PFT: Rumors fly of a complete NFL shutdown

[cowboyjoe]

Rumors fly of a complete NFL shutdown
Posted by Mike Florio on May 8, 2011, 3:52 PM EDT
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/
Getty ImagesSo if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling that the lockout should be lifted while the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit proceeds, the league will simply open the doors and allow business to continue as usual until the Brady case is settled, right?

Maybe not.

We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout. Instead, the league essentially would be going out of business — something for which the NFL repeatedly chided the union in the weeks and months preceding decertification of the NFLPA.

[burmafrd]

would make it even more interesting. The players screaming at the judge to force the owners to do business when they declare everything shut down.

[Rogah]

I don't see this as a viable option. It would create a legal nightmare of absolutely unprecedented proportions. How can a company that is out of business collect revenue or pay debt? Plus, it could arguably nullify all current contracts, so basically every single player would become a UFA.

This would be a P.R. nightmare. I don't see it as anything more than some unfounded rumor.

[theogt]

Almost certainly wouldn't pass muster in the courts, so this is just nonsense.

[5Stars]

The ace in the hole...

I can survive for a year or two, can you? Or do you want a job?

If football is not here this year, owners like Jerry can still make some money with their stadium events. What would the players do now?:confused:

[satam55]

If the NFL and the individual 32 team owners (collectively, as they would have to) voted to disband and “shut down” the NFL and the 32 Individual teams – in addition to the anti-trust issues – wouldn’t certain owners face possible breach of contract suits from Cities/States who funded their stadiums? Wouldn’t the Television/Satellite/Radio contracts and sponsors the league and each team individually have also be open to Breach of Contract suits? Do the Commissioner, NFL Execs and Team Owners realize their exposure to legal action – which, would cost them far more than the players would take.

[RS12]

Lets see, sued by note holders for construction, sued by local government for bonds. Not to mention suite holders and local sponsors who might figure out their money is better spent elsewhere. Sounds pretty stupid.

[jobberone]

I don't believe that would happen. It would affect every employee in the NFL. The coaches would not get paid. Secretaries and janitors et al would be looking for a job. Think of the lawsuits. How do they start it all up again? Who jumps in an starts a new league with all those employees and players available? What a nightmare for the owners.

[5Stars]

Almost certainly wouldn't pass muster in the courts, so this is just nonsense.

I agree with you. It would be a financial nightmare for the owners to even think about that

(stupid NFL)

[ChopBlock]

Florio must not realize an email has been sent.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b133/BrAinPaiNt/horsehockey.jpg

[The30YardSlant]

Won't happen. First of all, this would be media suicide. All of the bad press the NFLPA has generated for itself would be a fart in the wind compared to this. Second, this would never hold up in the courts.

Journalistic sensationalism at its best

[HoosierCowboy]

but, legal or not, stupid or not, any legal action against the owners would be in litigation for years and years---it's a matter of who blinks first

[RS12]

but, legal or not, stupid or not, any legal action against the owners would be in litigation for years and years---it's a matter of who blinks first

Not breach of contract suits by people they owe money too.

[tupperware]

The ace in the hole...

I can survive for a year or two, can you? Or do you want a job?

If football is not here this year, owners like Jerry can still make some money with their stadium events. What would the players do now?:confused:
http://humormeblog.beloblog.com/archives/mcdonald%27s

[5Stars]

Come to think about it? IMO.

Yeah, let's just have a football season next year instead, that way us fans can save up for the cost to go to a game.
:mad:

[5Stars]

http://humormeblog.beloblog.com/archives/mcdonald%27s

:lmao2: :laugh1: :lmao2:




(stupid cowboy fans)

[tupperware]

:lmao2: :laugh1: :lmao2:




(stupid cowboy fans)
:(:(?

[Rogah]

The ace in the hole...

I can survive for a year or two, can you? Or do you want a job?

If football is not here this year, owners like Jerry can still make some money with their stadium events. What would the players do now?:confused:Owners like Jerry would possibly have some decent revenue, but there are an awful lot of other owners with some serious debt load that would have a hard time going without revenue. I'm not saying they would default on their loans since they would probably get restructured. But it would cost them truckloads of $$.

[TD-33]

No Way! A seemingly controversial Joe thread??

[perrykemp]

Devil's advocate here:

If you accept that the Green Bay Packers, what I (and most others) would expect to be a fairly conservatively run organization (being non-profit and all) only made $10 million last year you MIGHT be able to extrapolate that and come to the conclusion that some of the NFL franchises are indeed losing money.

If this is true -- that they are really losing money -- the current labor deal really doesn't provide a lot of hope that will ever change.

If you buy all of this -- and I know we are stretching here, then if I were an owner of one of these franchises losing money shutting down business until I get the labor deal I need from the players sounds like a reasonable approach.

[ThreeSportStar80]

Dumbest idea yet... It won't happen.

[cowboyjoe]

No Way! A seemingly controversial Joe thread??

hey buddy, i just post what i think would be interesting or i find:starspin

[dadymat]

http://humormeblog.beloblog.com/archives/mcdonald%27s

they cant work there ....they would expect Mcdonalds to give them 60%......i mean after all what would Mcdonalds do if it wasnt for all the workers

[satam55]

Devil's advocate here:

If you accept that the Green Bay Packers, what I (and most others) would expect to be a fairly conservatively run organization (being non-profit and all) only made $10 million last year you MIGHT be able to extrapolate that and come to the conclusion that some of the NFL franchises are indeed losing money.

If this is true -- that they are really losing money -- the current labor deal really doesn't provide a lot of hope that will ever change.

If you buy all of this -- and I know we are stretching here, then if I were an owner of one of these franchises losing money shutting down business until I get the labor deal I need from the players sounds like a reasonable approach.

ummmmm...........You're forgetting the Packers are in easily the smallest Market of any team in the Big 5 sports Leagues in U.S. (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS.) So the packers are a horrible example to use.

[perrykemp]

ummmmm...........You're forgetting the Packers are in easily the smallest Market of any team in the Big 5 sports Leagues in U.S. (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS.) So the packers are a horrible example to use.

The Packers are in the top half of NFL team in terms of revenue. In fact, money is flowing out of the Packers (ie revenue sharing for low revenue teams) because they are so well run and, surprisingly, are aboe NFL-team average in revenues.

In fact, in 2009 Jerry Jones was fined by the NFL when he verbalized the fact that the Packers with a local population base of 100,000 people is subsidizing the Vikings with a local city population of 3.5 million via revenue sharing.

You can read more about Jerry's statement here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4469721

The interesting portion of the article is below:
When he was last heard from in Minnesota as the Cowboys wrapped up the preseason, Jones tried to send a message to assist Wilf's efforts for a new stadium. He made himself available to the Minnesota media as a favor to Wilf, according to a Cowboys source.

"Right now, we are subsidizing this market," Jones said. "It's unthinkable to think that the market you've got here, with 3.5 million people, and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay subsidizing this market. That will stop. That's going to stop. That's called revenue sharing. That's on its way out."
Also note that the Packers pay zero of their profits out to owners. Their model is about as pure as you can get when trying to figure out how an NFL business works.

[Rogah]

ummmmm...........You're forgetting the Packers are in easily the smallest Market of any team in the Big 5 sports Leagues in U.S. (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS.) So the packers are a horrible example to use.Market size is completely irrelevant in the NFL. The Packers may be in a small market, but that doesn't hurt them in the slightest. First of all, they sell out all their games, so their ticket revenue is higher than many other teams (such as Detroit, Tampa Bay or Jax). Second of all, their TV revenue is just as much as anyone else's in the league. This isn't a situation like baseball where a small market team literally has 10 times less TV revenue than, say, the Yankees.

[Reality]

We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout.
This has been one of the "tactics" I have been talking about when I've been saying that unlike the players, the owners have not shown their hand yet at the options available.

As I have said all along, the owners had spent years planning and preparing for this situation and just because they haven't unloaded the full force of the legal team no one should mistake that for lack of fall back strategies.

-Reality

[Reality]

Almost certainly wouldn't pass muster in the courts, so this is just nonsense.

So you are actually saying that courts would prevent privately owned organizations from shutting down? That's funny, I see businesses do that every single day. The bottom line is the courts cannot force a business to remain intact or operational.

The hypocrisy of your posts has become very evident. You have no problem with the players association shutting down but when even rumors of the owners shutting down their organization, you cry foul.

