Aha, NFL Network said De Smith said we dont serve owners or public!

[DeaconBlues]

Smith should be killed. The players don't seem to understand that the NFL will not exist without the union. They are absolute moron being lead by a moron.

...and people can't figure out why most non-lawyer/sane people side with the owners here?!?!? :bang2:

Not true. There was no union from 1987 to 1993.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Short answer, no. Unless even a sizable minority of fans (25%+) organizes and goes on strike - TV and attendance - there is no reason either party should be mindful.

Yeah, but in a way, your saying it does, when you say if 25 % plus goes on strike, etc cuts out tv sports etc.. Without the fan, the main thing, there is no football. If fans didnt watch pro football, buy souvenoirs, tickets, parking etc, then NFL would be over, just like right now, UFL is in financial trouble, 40 million in debt I think.

Now, I do agree with you, that fans wont organize and go on strike,but that really would wake up the NFL, the NFLPA, and the owners.

If this strike keeps going on, then that could happen or like fans just go watch some other sport, and forget pro football, like watch soccer, golf, basketball, college football.

Sometimes, fans have enough, just like years ago during the baseball strike, baseball was hurt big time because fans had enough of the strike etc. So, never say never, just depends on when fans have had enough.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

The simple long-term solution is to let the stupid lawyers blow it up, then hardline them.

Afterwards we'll all sit back and watch the best case scenario which is the resulting crumble of the Players Union forever, except for those commiting alot more crimes than usual because there isn't any Pro football.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Not true. There was no union from 1987 to 1993.

Absolutely true! The case (anti-trust) was already in court during those years. It was still protected because of the case being in court. The NFL will not exist without one as it goes against anti-trust law!

 

[Dough Boy]

Not true. There was no union from 1987 to 1993.

There was no salary cap or rev sharing during those years. Its hard to have your cake and eat also.

 

[Doomsday101]

Just because the fans pay for the league, doesn't mean that the players serve the fans.

This is a job, its an occupation.

They aren't slaves, and they don't have to enter into any agreement that puts their ability to procure income in jeopardy.

and only exsist as long as fans are willing to view. No they are not slaves they are entertainers once it gets to the point people would rather spend their time and money on other things there is no job.

What is funny Smith comment back in March:

"We want to say a special thanks to all our fans for being extremely patient, we dig our fans," Smith said. "Our players want to play football.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Just because the fans pay for the league, doesn't mean that the players serve the fans.

This is a job, its an occupation.

They aren't slaves, and they don't have to enter into any agreement that puts their ability to procure income in jeopardy.

I disagree with you, in a way they do. Do some players sign autographs, chat with fans at sports events, on their time, have fan clubs, have football camps for boys and girls? I agree money wise in essence, we dont pay the players upfront, but behind the scenes that the owners and NFL gets from tickets, parking, concessions, jerseys, autographs, etc..

Do some players get money for their autographs from fans? Or money for their signed jerseys or pictures?

Think about that?

 

[Gaede]

They're just being smart...If they recertify at the drop of a hat, it becomes pretty clear that decertification was a sham. Seems to me they're just making it look like a geniune issue so that 5 years from now, when the owners lock em out again, they can just go ahead and decertify without it appearing so much as a sham

 

[DeaconBlues]

Absolutely true! The case (anti-trust) was already in court during those years. It was still protected because of the case being in court. The NFL will not exist without one as it goes against anti-trust law!

The protection was based upon the CBA, not the union. You can have one without the other.

 

[Doomsday101]

I disagree with you, in a way they do. Do some players sign autographs, chat with fans at sports events, on their time, have fan clubs, have football camps for boys and girls? I agree money wise in essence, we dont pay the players upfront, but behind the scenes that the owners and NFL gets from tickets, parking, concessions, jerseys, autographs, etc..

Do some players get money for their autographs from fans? Or money for their signed jerseys or pictures?

Think about that?

Bottom line without fans there is no NFL

 

[DeaconBlues]

There was no salary cap or rev sharing during those years. Its hard to have your cake and eat also.

Both which occurred after the NFL lost the anti-trust case, due to a lack of a bargained for CBA.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Why do I think they just don't want to go to training camp?

 

[YosemiteSam]

The protection was based upon the CBA, not the union. You can have one without the other.

That would NEVER happen. The NFL would cut their own throats in doing something so ignorant.

 

[Dough Boy]

Both which occurred after the NFL lost the anti-trust case, due to a lack of a bargained for CBA.

How do you split rev without an agreement to split rev? I think all parties (fans, players, owners) will acknowlege that players make more today than years ago becasue of the rev split. Without rev sharing, how do the players continue to make as much as they do today.

 

[THUMPER]

De Smith just talked on NFLN.......every other word was "Uh" or "Um"....was the most annoying thing i've ever heard. Just wanted to smack him.

Another fine graduate of the "Jerry Jones School of Public Speaking". He'll have to go back for a master's degree in lip smacking though.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

The closer we get to a deal the more confused the media is getting

 

[cowboyjoe]

M'Kevon and CcBoy: I am glad you all understand this cba legal stuff, and explaining some, even if i disagree with you on some issues, because its sure over my head.

 

[DeaconBlues]

That would NEVER happen. The NFL would cut their own throats in doing something so ignorant.

Happened in 1987.

 

[DeaconBlues]

How do you split rev without an agreement to split rev? I think all parties (fans, players, owners) will acknowlege that players make more today than years ago becasue of the rev split. Without rev sharing, how do the players continue to make as much as they do today.

I'm think this is a little off track. I'm referred to what is required to avoid the anti-trust suit, which is a bargained for CBA, but not necessarily a union.

For your question, you simply bargain for it. Or, as in 1993, you have an anti-trust verdict to wave over someone's head.

 

[Seven]

Honestly they don't serve the fans. I agree with him. Sure it's not the PC thing to say but he's absolutely right.

Unless I have missed something the fans have not earned any benefits during this entire process. Ticket prices will be the same. We'll still get charged oevr $300 for Sunday Ticket (unless you're a new customer or threaten to cancel). Concession prices will be the same. Etc.

A NINE BILLION DOLLAR television contract would disagree with you.