PFT:Lockout Insurance Case Keeps Rolling

[cowboyjoe]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/17/lockout-insurance-case-keeps-rolling/

“Lockout insurance” case keeps rolling
Posted by Mike Florio on March 17, 2011, 9:14 AM EDT
As the new antitrust case against the NFL begins to percolate before Judge Susan Nelson, the old antitrust case still lingers before Judge David Doty.

The Associated Press reports that the NFL filed on Wednesday a written response to the NFLPA*’s request to make public pages and pages and pages of documents in the “lockout insurance” case.

Given the manner in which the players have used the March 1 ruling in the dispute as both as P.R. tool and a rallying cry, the NFLPA* surely wants those documents to be made public so that more mileage can be made out of the reality that the NFL, under the guise of maximizing TV revenue to be shared with the players, cut a deal for $4.3 billion to be paid during a lockout, while the players get nothing and like it.

 

[mmillman]

yet 80% of the board support the arrogant owners and their quest to gouge the fans and taxpayers further.

 

[wileedog]

yet 80% of the board support the arrogant owners and their quest to gouge the fans and taxpayers further.

Half the reason the owners need to gouge the fans the fans is so guys like Adrian Peterson can drive to his slave job in his 4th Bentley.

Plus I really don't get the big deal about the 'lockout insurance.' Just because they made a deal when they knew a labor impasse was on the horizon doesn't mean they were dead set on a lockout.

I have homeowners insurance. Doesn't mean I walk around the house with gasoline and a book of matches on me.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Half the reason the owners need to gouge the fans the fans is so guys like Adrian Peterson can drive to his slave job in his 4th Bentley.

+1

The players need to be CRUSHED. Both AP and Smith need to be body-slammed like that kid body slammed that bully.

 

[burmafrd]

Yeah, I thought that since even at that time the players were talking about decertification and going to court that looking for some kind of insurance would be a smart business decision.

 

[DallasEast]

yet 80% of the board support the arrogant owners and their quest to gouge the fans and taxpayers further.

That's eighty percent of the voters and not necessarily 80% of the board. It's a sampling which may not be indicative of the entire membership's view of the topic.

 

[dargonking999]

Half the reason the owners need to gouge the fans the fans is so guys like Adrian Peterson can drive to his slave job in his 4th Bentley.

Plus I really don't get the big deal about the 'lockout insurance.' Just because they made a deal when they knew a labor impasse was on the horizon doesn't mean they were dead set on a lockout.

I have homeowners insurance. Doesn't mean I walk around the house with gasoline and a book of matches on me.

I love that

 

[SkinsandTerps]

The NFLPA not picking up the players insurance when the NFL cut it would not make me support the NFLPA.

 

[baj1dallas]

Half the reason the owners need to gouge the fans the fans is so guys like Adrian Peterson can drive to his slave job in his 4th Bentley.

How do people continue to have this backwards? AD can afford to drive Bentleys, because that's how much he's worth. And how much he's worth is determined by how much people are willing to pay for tickets, jerseys, and TV packages.

 

[baj1dallas]

[/B]
I love that

If you all of a sudden get 10x more insurance and your house goes up in flames the next day...

 

[Hoofbite]

How do people continue to have this backwards? AD can afford to drive Bentleys, because that's how much he's worth. And how much he's worth is determined by how much people are willing to pay for tickets, jerseys, and TV packages.

Wrong.

Peterson can afford a Bently because he was drafted in the top 10 and guaranteed 17 million without having set foot inside the practice facility.

Side note......Once he did enter the practice facility however, he was promptly chained to the goalposts, forced to work horrendous hours and shave that big burly Viking guy's/mascot's back.

He's been there ever since and it's amazingly impressive he's performed at such a high level given such inhumane treatment and conditions.

 

[dargonking999]

If you all of a sudden get 10x more insurance and your house goes up in flames the next day...

except the owners didn't do that. And you can't prove that they would have had it not been reversed.

 

[wileedog]

If you all of a sudden get 10x more insurance and your house goes up in flames the next day...

I think it would be more accurate to say you live in Tornado Alley and read in the Farmer's Almanac its going to be an insanely bad year for twisters, so you up your coverage.

Point is a lockout was a possibility from the moment the NFLPA* uttered the word decertification. Why wouldn't they look to increase their insurance against it happening?

 

[wileedog]

How do people continue to have this backwards? AD can afford to drive Bentleys, because that's how much he's worth. And how much he's worth is determined by how much people are willing to pay for tickets, jerseys, and TV packages.

Which is somehow translated as the owners 'gouging' the fans.

The owners charge what they do because they need to pay players who have decided that $40M is slave labor. Even Kevin Burnett was on the radio today saying "$34M isn't all that much money when you think about it."

What?

I'm not saying the owners aren't trying to make a buck or two when they can as well, but this group of players who have won the lottery crying that its just not enough is as much if not more to blame.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I think it would be more accurate to say you live in Tornado Alley and read in the Farmer's Almanac its going to be an insanely bad year for twisters, so you up your coverage.

Point is a lockout was a possibility from the moment the NFLPA* uttered the word decertification. Why wouldn't they look to increase their insurance against it happening?

Because the TV deal isn't an insurance policy. If they wanted lockout insurance, they could have bought lockout insurance. But the TV deal brings revenue to the league that is shared with the players, and the NFL, instead of negotiating the best financial deal they could, negotiated it in a way that it would serve as lockout insurance, at the expense of the players.

 

[DCDave]

Point is a lockout was a possibility from the moment the NFLPA* uttered the word decertification. Why wouldn't they look to increase their insurance against it happening?

Putting aside the fact that the NFLPA had already happily agreed to play 2011 under the prior agreement, and that the NFL began negotiating these lockout payments just days after they opted out of the prior CBA in 2008, years before the NFLPA "uttered the word decertification," how exactly do lockout payments provide "insurance" against decertification? I mean you do understand that the NFL was in no way required to lock out the players, whether they decertified or not?