout is over? It's about money. Paying less to players, means more for the owner. It's not that difficult to figure out.

Then why as for price controls at all? there is a correlation to winning and making money.

When banks compete you win!

Everything?

Many teams don't even spend as much as they could. If they were doing everything, you'd think they be willing to keep up with Snyder. If you got the extra cash to make your team better and you're doing everything, you bet your *** you're getting into bidding wars and using up all the money you can.

Snyder is in one of the best markets and knows how to market and wring a dollar out of everything he sets his eyes too. They do not keep up with Snyder because they do not have the resources of Snyder.

Now you are trying to make it seem that the motivation to iwin is not huge.

Making crap up? Why do you think there is a minimum salary in the first place?

Seriously, think about why there would be a minimum salary.

Do you really think the lowest paid player in that system wouldn't make a dollar less than the lowest paid player now?

Do you believe that?

If you do, you're delusional. Certified delusional.

Fine there should be minimal salaries. i still contend that the mean and median salaries would be higher.

[jterrell]

These are the risks you take when you back out of a deal you already had in place. Some times you need to leave well enough alone.

A friggin men!

What tactics do they expect the NFLPA lawyers to use?
Both sides are fighting dirty.

[5Stars]

I went to go work out. Started p90x yesterday and just did plymometrics. Is basically a bunch of jumping around.

I also like how the lot of you say:

"1 million dollars is a lot of money, they should just be happy."

its a $7 billion dollar industry with prce controls.

Stay cool, fool...
:D
:star:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And now there's discussion that he may get moved because his salary isn't worth his role at this point.

Sure hes nearing the end of his NFL shelf life. These guys careers are short. Pointing to the end does not mitigate that he got shafted when his earning potential was greatest.

[Yakuza Rich]

Goodell is not a lawyer, now Tagliabue was a lawyer. Goodell was an economics major and started working for the nfl in 1982.

I stand corrected. I thought he was a former attorney.

Still, I have no faith in the future of this league as long as Goodell is the commissioner.





YR

[jterrell]

This is hilarious that this story gets play but we aren't discussing that the NFL just released a schedule that allows the first 3 weeks to be suspended and made up.

By moving back the Super Bowl one week each team would play all 16 games.

The NFL conveniently set this up... knowing 3 weeks of NFL paychecks is a lot of pressure on the NFLPA.

Both sides are playing high stakes poker.

[jterrell]

I stand corrected. I thought he was a former attorney.

Still, I have no faith in the future of this league as long as Goodell is the commissioner.





YR

Goodell's Dad was a lawyer and State Senator and then retired to a law practice in Washington D.C. Goodell is hardly anti-lawyer even if it is convenient to argue such right now.

[Trendnet]

Fine there should be minimal salaries. i still contend that the mean and median salaries would be higher.

Really?

I don't know if I agree.

I think you'll see a rise in salaries for the DeMarcus Ware's of the league. Players extremely talented and marketable.

In my opinion, mid to lower tier players would be treated as independent contracters.

And while they may see a pay increase, I think they would lose some of those benefits they've come to depend on.

Barry Church, independent contractor, tears ACL. Dallas Cowboys terminates contract, and Barry Church is now free to find a doctor on his own to perform surgery, rehab on his own, and then try and find a team to latch on to in a year. All that with no income.

Good luck with that.

In my opinion, I wouldn't be surprised to see some owner start nickle and diming their own players as well.... Is it really far-fetched to see Danny Snyder charge his lower end players parking fees? Or for lunch during TC?

These players would no longer have the union to protect them or a CBA for such trivial stuff as medical coverage.

The above of course is probably extreme, but I wouldn't think it's that far-fetched either.

The players are already losing the public perception battle. To decertify, sue the league, win and then try and form a new union, which of course the league is no longer obligated to negotiate with... there by forcing the players to strike?

bah.... PR nightmare.

All just my opinion of course.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really?

I don't know if I agree.

I think you'll see a rise in salaries for the DeMarcus Ware's of the league. Players extremely talented and marketable.

In my opinion, mid to lower tier players would be treated as independent contracters.