I am enjoying this :D

-Reality

[TD-33]

hey buddy, i just post what i think would be interesting or i find:starspin
yeah I know but they tend to be overly controversial or negative. :starspin

[The Quest for Six]

Almost certainly wouldn't pass muster in the courts, so this is just nonsense.


oh, like when the union decertified as a ploy!!! courts couldn't do anything if the owners shut down their business

[TD-33]

Rumors fly of a complete NFL shutdown

except

If they just shut down business and closed, they'd have to pay out all their guaranteed contracts to players, stadiums, employees, video games, commercials, tv companies, products, tax breaks that they've been receiving based on future payments, etc etc etc the list goes on and on and on. This is on top of if they decided to reopen the NFL again, they'd not have any players under contract, having to redraft all players rights, payout all new bonuses for signing a new contract (53 new contracts with bonuses), hire on all new staff (because they can go wherever they want) and oh yeah....find a city that'll let you screw them over again with a deal to remain at the stadium you just tried to weasel out of

[theogt]

So you are actually saying that courts would prevent privately owned organizations from shutting down? That's funny, I see businesses do that every single day. The bottom line is the courts cannot force a business to remain intact or operational.

The hypocrisy of your posts has become very evident. You have no problem with the players association shutting down but when even rumors of the owners shutting down their organization, you cry foul.

I am enjoying this :D

-RealityI would love to spend the time to explain antitrust law and the reasons why this wouldn't stand up in court, but I'm not sure you'd listen, so what's the point?

[Rogah]

So you are actually saying that courts would prevent privately owned organizations from shutting down? That's funny, I see businesses do that every single day. The bottom line is the courts cannot force a business to remain intact or operational.No, but the courts can force businesses to honor contracts and debts already agreed to, going so far as seizing assets if necessary.

I think that most of the NFL's partners would be patient. The networks don't want to lose the TV rights, gatorade wouldn't want to lose its sponsorship, etc, etc. I also think that the salaried employees (i.e. the office people, groundskeepers, etc) would miss a few paychecks, but probably not be out of work permanently. The players, however, would immediately turn around and say "show us the money."

Now the NFL currently has no guaranteed contracts with players. The entire league can essentially cut every single player instead of paying the amounts due. But I just don't see that as even remotely within the realm of possibility.

[Lodeus]

they cant work there ....they would expect Mcdonalds to give them 60%......i mean after all what would Mcdonalds do if it wasnt for all the workers

:muttley:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Supreme Court already chided the NFL for attempting to just change the name of what they are doing in order to bypass a court judgement.

Its not a lockout, its a 'shut down?' :rolleyes:

And i do not want to hear about the players decertifying. That was a legal standing with the NLRB and a legal status they could change.

The league doing this is just playing with semantics.

i would absolutely love if the courts were to invoke the incarceration penalty in the Sherman Act for the behavior that the NFL exhibits.

[Modus]

This is one of those very rare times where I wish an NFL contract was completely guaranteed.

The players are getting the shaft while the owners laugh and demand their money back. The legalities of this whole show are getting ridiculous.

[burmafrd]

IF the NFL was to shut down completely they would have to honor some committments to cities for rent and the like. BUT I am not sure about the player contracts. I think the only thing guaranteed is the signing bonuses. Nothing else. Which most have already been paid. No way the courts can order a business to keep running if they shut completely down. Have to laugh at someone thinking the courts would try and FORCE a business to keep running when the owner wants to file bankruptcy, etc.

[Sam I Am]

Funny that the *lawyer* says that the courts can prevent the NFL from shutting down operations. He is shoveling you know what. The NFL can shutdown operations, though it would cause a major headache for them due to their liabilities.

People should just stop arguing with *that guy*. He will continue to argue even after he gets proven wrong.

[Hoofbite]

The Supreme Court already chided the NFL for attempting to just change the name of what they are doing in order to bypass a court judgement.

Its not a lockout, its a 'shut down?' :rolleyes:

And i do not want to hear about the players decertifying. That was a legal standing with the NLRB and a legal status they could change.

The league doing this is just playing with semantics.

i would absolutely love if the courts were to invoke the incarceration penalty in the Sherman Act for the behavior that the NFL exhibits.

Why's that?

I'd absolutely love to see a CBA come out of this. Don't really care for anything that isn't a CBA. Maybe that's just me.

[Hoofbite]

This is one of those very rare times where I wish an NFL contract was completely guaranteed.

The players are getting the shaft while the owners laugh and demand their money back. The legalities of this whole show are getting ridiculous.

How so?

[Sam I Am]

Someone doesn't know the difference between a lockout and a shutdown. They aren't the same thing under a different name. :muttley:

Lockout = League is in operation, but locking out the players only.

Shutdown = Entire operation is shutdown. Everyone one, not just players would then be out of work. That in includes secretarial staff, janitorial staff, coaching staff, scouting staff, everything.

If the league were to operate without a CBA, they could be putting themselves in a extreme bad situation. They *DO* have the right to completely shutdown. They just can't discriminate and lockout just a specific group of people.

[peplaw06]

So you are actually saying that courts would prevent privately owned organizations from shutting down? That's funny, I see businesses do that every single day. The bottom line is the courts cannot force a business to remain intact or operational.

The hypocrisy of your posts has become very evident. You have no problem with the players association shutting down but when even rumors of the owners shutting down their organization, you cry foul.

I am enjoying this :D

-RealityYou sound like you're more interested in your side "winning" than you are in having football. Embarrassing.

Do those of you in this thread who think this is actually a good idea for the owners realize what a shutdown means? The whole reason this site is here would no longer exist. But hey, you'd get to claim you were right on this site... that would then have no reason to exist.

Good for you.

[Gadfly22]

Courts, mediators and NFL players: We have a nasty labor dispute going on, but it's mostly about money, and we can get it settled (after some legal wrangling).

NFL Owners: Nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure.

[LittleD]

You sound like you're more interested in your side "winning" than you are in having football. Embarrassing.

Do those of you in this thread who think this is actually a good idea for the owners realize what a shutdown means? The whole reason this site is here would no longer exist. But hey, you'd get to claim you were right on this site... that would then have no reason to exist.

Good for you.


The Players brought this outcome on themselves with Decertification. In order to protect themselves from Antitrust issues and fines, the NFL has to do the smart thing and go out of business and into the bankruptcy courts. No tripple damages if you go bankrupt. Owners 1 players 0...end of story.

[Sam I Am]

You sound like you're more interested in your side "winning" than you are in having football. Embarrassing.

Do those of you in this thread who think this is actually a good idea for the owners realize what a shutdown means? The whole reason this site is here would no longer exist. But hey, you'd get to claim you were right on this site... that would then have no reason to exist.

Good for you.

I don't think that is what he means at all. I think everyone hear wants football. Of course sometimes people need to learn their place. Players aren't supposed to be the ones running the show and that is what they think they are entitled to do right now and that is why he is against them.

I think everyone wants a fair outcome here. I am more or less on the owners side too, but not because I want them to stick it to the players. I want the players to get put in their place. They think they should dictate what happens. They are still the employees, not the owners. They hold no responsibility to any of the games liability.

[Sandyf]

It would be an interesting tactic by the owners albeit a lawyer dream.

First, the owners do and could "shutdown" operations. It is just like going out of business. The kicker is that they would be responsible for contract payments to individuals, sponsors, cities, i.e. anyone that they are obligated.

As to players, those salaries are at will meaning it is just as if they fired them all collectively, so yes technically they would be all free agents including those just drafted and all of them unrestricted.

Second, there would be thousands of lawsuits filed against the each owner individually but the current court preceding would be less of a problem for the owners because there would be no NFL sort of like there is no union currently.

Third, c'mon guys all of this is just positioning to get the best deal for whichever side you want to take. It is a way for the owners to force the players to agree with more of what they want instead of more of what the players want. It is to see who will cave in first. And that, my friends, would be a very interesting case.

The players want money and most of the owners could hold out but there is nothing to say that some of the poorer owners couldn't approach the UFL and start teams in the public stadiums, so it becomes a huge risk on everyones part.

More likely would be the owners playing by the 2010 rules or something similar to them and then you probably would see some cities, i.e. Cincinnati have a combined salaries of less than 60 million while some like Washington might go crazy. Anything short of a new CBA is not good for either side but neither side wants to give an inch to the other, thereby the stalemate.

[peplaw06]

I don't think that is what he means at all. I think everyone hear wants football. Of course sometimes people need to learn their place. Players aren't supposed to be the ones running the show and that is what they think they are entitled to do right now and that is why he is against them.

I think everyone wants a fair outcome here. I am more or less on the owners side too, but not because I want them to stick it to the players. I want the players to get put in their place. They think they should dictate what happens. They are still the employees, not the owners. They hold no responsibility to any of the games liability.This whole post is fail.

Players need to get put in their place. Seriously?

[Double Trouble]

All these "they can't do that!" posts are awesomeness.

Both sides have been preparing for this for years. They aren't just flying by the seat of their pants. If this is really something being considered by the owners, it isn't something someone scratched out on the back of an envelope. If they consider it an option, they would at least think that it has a chance of working, or at least buying them some time, just as the nflpa* has undoubtedly already considered responses to virtually every move the owners might make.

[Sam I Am]

This whole post is fail.

Players need to get put in their place. Seriously?

