NFL Lockout Stay Granted

[NinePointOh]

I didn't understand this part of your post (the rest of which I generally agreed with, other than your suggestion in the first paragraph that franchise success can be neatly separated from league success (the two are, by and large, inextricably intertwined)).

That's true in a lot of cases, but not entirely. The NHL as a whole is floundering, but teams like the Maple Leafs and Rangers and Red Wings are extremely profitable. And the NFL is highly successful, but at least some teams claim to be hurting. Just look at the disagreement between NFL owners over revenue sharing -- it either is or isn't in the league's best interest to subsidize small-market teams and keep them from losing money, but generally, owners of teams who stand to benefit want it and owners of teams who have to pay the costs oppose it.

Granted, in a CBA negotiation where the owners negotiate as a group, there are fewer examples of this, but they do exist, such as the collectively bargained rules to promote parity. Jerry and other high-revenue owners have said they could do without things like the salary cap, yet we have them -- and not because the richest owners benevolently tried to promote the collective interest of the league at their own expense, but because each owner acts in his own team's self-interest and the smaller-revenue owners outnumber the high-revenue owners.

Anyway, I didn't intend for this to be a major point, just a side note.

What's the subjective speculation you think I'm engaging in that is precluding the possibility of meaningful discussion?

Speculation that the players' incentives to care about the league's success are too small to matter in their decision-making.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Speculation that the players' incentives to care about the league's success are too small to matter in their decision-making.

If one inserts the words "long-term" before the word "success" in the quoted statement, then it's a position that can be fairly attributed to me. But I don't see it being a matter of subjective speculation; more a matter of making a reasoned judgment based upon what we know of how people respond to short-term vs. long-term incentives.

If you don't share that judgment, so be it. I don't know that it prevents meaningful discussion, however. Just prevents us from agreeing on that point.

 

[CCBoy]

That's true in a lot of cases, but not entirely. The NHL as a whole is floundering, but teams like the Maple Leafs and Rangers and Red Wings are extremely profitable. And the NFL is highly successful, but at least some teams claim to be hurting. Just look at the disagreement between NFL owners over revenue sharing -- it either is or isn't in the league's best interest to subsidize small-market teams and keep them from losing money, but generally, owners of teams who stand to benefit want it and owners of teams who have to pay the costs oppose it.

Granted, in a CBA negotiation where the owners negotiate as a group, there are fewer examples of this, but they do exist, such as the collectively bargained rules to promote parity. Jerry and other high-revenue owners have said they could do without things like the salary cap, yet we have them -- and not because the richest owners benevolently tried to promote the collective interest of the league at their own expense, but because each owner acts in his own team's self-interest and the smaller-revenue owners outnumber the high-revenue owners.

Anyway, I didn't intend for this to be a major point, just a side note.

Speculation that the players' incentives to care about the league's success are too small to matter in their decision-making.

There is also a reason why the NHL petitioned the court in this last round of litigation as a friend of the court so as to protect it's own interest in the NFL issues at court.

(And if you have not previously perceived, I present arguments or comments as a lay person outside the professionally tooled person might attach upon. And expand upon that in one's own terms and mental attachments. This to lend to topic view as well as development, not singling out particular points of law except as they serve to directional and general view. Not from lack of insight or education, but as an attempted aide to depth of perceptions that can then be used.)

 

[NinePointOh]

There is also a reason why the NHL petitioned the court in this last round of litigation as a friend of the court so as to protect it's own interest in the NFL issues at court.

Yes, but what does that have to do with whether individual team interests always align with collective league interests?

I'm afraid I don't really get what you're trying to say in virtually any of your responses to me.

 

[kmd24]

I'm afraid I don't really get what you're trying to say in virtually any of your responses to me.

Sometimes I think that account is a machine learning experiment based on a dictionary consisting solely of obscure words with three or more syllables.

 

[CCBoy]

Yes, but what does that have to do with whether individual team interests always align with collective league interests?

I'm afraid I don't really get what you're trying to say in virtually any of your responses to me.

Let's see apart from the format of an Amjured reference...as feigning of understanding on a football centered talk site:

The Chinese philosopher, Som Ting Wong arrives at a deduced logic on association with English: ah -ha. Which itself implies deduction and not a particular languaged format. Deveras? Mian ham ni da. Enchuldigen zie bitte.... or ba ba eat egaw. That isn't easily transfered by yourself.

But digressing back into subject.

You were pointing to the dissimilarity in a target group inclusive of the NHL as not translatable in comparison to the legal description of the entity, to wit, the NFL. Yet, they entered into the present litigation as a friend of court on just that basis, and not restricted to a percentage of revenue shared by comparable numbers within the sport itself. As you were limiting a direct comparison upon.

But presenting this in the vein of more an analytical view of concepts involved and not limited to applications of a finely developed argument encompassing merely aspects of debate. Then not limiting a comparison to direct useage within the venue those concepts are being fought. The cause still unaffected with the litigant at court, the NFL.

The conceptual side is easier in being picked up, by a layman. But, also trying to respect the direct discussion being engaged by yourself and Outlaw Heroes with a somewhat detached referenced style. Logic still pervades the effort.

 

[peplaw06]

Sometimes I think that account is a machine learning experiment based on a dictionary consisting solely of obscure words with three or more syllables.

