Why Can't the League Year Start

[Hostile]

I honestly don't recall anyone ever saying that all this had to happen so Peyton Manning could get a raise.

I've been saying it since day 1. He is a UFA with a Franchise tag. Is he or is he not going to get the lion's share of any raise in the Cap that the Colts have available?

 

[CCBoy]

I've been saying it since day 1. He is a UFA with a Franchise tag. Is he or is he not going to get the lion's share of any raise in the Cap that the Colts have available?

In Grandpa Walton's best antagonising tone: Noooooooooo.

 

[CCBoy]

I always laugh at those how criticize Jones over the stadium. There are things he deserves criticism over, but had he just built an average stadium it wouldn't have been considered worthy by Cowboy fans who believe (as I do) that the Cowboys should be a standard bearer and not just another team blending in with little notice. When Texas Stadium was built it was in a class by itself, yet nobody leveled the same crticism at Clint Murchison.

Both stadiums paved the construction industry on applications in architecture and applied science as well. They both were prominent features given to fans for their pleasure. Just a monetary ploy by owners? Not in my books, but hey, I'm not a shingled citizen...what would I know?

 

[CCBoy]

I honestly don't recall anyone ever saying that all this had to happen so Peyton Manning could get a raise.

Just exactly why are you saying this all had to happen? More specificly... pressure for their own advantage, maybe?

 

[peplaw06]

I've been saying it since day 1. He is a UFA with a Franchise tag. Is he or is he not going to get the lion's share of any raise in the Cap that the Colts have available?

No no no... I mean someone who is defending the players position. If you want to take that position, then I will counter that the owners are just trying to fund their billion dollar stadiums (stadii?? :laugh1

 

[Stautner]

Both stadiums paved the construction industry on applications in architecture and applied science as well. They both were prominent features given to fans for their pleasure. Just a monetary ploy by owners? Not in my books, but hey, I'm not a shingled citizen...what would I know?

Of course they were built for the owners to make money and not just as a gift to fans. But they make money because they are the kinds of places fan are drawn to and they make the kind of statement fans want thier team to make.

 

[kmd24]

2010 was not the 2008 CBA.

I went back and read your previous statement, and upon that second read, I think I misunderstood what you intended. You said, "They disliked the previous CBA..." and it seems clear to me now that "They" = owners. I thought you meant the players disliked the previous CBA. So in the words of Gilda Radner...

 

[The30YardSlant]

While the two sides are playing tiddly winks and jacks, waiting for judges to decide how football should be played, why can't the NFL start the League Year and let the UDFAs sign somewhere? It may be harder to determine the RFAs and UFAs, but I think the fans need something as a positive sign and this would be.

Because it would no longer be a lockout

 

[CooterBrown]

While the two sides are playing tiddly winks and jacks, waiting for judges to decide how football should be played, why can't the NFL start the League Year and let the UDFAs sign somewhere? It may be harder to determine the RFAs and UFAs, but I think the fans need something as a positive sign and this would be.

So, I guess you are asking the owners to hope their free agents signings do not put them well over the eventually agreed upon salary cap. That would muck things up even more.

And, would an owner say to a player, "welcome to our team! Now you have signed the contract you are offically a player under contract. Okay, now get out! you're locked out and I'm not paying you a dime of this money until we have an agreement in place."

 

[Stautner]

So, I guess you are asking the owners to hope their free agents signings do not put them well over the eventually agreed upon salary cap. That would muck things up even more.

And, would an owner say to a player, "welcome to our team! Now you have signed the contract you are offically a player under contract. Okay, now get out! you're locked out and I'm not paying you a dime of this money until we have an agreement in place."

The idea wont work, but it has nothing to do with the salary cap. He was talking about signing UDFA's, which carries no real salary camp implication at all. Most and possbily all wont even make the team.

 

[Nightshade]

While the two sides are playing tiddly winks and jacks, waiting for judges to decide how football should be played, why can't the NFL start the League Year and let the UDFAs sign somewhere? It may be harder to determine the RFAs and UFAs, but I think the fans need something as a positive sign and this would be.

Hos is right. The people hurt most by this garbage the billionaires and millionaires are doing outside of the fans generally are the FA's and RFA's. Besides, this crap has gone on long enough regardless. Let's get the ball rolling on some level NOW!!

 

[dogberry]

If negotiations reached an agreement, what group of men ratifies the new CBA? The eighty man roster, the 80 plus the draft choices, the old 53 roster, which is the group that gets to decide?

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

If negotiations reached an agreement, what group of men ratifies the new CBA? The eighty man roster, the 80 plus the draft choices, the old 53 roster, which is the group that gets to decide?

Technically, if they reached agreement at this point it would be on a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (rather than a CBA) between the NFL and the players named as plaintiffs in the litigation, similar to what was done in 1993. The NFL would likely then require that the players recertify as a union and enter into a CBA that mirrored the SSA, following which the CBA would be ratified by the union.

One of the issues clouding the picture, however, is whether the NFL will be willing to negotiate directly with the players (i.e. named plaintiffs), since they might view that as prejudicing their claim before the NLRB that decertification was a sham (that is, the NFL is arguably required to continue to treat the NFLPA as a union, and therefore not negotiate directly with players, in order not to compromise their position that the decertification is a sham and that the NFLPA is, in fact, still a union).