Seriously. I believe it all stems from D Smith trying to make a name for himself. If ANYONE else would have been leading the NFLPA, we would never be where we are now. A CBA would have been in place and we would be talking about football rather than this garbage.

[burmafrd]

This whole post is fail.

Players need to get put in their place. Seriously?


Players are not partners. They are employees. They do not seem to get that.

[peplaw06]

Seriously. I believe it all stems from D Smith trying to make a name for himself. If ANYONE else would have been leading the NFLPA, we would never be where we are now. A CBA would have been in place and we would be talking about football rather than this garbage.You know.... all the slavery quotes from the players were criticized as ridiculous, and rightfully so. But thoughts like this "need to get put in their place" crap are just as ridiculous, if not more.

And why would you say "players need to get put in their place" if you think D Smith is a renegade acting only to further his name?

I swear it's like a broken record in here. Guess it's just time for me to recognize that some of you are not going to do any rational thinking and just burn the players at the stake so to speak. Y'all have at it.

[Sam I Am]

You know.... all the slavery quotes from the players were criticized as ridiculous, and rightfully so. But thoughts like this "need to get put in their place" crap are just as ridiculous, if not more.

And why would you say "players need to get put in their place" if you think D Smith is a renegade acting only to further his name?

I swear it's like a broken record in here. Guess it's just time for me to recognize that some of you are not going to do any rational thinking and just burn the players at the stake so to speak. Y'all have at it.

It is, and your voice is on that record too. I already said I didn't want them burned at the stake, (I said I want both to have a fair deal) but you keep saying I do. That tells me that you are out of ammo and are looking for other things to throw but can't find any.

[theogt]

The court would not respect a multi-billion dollar business "shutting down" its business without any effort at winding down the business. It would be viewed as a (hilariously stupid) ploy to get around antitrust law and would only serve to anger an already frustrated federal judge. This is so far beyond plausible I'm not sure why it's even being entertained by Florio. Maybe it was a slow news day.

[peplaw06]

It is, and your voice is on that record too. I already said I didn't want them burned at the stake, (I said I want both to have a fair deal) but you keep saying I do. That tells me that you are out of ammo and are looking for other things to throw but can't find any. You are so inconsistent I can't even follow what you say anymore.

In one sentence you say you don't want the owners to stick it to the players, then in the very next one you say the players need to be put in their place. Then you say you want a fair deal.

Maybe you are just so confused that you don't know what you want. I know I'm confused about what you want.

And I don't need any "ammo." I just want people to discuss the issues rationally without all this cliched general, "Players suck. They're employees. Know your place boy. D Smith is a renegade/moron."

I guess that's what happens when you can't understand the issues.

[fortdick]

The court would not respect a multi-billion dollar business "shutting down" its business without any effort at winding down the business. It would be viewed as a (hilariously stupid) ploy to get around antitrust law and would only serve to anger an already frustrated federal judge. This is so far beyond plausible I'm not sure why it's even being entertained by Florio. Maybe it was a slow news day.

Then we need to rein in our courts because they are over reaching their authority.

[theogt]

Then we need to rein in our courts because they are over reaching their authority.They're not. They're following the law. If you want the law changed, write your congressman.

[burmafrd]

A business owner can decide to shut down any time he wants. Of course he has to pay agreed upon sums and the like, but it is laughable to say that the courts would say "You cannot shut down your buisiness."

[Nirvana]

A new CBA is clearly very important to owners and they don't want things to go forward without one.

The players missing paychecks is their key strategy. This could go on a long time but hopefully not and this doesn't ruin the season.

[fortdick]

They're not. They're following the law. If you want the law changed, write your congressman.

Ya know, I do write him, but he never responds. And I don't vote for him either

[Sam I Am]

You are so inconsistent I can't even follow what you say anymore.

In one sentence you say you don't want the owners to stick it to the players, then in the very next one you say the players need to be put in their place. Then you say you want a fair deal.


There is nothing inconsistent about what said. I do want the players to get a fair deal, but I also think the players need to be put back in their place. They seem to think they are entitled to dictate what they should and shouldn't get. They are employees, they do not dictate how a business is run.

Stop spewing BS about what I'm saying. If anything reading comprehension should be a something you are good at. (considering) Either that or what you are probably really doing. Misdirection because you can't solidify your position. Another cheap lawyer trick.

[Yakuza Rich]

This is the dumbest report I've ever heard and probably more of Florio making stuff up.

Shutting down operations would be suicide for the owners. And the CBA they were operating under is 1000 times better than their 'rumblings' of shutting the entire league down.

I was trying to think of all of the possible lawsuits that the owners would have to deal with if they shut the entire league down and it's almost endless and I don't think anybody could predict the fallout with any sort of accuracy.

It's times like this that really makes me wonder how PFT got anywhere as a site. It's like reporting that Goodell might get attacked by out of control Burmese pythons this afternoon. Sure, it *could* happen, but so could me getting stuck by lightning and catching polio at the same time.

Good freaking grief.






YR

[theogt]

A business owner can decide to shut down any time he wants. Of course he has to pay agreed upon sums and the like, but it is laughable to say that the courts would say "You cannot shut down your buisiness."The owners would have to truly wind up their business, which would result in them ultimately selling off assets. You can't just take every business in a particular industry and all agree to shut down for a period of time without running afoul of antitrust laws.

[peplaw06]

There is nothing inconsistent about what said. I do want the players to get a fair deal, but I also think the players need to be put back in their place. There's nothing consistent about what you said either. When you boil it all down there's nothing you said that means anything.

Stop spewing BS about what I'm saying. If anything reading comprehension should be a something you are good at. (considering) Either that or what you are probably really doing. Misdirection because you can't solidify your position. Another cheap lawyer trick.Then say something that means something. There's nothing to comprehend when you speak in ambiguous generalities. And there's nothing for me to "misdirect."

They seem to think they are entitled to dictate what they should and shouldn't get. They are employees, they do not dictate how a business is run.The players are entitled to negotiate for what they get, and it is exactly what they are doing. YOU have twisted that into some opinion that they believe they can dictate terms. But it's not the reality of the situation. If they thought they could dictate the terms of a CBA, then you probably wouldn't see any negotiations or mediation, etc. And you certainly wouldn't see an offer from the players that actually gave them less than the old CBA did.

And they're not trying to dictate how the business is run either. That's another figment of your imagination.

See what happens when you actually say something that means something? You get shot down. I know you don't like that, and that's why you rarely do it.

[jterrell]

Almost certainly wouldn't pass muster in the courts, so this is just nonsense.

This nuclear option isn't about winning in court. It is about further stalling. The NFL is just going to stall, stall, stall.

It is clear they intend to stall until the players "beg" for a deal.

But that strategy hinges upon the players not being handed the 4.4 billion from the tv deal. If they are handed that money and it goes into the lock out fund Players will probably be far better off financially then the bottom 10 owners.

Closing the NFL's door will not stop all bills form accruing. And it will really harm the local businesses and team employees including coaches.

I wonder if the players didn't leak this because it makes it makes their case stronger for irreparable harm done to the "public including fans, employees and other small local businesses".

[jterrell]

There's nothing consistent about what you said either. When you boil it all down there's nothing you said that means anything.

Then say something that means something. There's nothing to comprehend when you speak in ambiguous generalities. And there's nothing for me to "misdirect."

The players are entitled to negotiate for what they get, and it is exactly what they are doing. YOU have twisted that into some opinion that they believe they can dictate terms. But it's not the reality of the situation. If they thought they could dictate the terms of a CBA, then you probably wouldn't see any negotiations or mediation, etc. And you certainly wouldn't see an offer from the players that actually gave them less than the old CBA did.

And they're not trying to dictate how the business is run either. That's another figment of your imagination.

See what happens when you actually say something that means something? You get shot down. I know you don't like that, and that's why you rarely do it.

Bro, you haven't placed him on ignore yet? He doesn't even have an argument, just a mantra. It's as useless talking to him as it would have been talking to Jim Jones as he stirred his kool-aid.

There are some very sharp people on both sides of the debate then some who think an argument means to simply disagree with everything.

[theogt]

This nuclear option isn't about winning in court. It is about further stalling. The NFL is just going to stall, stall, stall.That's a fair point, though I think the court will act pretty quickly in stepping in given that the substance of the law has already been passed upon.

[burmafrd]

What if the owners file for bankruptcy protection? Claiming that they see no way to run at a profit? Now of course that means the books will get looked at by a court, but I wonder what those so sure that the owners were lying about profits and such were to be confronted by the fact that they were telling the truth. They would look pretty stupid, right?

And the networks will just file a suit of their own as regards the money; that will tie it up for years as well so the players get zip.

[RS12]

What if the owners file for bankruptcy protection? Claiming that they see no way to run at a profit? Now of course that means the books will get looked at by a court, but I wonder what those so sure that the owners were lying about profits and such were to be confronted by the fact that they were telling the truth. They would look pretty stupid, right?