And while they may see a pay increase, I think they would lose some of those benefits they've come to depend on.

Barry Church, independent contractor, tears ACL. Dallas Cowboys terminates contract, and Barry Church is now free to find a doctor on his own to perform surgery, rehab on his own, and then try and find a team to latch on to in a year. All that with no income.

Good luck with that.

In my opinion, I wouldn't be surprised to see some owner start nickle and diming their own players as well.... Is it really far-fetched to see Danny Snyder charge his lower end players parking fees? Or for lunch during TC?

These players would no longer have the union to protect them or a CBA for such trivial stuff as medical coverage.

The above of course is probably extreme, but I wouldn't think it's that far-fetched either.

The players are already losing the public perception battle. To decertify, sue the league, win and then try and form a new union, which of course the league is no longer obligated to negotiate with... there by forcing the players to strike?

bah.... PR nightmare.

All just my opinion of course.

A hypothetical situation based on a hypothetical setting?

They can still negotiate for those benefits. they just do it on an independent basis. Even as it stand now those benefits have an economic value and i guarantee you they are considered in the bottomline of negotiations.

you are just coming up with that on a whim. I would hope that they players and their representatives would not be that shortsighted but it is what it is.

[jterrell]

Really?

I don't know if I agree.

I think you'll see a rise in salaries for the DeMarcus Ware's of the league. Players extremely talented and marketable.

In my opinion, mid to lower tier players would be treated as independent contracters.

And while they may see a pay increase, I think they would lose some of those benefits they've come to depend on.

Barry Church, independent contractor, tears ACL. Dallas Cowboys terminates contract, and Barry Church is now free to find a doctor on his own to perform surgery, rehab on his own, and then try and find a team to latch on to in a year. All that with no income.

Good luck with that.

In my opinion, I wouldn't be surprised to see some owner start nickle and diming their own players as well.... Is it really far-fetched to see Danny Snyder charge his lower end players parking fees? Or for lunch during TC?

These players would no longer have the union to protect them or a CBA for such trivial stuff as medical coverage.

The above of course is probably extreme, but I wouldn't think it's that far-fetched either.

The players are already losing the public perception battle. To decertify, sue the league, win and then try and form a new union, which of course the league is no longer obligated to negotiate with... there by forcing the players to strike?

bah.... PR nightmare.

All just my opinion of course.

All that would be fine except you miss all the basic truths.

As in any real contracted situation Barry Church would have a guaranteed salary. Injured or not he gets paid. Cut or not, he gets paid.

The players ARE NOT losing the public perception battle. Maybe on this site they are but not at large. Not since the judge stepped in and shut up the NFL and their propaganda machine. It is clearly coming back with nonsense like the 70 players want a voice story and other nonsense but intelligent people realize the NFL has flat been lying.

[speedkilz88]

Goodell's Dad was a lawyer and State Senator and then retired to a law practice in Washington D.C. Goodell is hardly anti-lawyer even if it is convenient to argue such right now.My Dad and Uncles were in the Sheetmetal Workers Union. Does that mean I'm not anti-union afterall?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My Dad and Uncles were in the Sheetmetal Workers Union. Does that mean I'm not anti-union afterall?

Of course not but would it be a unreasonable to think that you very well might be?

The fruit typically does not fall too far from the tree.

[jterrell]

My Dad and Uncles were in the Sheetmetal Workers Union. Does that mean I'm not anti-union afterall?

Do about 5 minutes Goodell research then come back with your inane thoughts.

[Trendnet]

All that would be fine except you miss all the basic truths.

As in any real contracted situation Barry Church would have a guaranteed salary. Injured or not he gets paid. Cut or not, he gets paid.

The players ARE NOT losing the public perception battle. Maybe on this site they are but not at large. Not since the judge stepped in and shut up the NFL and their propaganda machine. It is clearly coming back with nonsense like the 70 players want a voice story and other nonsense but intelligent people realize the NFL has flat been lying.

I don't know about you, but contracts doesn't equal guaranteed, especially for independent contractors.

But as another poster so kindly pointed out.. it's only hypothetical, and I already waded into a subject matter I care little about...

so whatever.