[youtube]fJFtNp2FzdQ[/youtube]

 

[CCBoy]

Sometimes I think that account is a machine learning experiment based on a dictionary consisting solely of obscure words with three or more syllables.

Just how many mono syllable words were used by yourself, exactly?

 

[CCBoy]

[youtube]fJFtNp2FzdQ[/youtube]

Sometimes, I really question your attention span with the frequency of departure from discussion topic that rushes towards scornful or insultive effort on your part, yet doesn't implicate yourself...If you really think that I am incoherent, and implicity abusive, then you must be a fool to pay any attention to my efforts at all.

 

[CCBoy]

Let's see apart from the format of an Amjured reference...as feigning of understanding on a football centered talk site:

The Chinese philosopher, Som Ting Wong arrives at a deduced logic on association with English: ah -ha. Which itself implies deduction and not a particular languaged format. Deveras? Mian ham ni da. Enchuldigen zie bitte.... or ba ba eat egaw. That isn't easily transfered by yourself.

But digressing back into subject.

You were pointing to the dissimilarity in a target group inclusive of the NHL as not translatable in comparison to the legal description of the entity, to wit, the NFL. Yet, they entered into the present litigation as a friend of court on just that basis, and not restricted to a percentage of revenue shared by comparable numbers within the sport itself. As you were limiting a direct comparison upon.

But presenting this in the vein of more an analytical view of concepts involved and not limited to applications of a finely developed argument encompassing merely aspects of debate. Then not limiting a comparison to direct useage within the venue those concepts are being fought. The cause still unaffected with the litigant at court, the NFL.

The conceptual side is easier in being picked up, by a layman. But, also trying to respect the direct discussion being engaged by yourself and Outlaw Heroes with a somewhat detached referenced style. Logic still pervades the effort.

Cliff Notes: The cause, you present as defeating, still remains unaffected with the litigant at court, the NFL. And the NHL was included as well in that present litigation as to applicability. This defeating your theoretical disclaimer.

Perhaps one needs more instruction in visual arts, and their applicability to what one claims refuge as linguistic and legal artistries...

 

[NinePointOh]

... Huh?

 

[CCBoy]

... Huh?

You are claiming insight and soundness of approach....I'm not having problems understanding yourself. Nor of understanding the departure from your referenced concept.

The only thing at variance is the reference point of the observation itself.

I am a soldier by training and temperament, with a different set of trigger points for action...that is all. But principals stand on their role in observation, but when reference point is limited, then understanding is thrown out as well.

Yes, but what does that have to do with whether individual team interests always align with collective league interests?

They were approached on issue in current litigation on an equal footing. And a cause involving collective bargaining doesn't affect the similarities running through both sporting venues. Their applicability being in discussion as to those exact applications. But not defeating as to seperate sports on issue.

You use the despariy in actual format to amplify what is now, a disjointed comparison.

 

[kmd24]

Cliff Notes: The cause, you present as defeating, still remains unaffected with the litigant at court, the NFL. And the NHL was included as well in that present litigation as to applicability. This defeating your theoretical disclaimer.

Perhaps one needs more instruction in visual arts, and their applicability to what one claims refuge as linguistic and legal artistries...

Come on, admit it. You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?

 

[CCBoy]

Come on, admit it. You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?

Answer your own 'riddile' by solving the principal presented....


merely understanding without social application of style communicated. That part is merely a convenience that you find appealing unto your own thinking.

Not value beyond that aspect.

And it doesn't invalidate any person involved with a discussion or topical development.

As is stated in one's gaining of knowledge. Man's flight through life is powered by the strength of his knowledge. But at the same token, if you snooze, you lose.

 

[superpunk]

Answer your own 'riddile' by solving the principal presented....


merely understanding without social application of style communicated. That part is merely a convenience that you find appealing unto your own thinking.

Not value beyond that aspect.

And it doesn't invalidate any person involved with a discussion or topical development.

As is stated in one's gaining of knowledge. Man's flight through life is powered by the strength of his knowledge. But at the same token, if you snooze, you lose.

qf"riddile"

 

[CCBoy]

qf"riddile"

SP...? You make a better door than window.

 

[Anjinsan]

You are claiming insight and soundness of approach....I'm not having problems understanding yourself. Nor of understanding the departure from your referenced concept.

The only thing at variance is the reference point of the observation itself.

I am a soldier by training and temperament, with a different set of trigger points for action...that is all. But principals stand on their role in observation, but when reference point is limited, then understanding is thrown out as well.

Yes, but what does that have to do with whether individual team interests always align with collective league interests?

They were approached on issue in current litigation on an equal footing. And a cause involving collective bargaining doesn't affect the similarities running through both sporting venues. Their applicability being in discussion as to those exact applications. But not defeating as to seperate sports on issue.

You use the despariy in actual format to amplify what is now, a disjointed comparison.

Don King? How are you?

 

[CCBoy]

Don King? How are you?

Ah ha, and the location of Bettle Bailey is no longer an issue...

 

[Anjinsan]

Ah ha, and the location of Bettle Bailey is no longer an issue...

It's Beatle.

 

[speedkilz88]

It's Beatle.

It's Beetle.