And the networks will just file a suit of their own as regards the money; that will tie it up for years as well so the players get zip.

Nothing says bankruptcy like flying to bankruptcy court in a private jet, then pulling up to the court house in a stretch limo.

[Yakuza Rich]

What if the owners file for bankruptcy protection? Claiming that they see no way to run at a profit? Now of course that means the books will get looked at by a court, but I wonder what those so sure that the owners were lying about profits and such were to be confronted by the fact that they were telling the truth. They would look pretty stupid, right?

And the networks will just file a suit of their own as regards the money; that will tie it up for years as well so the players get zip.

Tough to claim bankruptcy when you make money from other endeavors. I don't think Paul Allen can file for bankruptcy if the Seahawks are losing money.




YR

[burmafrd]

No he couldn't. But a lot of the owners like Ralph Wilson could.

[Manwiththeplan]

the nuclear option that AdamJT13 posted is far more realistic. If the Judge rules that the NFL must begin operation immediately, and they attempt to "shut down" instead of "lock out" they will likely have to honor any valid contract and may possibly have to pay punitive damages to any free agents. They only way I see this as viable is if the owners released every player, but there's no way all 32 owners agree to this because if the NFL tried to have everyone re-sign with their old club, in order to maintain a sense of right, that would be a clear violation of anti trust law.

[Manwiththeplan]

Now of course that means the books will get looked at by a court, but I wonder what those so sure that the owners were lying about profits and such were to be confronted by the fact that they were telling the truth. They would look pretty stupid, right?

and those that are so sure that the owners are telling the truth, woud look pretty stupid if the books didn't reflect that, right?

Besides, I don't think the owners are even claiming that they are losing money. What they are claiming is they aren't making the same amount that they were prior to the old CBA. Or possibly they just aren't making the same percentage of a higher revenue than before, so they could be making more, just not as much as they think they should. The whole point of the lock-out is their profits have decreased the last few years. Instead of making $110 million, they're making $108 million, then the next year $106 million (made up numbers on my part). In the uncapped year, I'm pretty sure profits went up. While that trend is concerning, it's hardly a large enough window to determine if this is a trend. It could level out at the $90 million mark, but no one but the owners have the financial data to determine that, and they aren't sharing that info.

[Reality]

It is, and your voice is on that record too. I already said I didn't want them burned at the stake, (I said I want both to have a fair deal) but you keep saying I do. That tells me that you are out of ammo and are looking for other things to throw but can't find any.

Many of us have been saying the same thing but because they are so pro-players-no-matter-what closed minded, they assume anyone who disagrees must be on the "other side" of their opinion.

Most of us want a fair deal for both sides. Heck I want the players to get as much money as they can because their careers can end at any time. What I don't like are the tactics and motivation behind Smith and his posse which seem more focused on the top 10 percent of the players rather than the entire players union that they are supposed to represent.

For long term success, it is imperative that the players (all of them) and the owners (all of them) reach a deal that both can be happy with. Forcing one side to agree to a deal they feel is unfair will simply lead to further issues in the years to come.

I say with complete certainty that if the players or the owners get a lop-sided deal, the other side will spend the next year developing a new legal strategy to fight the battle from a different angle.

I want both sides to reach a fair deal. Unfortunately, there are agenda driven fans who simply want "their side" (team symbolism) to win as if it provides some sort of psychological replacement for the lack of football.

Then again, people who are extremely closed minded tend to be easy targets .. I will admit, it is fun to watch .. and .. well .. prod from time to time :D

-Reality

[Manwiththeplan]

What I don't like are the tactics and motivation behind Smith and his posse which seem more focused on the top 10 percent of the players rather than the entire players union that they are supposed to represent.

What was done that only benefits the top 10% or so of players? Due to the $9 million dollar road block, they haven't really moved on the rest of the CBA. In fact the only thing I've heard him talk about was wanting a longer window for pre existing conditions, reguarding post career health care. This is the only thing he's really mentioned.

[theogt]

What if the owners file for bankruptcy protection? Claiming that they see no way to run at a profit? Now of course that means the books will get looked at by a court, but I wonder what those so sure that the owners were lying about profits and such were to be confronted by the fact that they were telling the truth. They would look pretty stupid, right?

And the networks will just file a suit of their own as regards the money; that will tie it up for years as well so the players get zip.None of the owners have claimed that they are losing money.

[adbutcher]

None of the owners have claimed that they are losing money.

If they are stupid enough to file for bankruptcy, their books will be opened wider than the grand canyon.

[Rogah]

If they are stupid enough to file for bankruptcy, their books will be opened wider than the grand canyon.+1. The simple fact of the matter is that when you declare bankrupcy you get all sorts of protections from your debts, but you completely lose control of your own business. The court appoints a trustee to run things. There's no way in the world whatsoever that any of the owners would be willing to do that, let alone all 32 of them.

[theogt]

Many of us have been saying the same thing but because they are so pro-players-no-matter-what closed minded, they assume anyone who disagrees must be on the "other side" of their opinion.Many of us have been saying the same thing because the law is so heavily in the players' favor. Whether or not the owners or the players should or do have the better "ethical" arguments for their position, the law itself is a near slam dunk in favor of the players. That's just the reality of the situation, regardless of whether anyone favors the owners or the players.

[jterrell]

Devil's advocate here:

If you accept that the Green Bay Packers, what I (and most others) would expect to be a fairly conservatively run organization (being non-profit and all) only made $10 million last year you MIGHT be able to extrapolate that and come to the conclusion that some of the NFL franchises are indeed losing money.

If this is true -- that they are really losing money -- the current labor deal really doesn't provide a lot of hope that will ever change.

If you buy all of this -- and I know we are stretching here, then if I were an owner of one of these franchises losing money shutting down business until I get the labor deal I need from the players sounds like a reasonable approach.

Forbes indicated the Packers ranked only 27th in revenue at 10 Million. **** actually this is operating profit.. i.e. the 10 million in profit.. not revenue whi is like 15th. *****
that would mean 27th franchises will lose double digit millions in profit by not operating. That is NOT a good business move. Most would argue the Packers are an outlier that could certainly make more profit if they had an ownership group who actually earned the profit. They'd also note singing guys like Charles Woodson rather leads one to believe they are hardly a cheap organization even if they play in the NFL's smallest market.

[jterrell]

The Packers are in the top half of NFL team in terms of revenue. In fact, money is flowing out of the Packers (ie revenue sharing for low revenue teams) because they are so well run and, surprisingly, are aboe NFL-team average in revenues.

In fact, in 2009 Jerry Jones was fined by the NFL when he verbalized the fact that the Packers with a local population base of 100,000 people is subsidizing the Vikings with a local city population of 3.5 million via revenue sharing.

You can read more about Jerry's statement here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4469721

The interesting portion of the article is below:
When he was last heard from in Minnesota as the Cowboys wrapped up the preseason, Jones tried to send a message to assist Wilf's efforts for a new stadium. He made himself available to the Minnesota media as a favor to Wilf, according to a Cowboys source.

"Right now, we are subsidizing this market," Jones said. "It's unthinkable to think that the market you've got here, with 3.5 million people, and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay subsidizing this market. That will stop. That's going to stop. That's called revenue sharing. That's on its way out."
Also note that the Packers pay zero of their profits out to owners. Their model is about as pure as you can get when trying to figure out how an NFL business works.

Forbes ranked them only 27th in operating profit(2009 numbers which were last they computed).

That is the key number here. They do rank middle of the pack in others areas. And are no where near as valuable as the Dallas Cowboys.

[clutch88]

but, legal or not, stupid or not, any legal action against the owners would be in litigation for years and years---it's a matter of who blinks firsthttp://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk106/wsowen02/3346f60.gif (http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk106/wsowen02/3346f60.gif)

[RS12]

Strange I keep reading the NFL is readying new 2011 FA rules in various places today, and they started renovating the HOF today in Canton, doesnt really sound like the NFL is going out of business to me.

[jterrell]

Tough to claim bankruptcy when you make money from other endeavors. I don't think Paul Allen can file for bankruptcy if the Seahawks are losing money.




YR

Businesses can file bankrupcy on their own merits apart fromt he individual owners.

That's isn't an issue.

The issue is a Judge hears bankruptcy and will hardly allow people to fore go income while allowing bankruptcy.

The conservative judges the NFL loves would eat them alive on this issue because of the precedent it would set.

Also bankruptcy would be by state and not nationally so some teams might have a shot while others wouldn't. That would break owner ranks up pretty quickly.

[jterrell]

Many of us have been saying the same thing but because they are so pro-players-no-matter-what closed minded, they assume anyone who disagrees must be on the "other side" of their opinion.