[adbutcher]

Cry me a river Goodell, you and the owners should have thought about this before yall opted out.


What the hell did you think was going to happen? That the players would just say "anything is fine with me, I just want to play".



Anybody with 1 ounce of gray matter in their brain could have seen this coming. The owners opt out, the union decertifies, lawsuits filled, ect......

pretty much...

[Randy White]

so much misinformation, spins, and right out lies on this threat that if it wasn't because it's 2011, you'd think this was the 2012 political election campaigns.

Having said that, getting into more specifics is a waste of time since it's basically the same things that have been posted dozens of times before, but to those of you who keep saying that if the players get their way (as ridiculous as that sounds ) the NFL would turn into baseball which is a " farm system " for the big market teams, do yourselves and favor stop doing that because you're looking like fools. You, OBVIOUSLY, have no clue at what you're saying and are just throwing sssshhhtuff against the wall to see if it stick.

Forget small details, like in order for the NFL to become another MLB the Dallas Cowboys ( and other big market teams like them ) would be allowed to create their own TV network like the Yankees and Red Sox which won't happen in at least our lifetimes, but the fact that ANY franchise in baseball has the chance, if runned properly, to win the WS in any given year ( like this past decade has shown ) is enough evidence to put that crappy-media pundits-myth creation to rest.

Yes, the Yankees and the Red Sox are going to sign whomever they want, just like it's ALWAYS been in baseball since the Yankees purchased Babe Ruth's contract, and the players restriction of movement was later lifted in the 70's. However, just like it's ALWAYS been in baseball, 90% + of WS champions are made up mostly of talent developed by the teams themselves.

And by the way, that's even more true in the NFL.

[InmanRoshi]

It's some what hilarious to me that the entire player's case is suspect becuase they have a perceived stereotypical "slimeball lawyer" in Demaurice Smith representing them, but yet that same standard isn't applied to their owners.

As far as being the stereotypical slimeball attourney who stands for no higher principle other than the padding of his own wallet, Smith is but a young Padawan in training compared to the Dark Lord Jedi known as David Boies, the owners lead attorney.

What else can you say about a guy who simultaneously represents Michael Moore AND Goldmann Sachs. A guy who made his mark defending IBM's anti-trust case against the DOJ, and then turned around and switched sides and represented the DOJ in the United States vs. Microsoft.

(FWIW, I don't think either one are "slimeballs", I think they're just doing the job their clients pay them to do)

[JIGGYFLY]

It's some what hilarious to me that the entire player's case is suspect becuase they have a perceived stereotypical "slimeball lawyer" in Demaurice Smith representing them, but yet that same standard isn't applied to their owners.

As far as being the stereotypical slimeball attourney who stands for no higher principle other than the padding of his own wallet, Smith is but a young Padawan in training compared to the Dark Lord Jedi known as David Boies, the owners lead attorney.

What else can you say about a guy who simultaneously represents Michael Moore AND Goldmann Sachs. A guy who made his mark defending IBM's anti-trust case against the DOJ, and then turned around and switched sides and represented the DOJ in the United States vs. Microsoft.

(FWIW, I don't think either one are "slimeballs", I think they're just doing the job their clients pay them to do)

:bow:

[dogberry]

If the whole controversy is about the real split, then the take for the players before taxes is $4.494 billion while the owners get $1.07 billion before taxes.

$4 bucks for the guys on the field, and $1 for the suits (and dresses).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If the whole controversy is about the real split, then the take for the players before taxes is $4.494 billion while the owners get $1.07 billion before taxes.

$4 bucks for the guys on the field, and $1 for the suits (and dresses).

Using the figures pimped by the owners yet rejected by the independent auditor who actually accounted them does not help.

We have no idea what the real figures are. i doubt anyone really does because the owners will not even disclose that information amongst themselves.

[Beast_from_East]

Using the figures pimped by the owners yet rejected by the independent auditor who actually accounted them does not help.

We have no idea what the real figures are. i doubt anyone really does because the owners will not even disclose that information amongst themselves.

The players are never going to agree to jack without seeing the financials.

Too much distrust at this point between the parties.