Most of us want a fair deal for both sides. Heck I want the players to get as much money as they can because their careers can end at any time. What I don't like are the tactics and motivation behind Smith and his posse which seem more focused on the top 10 percent of the players rather than the entire players union that they are supposed to represent.

For long term success, it is imperative that the players (all of them) and the owners (all of them) reach a deal that both can be happy with. Forcing one side to agree to a deal they feel is unfair will simply lead to further issues in the years to come.

I say with complete certainty that if the players or the owners get a lop-sided deal, the other side will spend the next year developing a new legal strategy to fight the battle from a different angle.

I want both sides to reach a fair deal. Unfortunately, there are agenda driven fans who simply want "their side" (team symbolism) to win as if it provides some sort of psychological replacement for the lack of football.

Then again, people who are extremely closed minded tend to be easy targets .. I will admit, it is fun to watch .. and .. well .. prod from time to time :D

-Reality

I believe this is the worst post you have ever made here. I have foung you almost above reproach but this is just bad... imho.

Let me level the charges specifically:
Arguing facts not in evidence: "most of us want a fair deal..."
You have no idea what "most" want and who exactly decides what is fair?
I'd agree the majority want what themselves consider "fair".

You argue this is a "team" mentality and I agree... but you dissociate yourself from either team while stating you don't like the players for motivations you are absolutely not privy to (unless a mind reader) and clearly the NFLPA would disagree with your assessment as would many members of the NFLPA who voted to allow for de-certification and yet aren't in the top 10% of players.

You quote one of the least reasonable voices in this discussion. One who has a habit of ignoring all facts and arguing one thing then saying he didn't argue that when called on it.

To sum: Your post lacked a single actual fact. It was full of generalization (10%) and full of kettle calling pot.

[visionary]

Many of us have been saying the same thing because the law is so heavily in the players' favor. Whether or not the owners or the players should or do have the better "ethical" arguments for their position, the law itself is a near slam dunk in favor of the players. That's just the reality of the situation, regardless of whether anyone favors the owners or the players.

theo

not taking any sides here but this is what i have never understood in this debate (not being a lawyer)

if both you and peplaw think it is a slam dunk in favor of the players, as far as the law is concerned, how come the (i presume very smart and highly paid) lawyers for the NFL did not know/see this? if they did, they would never have let it come to this.

[burmafrd]

The owners beleive common sense will win out and that the Appeals Court will decide that the current laws that Nelson and Doty were using should not apply to entertainment/sporting industries. This happens; appeals courts basically telling Congress to write laws.

[theogt]

theo

not taking any sides here but this is what i have never understood in this debate (not being a lawyer)

if both you and peplaw think it is a slam dunk in favor of the players, as far as the law is concerned, how come the (i presume very smart and highly paid) lawyers for the NFL did not know/see this? if they did, they would never have let it come to this.They see the same thing as well. That doesn't mean it isn't a good strategy to litigate. First, the owners have nothing to lose. If they get hammered in court, they go back and negotiate a deal that is still better than the '06 deal (recall that the players' INITIAL offer was better for the owners than the '06 deal). So, they can wait it out and not lose a thing but lawyers fees, which are minimal in the grand scheme of things. And if they do have a 10% chance of winning, why not give it a shot?

Second, the delaying tactic and threat of dragging it through the courts is leverage in itself in negotiations.

[jterrell]

theo

not taking any sides here but this is what i have never understood in this debate (not being a lawyer)

if both you and peplaw think it is a slam dunk in favor of the players, as far as the law is concerned, how come the (i presume very smart and highly paid) lawyers for the NFL did not know/see this? if they did, they would never have let it come to this.

The NFL strategy is not to win but to stall imho. That would explain why they really don't care about the legal case. One can challenge rulings for a long time and each different challenge or appeal takes precious time.

Players want the contracts they have signed met.
But they are not likely to get handed those checks anytime soon.
In that vein the NFL can win without winning in court. They just need to keep this stalemate going.

I hate the strategy because it means a lack of football until players can't take it anymore and who knows how long that is?

I want rookie mini-camps NOW, free agent signings NOW. I hate any delay.
I don't see any of this benefit us as a team or assist in putting a better product on the field in 2011.

I don't see how anyone can believe in Garrett and Ryan but be fine with them losing valuable practice time including potentially the entire pre-season.

[The30YardSlant]

theo

not taking any sides here but this is what i have never understood in this debate (not being a lawyer)

if both you and peplaw think it is a slam dunk in favor of the players, as far as the law is concerned, how come the (i presume very smart and highly paid) lawyers for the NFL did not know/see this? if they did, they would never have let it come to this.

It isnt that the lawyers don't see it, it's just that the owners have very little to lose in comparison to the players. They are simply trying to wait them out and hoping that when the reality of not getting paid sets in they will fold. This fact alone means the litigation will be somewhat one-sided and the agreement will likely be as well.

[satam55]

theo

not taking any sides here but this is what i have never understood in this debate (not being a lawyer)

if both you and peplaw think it is a slam dunk in favor of the players, as far as the law is concerned, how come the (i presume very smart and highly paid) lawyers for the NFL did not know/see this? if they did, they would never have let it come to this.

The money is to lucrative for Lawyers to pass up.

[visionary]

theo, jterrel and 30 yard
thanx for your answers

[Beast_from_East]

If the NFL decides to "go out of business", each individual team would have to file for bankruptcy protection in the state that team resides in.

The bankruptcy court would then appoint a trustee to oversee the "reorganization" and to rank creditors in terms of liens. Furthermore, all contracts would be null and void for all employees of every team.


However, the books that are so coveted by the owners would be openned for during this process and if a team tries to file bankruptcy while they are making gobs of money..........could be a problem.


In other words, I cant just file for bankruptcy protection if I am floating in cash and actually not in financial distress. So maybe Ralph Wilson in Buffalo could file, but teams like Dallas and Washington would have a very hard time explaining to a bankruptcy judge how they are in financial distress when they are the top 2 revenue teams in the NFL.

****Note: AdamJT has confirmed on this board that not 1 single team in the NFL lost money in 2010***

[Double Trouble]

The info re: the Packers just reinforces the owners claims. The Packers are in the upper half of the league in revenue, but near the bottom in operating profit. Primarily because they have one of the higher payrolls in trying to field a winning team.

[SkinsFan28]

I am not sure if this was addressed or not, I think theogt has come closest. Suppose the NFL shutdown, by that I mean the league offices, but no teams declare bankruptcy, or insolvency, simply they are individual teams with no league affiliation. From there perhaps the AFC teams could re-affilliate as the AFL, and the NFC the "new" NFL. Further, perhaps some teams do jump to the UFL, or even Buffalo moving to the CFL.

I think this is an unimaginable nuclear option, but I am curious if it would be allowable under labor/anti-trust laws?

I would see this as a move akin to the players union de-certifying. by forming competing leagues, they would no longer be as susceptible to anti-trust. Call them the baby Ball conferences in ref to the break up of ATT long ago.

[theogt]

I am not sure if this was addressed or not, I think theogt has come closest. Suppose the NFL shutdown, by that I mean the league offices, but no teams declare bankruptcy, or insolvency, simply they are individual teams with no league affiliation. From there perhaps the AFC teams could re-affilliate as the AFL, and the NFC the "new" NFL. Further, perhaps some teams do jump to the UFL, or even Buffalo moving to the CFL.

I think this is an unimaginable nuclear option, but I am curious if it would be allowable under labor/anti-trust laws?

I would see this as a move akin to the players union de-certifying. by forming competing leagues, they would no longer be as susceptible to anti-trust. Call them the baby Ball conferences in ref to the break up of ATT long ago.Nothing in antitrust law would prevent the owners from breaking up the league into multiple competing leagues. I have no idea why anyone would want to do this, though.

[SkinsFan28]

Nothing in antitrust law would prevent the owners from breaking up the league into multiple competing leagues. I have no idea why anyone would want to do this, though.

Certainly no one would want this, but it all comes down to how far the owners feel they have to go in order to get the outcome they want. I likened it to the de-certification, because we all assume that once the CBA is renegotiated, then the union will re-form. Likewise, if the owners take steps to pull the AT stick out of the trade association's hands, then they may get a CBA which makes re-forming the league viable.

I don't know that they would, but I would think that is much more likely approach then shutting down the teams and declaring bankruptcy. At the end of the day, I assume the owners have determined to do what it takes to get the deal they want, and we will see how far they take it.

[CooterBrown]

My own take on this is much like most other posters. There is no way the NFL would just fold up and quit. However, I do see the potential for a partial shutdown.
For those who keep saying the NFL will have to go back to the previous rules, it is simple: they can't do that without being suseptible to being sued. As it stands right now, everybody not under contract is now a free agent, and that includes all the draftees from the recent draft. The NFL cannot unilaterally put any rules in place that collectively restrict the market.
I can see the owners doing nothing until the court intervenes. Then, whatever they do is pursuant to a court order and that should give them some immunity.

[theogt]

My own take on this is much like most other posters. There is no way the NFL would just fold up and quit. However, I do see the potential for a partial shutdown.
For those who keep saying the NFL will have to go back to the previous rules, it is simple: they can't do that without being suseptible to being sued. As it stands right now, everybody not under contract is now a free agent, and that includes all the draftees from the recent draft. The NFL cannot unilaterally put any rules in place that collectively restrict the market.
I can see the owners doing nothing until the court intervenes. Then, whatever they do is pursuant to a court order and that should give them some immunity.I don't think the players have any intention of suing to enjoin free agency restrictions pending negotiations, assuming they're similar to what has been in place historically. Otherwise they would have adding something to that effect when they sought an injunction for the lockout. The players clearly understand SOMETHING has to be in place.

[Nightshade]

Many of us have been saying the same thing but because they are so pro-players-no-matter-what closed minded, they assume anyone who disagrees must be on the "other side" of their opinion.

Most of us want a fair deal for both sides. Heck I want the players to get as much money as they can because their careers can end at any time. What I don't like are the tactics and motivation behind Smith and his posse which seem more focused on the top 10 percent of the players rather than the entire players union that they are supposed to represent.

For long term success, it is imperative that the players (all of them) and the owners (all of them) reach a deal that both can be happy with. Forcing one side to agree to a deal they feel is unfair will simply lead to further issues in the years to come.-Reality

Smith and his "posse". I'm not sure he's called his staff and the player reps his posse. I haven't read that in any media statement. Purhaps Goodell and his Posse wanted to racially stigmatize Smith and his staff and put that out in a statement ?:confused: :rolleyes:

[The Quest for Six]

I dont know why everyone continues to worry about this, there will be a new deal by the middle of August, all this stuff is just noise, trust me, a deal will be done before the start of the season...stop worrying about it

[Modus]

How so?

The owners are wanting more money back from them while also expecting them to play out a longer season. The longer season sits well for fans but I don't think that you could honestly sit here and expect them to play a game where at any given moment could end their career or quite conceivably their livelihood and take less money to do so.

Millions of dollars, yes. Between taxes, insurance, dues, and all the other things it may not leave a lot of wiggle room.

In terms of getting a guaranteed contract... the lockout is through no fault of their own. They're trying to get ready for a season and the lockout is because of the owners. No work... no pay... but the players want to work. And they are... but they're not seeing a penny of it right now.

Just kinda dumb to me to see them bicker like children and not bend.

[Fletch]

No news means media outlets like PFT need to write up scenarios to stir up readers. :rolleyes: Won't happen.

[jobberone]

The owners are not going to do a shutdown. That is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or killing the Golden Goose. There is way too much money involved around the "NFL" for that to happen. The only reason its worth discussing is people need to talk about something with nothing else going on. IOWs, it's the offseason still.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The owners are not going to do a shutdown. That is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or killing the Golden Goose. There is way too much money involved around the "NFL" for that to happen. The only reason its worth discussing is people need to talk about something with nothing else going on. IOWs, it's the offseason still.

The NFL has been sending out fear bombs for the past month now. I guess they are not getting enough mileage from the ominous possible elimination of the draft.

Having a bored fanbase does not help.

[dogberry]

The League of Evil should let fly the Spectre of an unrestrained Jerry Jones who would use the bottomless pit of the Money Bin that is Arlington, Texas, to transform American sports culture.

Jones' rapacious spending would turn the American Dream into a blighted, pestilent horror.

Only a concerned populist upraising across the our endangered country can save us.

The Evil that will erupt from the cesspool of North Texas can only be thwarted by giving the NFL anti-trust protection from JONES.

[jobberone]

The League of Evil should let fly the Spectre of an unrestrained Jerry Jones who would use the bottomless pit of the Money Bin that is Arlington, Texas, to transform American sports culture.

Jones' rapacious spending would turn the American Dream into a blighted, pestilent horror.

Only a concerned populist upraising across the our endangered country can save us.

The Evil that will erupt from the cesspool of North Texas can only be thwarted by giving the NFL anti-trust protection from JONES.

Well, alrighty then.

[Hoofbite]

The owners are wanting more money back from them while also expecting them to play out a longer season. The longer season sits well for fans but I don't think that you could honestly sit here and expect them to play a game where at any given moment could end their career or quite conceivably their livelihood and take less money to do so.

Millions of dollars, yes. Between taxes, insurance, dues, and all the other things it may not leave a lot of wiggle room.

In terms of getting a guaranteed contract... the lockout is through no fault of their own. They're trying to get ready for a season and the lockout is because of the owners. No work... no pay... but the players want to work. And they are... but they're not seeing a penny of it right now.

Just kinda dumb to me to see them bicker like children and not bend.

The longer season was pretty much thrown out from the get-go IIRC. The owners were also willing to reduce offseason activities on top of that.

I have no doubt that the players want to work to get paid. I think the owners are probably in the same position. I doubt either side wants to deal with this crap.

Both sides are screwing themselves by refusing to get back to the table at certain points along the way. I could care less about who the "current" problem child is, the whole damn lot needs an ***-tanning for taking part in this giant mess.

[Modus]

The longer season was pretty much thrown out from the get-go IIRC. The owners were also willing to reduce offseason activities on top of that.

I have no doubt that the players want to work to get paid. I think the owners are probably in the same position. I doubt either side wants to deal with this crap.

Both sides are screwing themselves by refusing to get back to the table at certain points along the way. I could care less about who the "current" problem child is, the whole damn lot needs an ***-tanning for taking part in this giant mess.

An ***tanning may not be what they need. They may need a scorching Indian burn to get them to save face and make some headway in clearing this up.

[CooterBrown]

I don't think the players have any intention of suing to enjoin free agency restrictions pending negotiations, assuming they're similar to what has been in place historically. Otherwise they would have adding something to that effect when they sought an injunction for the lockout. The players clearly understand SOMETHING has to be in place.

To paraphrase an old song, "all you need is one." If ONE player, or one draftee, or one former player who thinks he can still play, wanted to sue, the NFL would be in a tough spot. If 32 owners have different agendas and plans, is it possible that roughly 2000 other people will agree that SOMETHING has to be in place? And, if the players ALL agree that something has to be in place, doesn't that bolster the NFL's argument that the decertification was a sham?

[Reality]

They're not. They're following the law. If you want the law changed, write your congressman.

It would seem the law only protects the people YOU support .. I thought the law was supposed to protect EVERYONE? Then again, all of your comments have been in support of one side from the beginning which shows your bias and ultimately your agenda.

At least the top 10 percent of players have those nice endorsement deals .. the bottom 90 percent are screwed, but that's okay. At least the players "that matter" are taken care of *rolls eyes*

-Reality

[Manwiththeplan]

At least the top 10 percent of players have those nice endorsement deals .. the bottom 90 percent are screwed, but that's okay. At least the players "that matter" are taken care of *rolls eyes*

-Reality

where are people getting this from? what has he done or proposed to suggest this?

[InmanRoshi]

I love how Goodell is absolutely helpless in his position, because his job is to do the bidding of 32 owners that he can't control. But evidently the all powerful DeMarcus Smith and about 5 big name players have the ability to control the minds of 1800 players to subvert their own best interests. But other than that, Demarcus Smith is obviously a complete moron.

Kinda like how the NFL ownership is comprised of great 32 business minds and self made industrial giants, and the players are comprised of a group of borderline illiterates who would be working in McDonalds if not for football. But in 2006, that group of illiterates and potential McDonald employees negotiated the 32 self made Gods of Capitalism under the table and forced them to take a horrible business deal, so the poor ownership group had no choice but to opt out of the existing CBA.

[Sandyf]

I really think the "complete shutdown" idea is more media and hype than anything. Why would the NFL be working on free agent rules if they were going to shutdown?

The NFL confirmed yesterday that they have come up with free agent signing rules if the lockout is lifted but would not be voted on until that happens. It would seem that that is in direct opposition to being a shutdown.

[ilovejerry]

Rumors fly of a complete NFL shutdown
Posted by Mike Florio on May 8, 2011, 3:52 PM EDT
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/
Getty ImagesSo if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling that the lockout should be lifted while the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit proceeds, the league will simply open the doors and allow business to continue as usual until the Brady case is settled, right?

Maybe not.

We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout. Instead, the league essentially would be going out of business — something for which the NFL repeatedly chided the union in the weeks and months preceding decertification of the NFLPA.

Do IT !!! Cleanse them all..get rid of them and start from scratch without these ridiculous overpriced salaries !!!

[peplaw06]

It would seem the law only protects the people YOU support .. I thought the law was supposed to protect EVERYONE? Then again, all of your comments have been in support of one side from the beginning which shows your bias and ultimately your agenda.Actually, it's the opposite in this situation. The law supports the side we tend to fall on in this. The law is there to protect the players in this situation, and if the players weren't afforded the protection that the law provides, then what would be the point of the law?

At least the top 10 percent of players have those nice endorsement deals .. the bottom 90 percent are screwed, but that's okay. At least the players "that matter" are taken care of *rolls eyes*

-Realityhttp://blogs.netapp.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/30/head_in_sand.jpg (http://blogs.netapp.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/30/head_in_sand.jpg)

where are people getting this from? what has he done or proposed to suggest this?Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Randy White]

I dont know why everyone continues to worry about this, there will be a new deal by the middle of August, all this stuff is just noise, trust me, a deal will be done before the start of the season...stop worrying about it

What he said.. .


Folks, everything else, more or less, has been discussed in here. We're just repeating the same things that have been said for weeks.

NFL shuting down ? Yea, ok... whatever.

First of all, it takes 26 ? ( I believe ) teams, if not more, to shut down the league. Just to get to this point, ie: option out of the current CBA, it took some MAJOR MAJOR butt kissing from a certain group of owners to the rest the group. And now the proposal is to shut the whole thing down ?

Good luck with that one.

[Randy White]

It would seem the law only protects the people YOU support .. I thought the law was supposed to protect EVERYONE? -Reality

There's no such thing as " laws that supposed to protect everyone ". Laws protect the people who follow it and/or operate under it. Those who don't, are NOT protected by them.

[Sam I Am]

It would seem the law only protects the people YOU support .. I thought the law was supposed to protect EVERYONE? Then again, all of your comments have been in support of one side from the beginning which shows your bias and ultimately your agenda.

At least the top 10 percent of players have those nice endorsement deals .. the bottom 90 percent are screwed, but that's okay. At least the players "that matter" are taken care of *rolls eyes*

-Reality

He is bias and has a full blown agenda about everything. I used to debate/argue with him all the time, now I just have him on ignore. It's pointless.

[Sam I Am]

Actually, it's the opposite in this situation. The law supports the side we tend to fall on in this. The law is there to protect the players in this situation, and if the players weren't afforded the protection that the law provides, then what would be the point of the law?


What? The law is to protect the people, not just the players. If the NFL were without question doomed to lose, what would be the point of them even hiring lawyers?!?! You are starting to sound like theo. Full of bias and agenda. :rolleyes:

respect--.

You're still positive this far, but racing to get subterranean in that category like Theo.

[Randy White]

Vikings call stadium news conference

NFC North blog
ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert writes about all things NFC North in his division blog.

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- The Minnesota Vikings appeared ready Tuesday to abandon their longtime home in downtown Minneapolis by backing a proposed new stadium site in a suburb about 10 miles away.

Team owners Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf were scheduled to hold a news conference with several Ramsey County commissioners pushing the former Army ammunition plant site in suburban Arden Hills. The Vikings website referred to the pending announcement as the "new stadium proposal in Arden Hills."

The announcement comes just a day after Minneapolis officials pitched a plan to keep the team downtown, where the Metrodome is located. It also came just hours after Gov. Mark Dayton said fixing up roads near the Arden Hills site would likely cost at least $175 million and up to $240 million if it includes restaurants, hotels and other amenities.

Still, Dayton said he could support either site as long as the state share doesn't exceed $300 million -- about a third of the estimated cost of building a new $900 million stadium. Ramsey County officials have suggested a half-cent county sales tax increase to pay the local share.


Oh those poor poor teams that aren't making money. What would they do next ? Oh yea, how about getting public money to help finance our playgrounds ? Now there's an idea.. :rolleyes:

Oh and aren't states, county and city governments supposedly going bankrupt ? All of the sudden they have 300 million dollars to give away to billionaires so they can build their own playpen ?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The info re: the Packers just reinforces the owners claims. The Packers are in the upper half of the league in revenue, but near the bottom in operating profit. Primarily because they have one of the higher payrolls in trying to field a winning team.

THE PACKERS ARE A PUBLICLY OWNED NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The announcement comes just a day after Minneapolis officials pitched a plan to keep the team downtown, where the Metrodome is located. It also came just hours after Gov. Mark Dayton said fixing up roads near the Arden Hills site would likely cost at least $175 million and up to $240 million if it includes restaurants, hotels and other amenities.

Still, Dayton said he could support either site as long as the state share doesn't exceed $300 million -- about a third of the estimated cost of building a new $900 million stadium. Ramsey County officials have suggested a half-cent county sales tax increase to pay the local share.[/I]

Poor owners indeed.

[Randy White]

Poor owners indeed.


" But, but, but, your honor, caaannn''ttt you CCC ( name of a song, by the way ) how little money we have ? "

[peplaw06]

What? The law is to protect the people, not just the players. If the NFL were without question doomed to lose, what would be the point of them even hiring lawyers?!?! You are starting to sound like theo. Full of bias and agenda. :rolleyes:

respect--.

You're still positive this far, but racing to get subterranean in that category like Theo.IN THIS SITUATION, the players are claiming protection under antitrust laws. Players = people. The owners are the defendants. They are not claiming protection under antitrust laws. They're trying to avoid the antitrust laws being applied in this situation.

No one has said, at least not as far as I'm aware, that anyone is "without question doomed to lose." And even if that were the case, which I'm not saying it is, then that doesn't mean that the owners wouldn't have the right to hire lawyers.

And I'm really sorry you believe I'm "full of bias and agenda." Guess when you have no rebuttal to an argument, just claim the other side is biased. That fixes it all huh?

And please... don't ignore me... I don't know how I can go on without you and your complete inability to comprehend all things regarding this subject.

[Reality]

IMG]http://blogs.netapp.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/30/head_in_sand.jpg[/IMG]

I didn't read your post but I always enjoy it when people resort to photos as responses .. it usually means they lack an intelligent response.

I'll give you this .. at least it wasn't icons ..

-Reality

[peplaw06]

I didn't read your post but I always enjoy it when people resort to photos as responses .. it usually means they lack an intelligent response.

I'll give you this .. at least it wasn't icons ..

-RealityDon't worry, the intelligent response I would have posted would have been something you have heard before. And it's something you have ignored before and would have ignored again. In fact, it would have been something along the lines of what Manwiththeplan posted, which you're currently ignoring.

Which obviously makes this post of yours all the more ironic.

[CCBoy]

Don't worry, the intelligent response I would have posted would have been something you have heard before. And it's something you have ignored before and would have ignored again. In fact, it would have been something along the lines of what Manwiththeplan posted, which you're currently ignoring.

Which obviously makes this post of yours all the more ironic.

Keep on dreaming of being put on retainer by the Beach Boys....:D

[theogt]

It would seem the law only protects the people YOU support .. I thought the law was supposed to protect EVERYONE? Then again, all of your comments have been in support of one side from the beginning which shows your bias and ultimately your agenda.The law protects who it protects, whether I support them or not.

You can make up what you think the law should be, but I'm only telling you what it is.

[5Stars]

The law protects who it protects, whether I support them or not.

You can make up what you think the law should be, but I'm only telling you what it is.

OJ can vouch for that!
;)


The jury decided between two lawyers, guilty or not guilty. Was it really the law, or was it the lawyers who presented their case?

Not to bring OJ into the mess, but sometimes I wonder why? And in this case I feel the same way.

Is that really law? Or, what am I missing?

[theogt]

OJ can vouch for that!
;)


The jury decided between two lawyers, guilty or not guilty. Was it really the law, or was it the lawyers who presented their case?

Not to bring OJ into the mess, but sometimes I wonder why? And in this case I feel the same way.

Is that really law? Or, what am I missing?The OJ jury, like all juries, didn't decide what the law is, but what the facts are.

[peplaw06]

OJ can vouch for that!
;)


The jury decided between two lawyers, guilty or not guilty. Was it really the law, or was it the lawyers who presented their case?

Not to bring OJ into the mess, but sometimes I wonder why? And in this case I feel the same way.

Is that really law? Or, what am I missing?

http://bulk.destructoid.com/ul/user/2/21187-101796-facepalm6jpg-468x.jpg

[5Stars]

The OJ jury, like all juries, didn't decide what the law is, but what the facts are.

The facts are?

Don't you mean what the facts were presented/argued?

In this NFL case I think it's up to interpretation of the law by the lawyers on both sides. But, that does not really make it the law.

So, on this mess goes...


(stupid NFL)

[5Stars]

http://bulk.destructoid.com/ul/user/2/21187-101796-facepalm6jpg-468x.jpg

:laugh2:


Shut up, fool...!


Hey, I'm trying to learn over here!!!
:mad:

[Anjinsan]

I didn't read your post but I always enjoy it when people resort to photos as responses .. it usually means they lack an intelligent response.

I'll give you this .. at least it wasn't icons ..

-Reality

I hate when that happens...

[dogberry]

If the NFL's objective is to get blanket anti-trust protection such as MLB has, then they will have to do as Theo suggest, call their congress critters or get others to call Congress.

But how to get Congress' attention?

Let's see, cancel the 2012 draft, cancel the franchise designation, and have Jerry Jones announce his intention to spend what ever it takes to win the Super Bowl this year.

Will there be a political backlash from the other 56 states, if Mr. Jones is prepared to spend $150 million extra in salaries to win a championship?

If the political ploy fails, the teams will still be operating without salary guidelines and could make money with their local monopolies much as the Cubs and the Maples Leafs do.

Oh, Forbes has 2 team with negative operating income in 2009. I had to look it up, but operating income does not include charges for depreciation, amortization, taxes, and interest. Operating income isn't profit.

The split between the players and the owners in 2009 per Forbes was $4 for the players for every $1 for the owners.

This maybe why Buffet, thanks Theo, owns a minor league baseball team and not one of the big teams.

[CCBoy]

Keep on dreaming of being put on retainer by the Beach Boys....:D

Obviously you guys missed the humor here. The Beach Boys are finally back together, after numerous court cases between the members. Now, they are back in court suing for millions against a current singer using their catch phrase, 'I wish they all could be California, Girls.'

When we, the Army, came out of Viet Nam, the corp of leadership was probably at a low ebb of ineffectiveness in about two hundred years. It took redefining and clarifying what was involved with leadership and forging a new direction in NCO's, the backbone of the service. But that took insight, which Reality has hit upon...and foolishly attempted to be explained away through justificaions of tit for that types of petitions being filed.

In Korea, just to reapply a parable, since that is soooo confusing to you guys, Odoshi squats along the roadside to take a dump. Of course, he uses the kemchee squat in full view. That would be totally uneventful, in that lifestyle, but at that moment a bus full of American dependents passes right by the scene. But the catch 22 here, is that in Korean Culture, it is impolite to notice.

[SkinsFan28]

...

Will there be a political backlash from the other 56 states, if Mr. Jones is prepared to spend $150 million extra in salaries to win a championship?

...

49 states might(i doubt it), but not sure about those other 7?

[jimnabby]

Oh, Forbes has 2 team with negative operating income in 2009. I had to look it up, but operating income does not include charges for depreciation, amortization, taxes, and interest. Operating income isn't profit.Those two teams were the Seahawks and the Raiders. As for the Raiders, I would suggest that maybe the team isn't managed all that well.

Paul Allen bought the Seahawks in 1997 for $194MM. The 2009 value of the team (from the same Forbes list you cite) was $994MM. That's a 512% increase in value over 12 years, or 14.5% per year. That's an increase, on average, of $67MM per year that Allen's owned the team. Pretty good return on investment, despite running a -$2MM operating income in 2008-09 (according to Forbes).

Of course, according to Forbes, they had an operating income of +$8MM in 2007-08 and +$34MM in 2009-10. (The Raiders were in positive territory in both those years as well).

[jimnabby]

49 states might(i doubt it), but not sure about those other 7? He's making a joke about Obama's "57 states" slip of the lip during the last presidential campaign.

[AdamJT13]

49 states might(i doubt it), but not sure about those other 7?

EpGH02DtIws

[SkinsFan28]

He's making a joke about Obama's "57 states" slip of the lip during the last presidential campaign.
gotcha, didn't catch that obviously...

[dogberry]

On Allen, he did vote to opt out of the CBA? I think it was unanimous decision.

Has his appreciation stopped? He has had 3 double digit op inc years out of the last ten. He may be primarily interested in appreciation. If the appreciation has stalled, then he wants it to pick up again.

On bankruptcy, didn't the Trail Blazers, Allen's NBA team, default, bankrupt out of some of their building bonds. I'm assuming NFL owners have all of the investments separated. We wouldn't get to look at Jones' natural gas and pizza investments if the Cowboys go bankrupt.

The Forbes numbers are unclear to me, the chart shows 2010 operating income but the story is in the August, 2010 issue. I've assumed the 2010 op inc is for the year ended Feb 28 or Mar 31, 2010.

The two teams I see losing money (negative operating income) were Detroit and Miami in 2009.

I still find it interesting that only four team owners have the billion(s) outside of their teams.

[CCBoy]

EpGH02DtIws

C'mon now, he was implying: state of art, state of confusion, real estate, stated remark, state of the nation address, state of affairs, previous statement, and reinstatement.:D

[jterrell]

On Allen, he did vote to opt out of the CBA? I think it was unanimous decision.

Has his appreciation stopped? He has had 3 double digit op inc years out of the last ten. He may be primarily interested in appreciation. If the appreciation has stalled, then he wants it to pick up again.

On bankruptcy, didn't the Trail Blazers, Allen's NBA team, default, bankrupt out of some of their building bonds. I'm assuming NFL owners have all of the investments separated. We wouldn't get to look at Jones' natural gas and pizza investments if the Cowboys go bankrupt.

The Forbes numbers are unclear to me, the chart shows 2010 operating income but the story is in the August, 2010 issue. I've assumed the 2010 op inc is for the year ended Feb 28 or Mar 31, 2010.

The two teams I see losing money (negative operating income) were Detroit and Miami in 2009.

I still find it interesting that only four team owners have the billion(s) outside of their teams.

Paul Allen could care less how much money he makes or loses on the Seahawks. It effects his financial wealth so minimally as to not matter. He can use the losses to offset taxes.

The Raiders have real issues including a fairly wacked out owner who keeps hiring new coaches and a top 10 bust of all time in the draft recently. They also pay 20 mil per year to one guy who doesn't play QB.

[jimnabby]

On Allen, he did vote to opt out of the CBA? I think it was unanimous decision.

Has his appreciation stopped? He has had 3 double digit op inc years out of the last ten. He may be primarily interested in appreciation. If the appreciation has stalled, then he wants it to pick up again.

On bankruptcy, didn't the Trail Blazers, Allen's NBA team, default, bankrupt out of some of their building bonds. I'm assuming NFL owners have all of the investments separated. We wouldn't get to look at Jones' natural gas and pizza investments if the Cowboys go bankrupt.

The Forbes numbers are unclear to me, the chart shows 2010 operating income but the story is in the August, 2010 issue. I've assumed the 2010 op inc is for the year ended Feb 28 or Mar 31, 2010.

The two teams I see losing money (negative operating income) were Detroit and Miami in 2009.

I still find it interesting that only four team owners have the billion(s) outside of their teams.I'm having a hard time finding a point in all these unrelated comments.

Did he vote to opt out? I'm sure he did. Has the appreciation stalled over the last couple years, in the worst economy since the Depression? Quite likely. Does he want it to pick up? Obviously.

The team is an investment. Like most investments, it will have its ups and downs. From 1997-2009, his investment appreciated by 500+%. Over the same time period, the stock market appreciated by 0%. He made a good investment.

Nobody's going bankrupt, so I'm not sure what that's all about.

[Cousin Oliver]

Obviously you guys missed the humor here. The Beach Boys are finally back together, after numerous court cases between the members. Now, they are back in court suing for millions against a current singer using their catch phrase, 'I wish they all could be California, Girls.'

When we, the Army, came out of Viet Nam, the corp of leadership was probably at a low ebb of ineffectiveness in about two hundred years. It took redefining and clarifying what was involved with leadership and forging a new direction in NCO's, the backbone of the service. But that took insight, which Reality has hit upon...and foolishly attempted to be explained away through justificaions of tit for that types of petitions being filed.

In Korea, just to reapply a parable, since that is soooo confusing to you guys, Odoshi squats along the roadside to take a dump. Of course, he uses the kemchee squat in full view. That would be totally uneventful, in that lifestyle, but at that moment a bus full of American dependents passes right by the scene. But the catch 22 here, is that in Korean Culture, it is impolite to notice.





:lmao2:

[Chuck 54]

Who cares? I'm really over all the freakin' drama in the media. Shut the entire thing down...I'll live without NFL news this summer. At some point guys will stop getting paychecks and owners will be losing money...then we'll have football again. Shut it down...but please, shut down the coverage of it too.

It's all non-news.

[CCBoy]

:lmao2:

I see that you are still a diaper soaked pamper club member...never enlisted and whose favorite pastime is being a bore with sarcasm. You are out of YOUR environment and built in protections here, although...woo hoo, Sonnie, now run along and play where you belong.:thumbdo: :loser:

Come on and jump in there on any of the post you ignorantly laugh about....and show anything that doesn't amount to a pissy attitude.

You can take enlightened format as an excuse and try boning some topic....for once. Maybe you can bring up a topic of plagerism as well. For those who don't know YOUR origins...and your bowl is filled off site. Just reminding you that is poor etiquete here.

You think you have it all figured out on litigations, let's hear your fairie tale.

Oh, and did you get the hint at my sentiments towards yourself? To say I don't like you in any way might be humorous in itself.