Yahoo Sports: Giants owner warns of chaos

[Mr Cowboy]

I didn't see this posted anywhere. Pretty good read!

NEW YORK (AP)—New York Giants co-owner John Mara is warning that the players’ strategy in the labor impasse, if successful, would lead to NFL chaos.

Mara wrote an essay that was posted Thursday on nfl.com and giants.com in which he pointed to no salary caps or minimums and perhaps no draft.

“The likely changes would be great for NFLPA lawyers, but not for players, teams, or, most importantly, fans,” Mara wrote. “For example, there could be no league-wide minimum player salaries, with many players making less than they do today, or no minimum team player costs, with many clubs cutting payrolls the way some teams do in other sports. Other bedrock components of the NFL’s competitiveness, such as the draft, would be called into question and assailed as antitrust violations.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-lockout-mara

 

[cowboys#1]

he does have a point

just think, kansas city royal of the nfl

no chance at winning every year...would suck to be a fan

 

[ShiningStar]

do you liek tha tteam just because it wins or because you're a fan of the sport? its going to bring new meaning to fans. its just evolution.

 

[cowboyjoe]

I didn't see this posted anywhere. Pretty good read!

NEW YORK (AP)—New York Giants co-owner John Mara is warning that the players’ strategy in the labor impasse, if successful, would lead to NFL chaos.

Mara wrote an essay that was posted Thursday on nfl.com and giants.com in which he pointed to no salary caps or minimums and perhaps no draft.

“The likely changes would be great for NFLPA lawyers, but not for players, teams, or, most importantly, fans,” Mara wrote. “For example, there could be no league-wide minimum player salaries, with many players making less than they do today, or no minimum team player costs, with many clubs cutting payrolls the way some teams do in other sports. Other bedrock components of the NFL’s competitiveness, such as the draft, would be called into question and assailed as antitrust violations.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-lockout-mara

He is totally right, and the players cant see that, which is dumb on their part. And that would totally break up the NFL, ruin it for all of us fans with no more NFL draft, and players staying with NFL teams etc...

He is totally right, and its a crying shame players like sam hurd, ball, low rung players cant see that.

I also think if goes way players and NFLPA wants it, NFL wont be what it is anymore, and fans will quit going to games or watching them so much.

Why? Like Hos said, when players salaries goes up, which is what players want, they dont care about team loyalty, to a degree. I understand them wanting to take care of themselves and their families. But its like Jason Hatcher said, once season was over and we all know hatcher has done squat for the cowboys. Hatcher said something like, all right, now total free agency, now i can leave and go get some big money. Then, the fans will be hit with higher tv prices to watch games, higher parking prices, tickets, concession stuff and football apparael, etc... Its to high the way it is now, for most of us fans, but the players are greedy just like the owners and want more and more of our money, while we have to foot the bill. IT STINKS!

But players dont think, when teams have to play the big money, then the players on bottom, wont get the money because owners wont be able to afford it and with way economy is now, cut backs, etc, players cant see that, and they think their invincible to all of this. Boy, are they sadly mistaken if that does happen with chaos from players and NFLPA.

 

[speedkilz88]

do you liek tha tteam just because it wins or because you're a fan of the sport? its going to bring new meaning to fans. its just evolution.

In that circumstance it would be de-evolution.

 

[Kevinicus]

he does have a point

just think, kansas city royal of the nfl

no chance at winning every year...would suck to be a fan

It does. :bang2:

 

[theogt]

Scare tactics. The quotes in the article are full of half-truths and outright lies.

 

[elcowboi]

Case of the rich getting richer. I think this may be the reason the owners are trying to make this lockout go into the season. They believe the players will turn on each other once the lower tiered players start missing paychecks. At that point they'll sign any deal to start getting paid.

Some players already got some representation because they don't believe the players
named in the lawsuit are seeking their best interest. If they read this article they might get more players together and things would get really ugly for the players. That would fall right into the owners hands.

 

[tunahelper]

I am on the owners side of this deal, but the article is propaganda. The players are going to use the tools at their legal disposable, to apply pressure on the owners. This is part of their leverage. The owners understand this and are using this as a pr stunt.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Scare tactics. The quotes in the article are full of half-truths and outright lies.

I see a lot of "would likely" and "could" in the quotes, as in his opinion. He paints a grim picture, but hardly is it full of half-truths and outright lies.

 

[theogt]

I see a lot of "would likely" and "could" in the quotes, as in his opinion. He paints a grim picture, but hardly is it full of half-truths and outright lies.

Here's one.

“Even a settlement of the Brady lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs agree to certain rules, could be challenged by other players—now or in the future,” Mara wrote. “The league and individual clubs would likely be hit with a barrage of lawsuits.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Here's one.

Again, "could be" "would likely".

Could a player sue the NFL for early entry into the draft? Not likely, but one sure did. He's talking possibilities, not absolutes. You know, nuances?

 

[ElGatoGrande]

do you liek tha tteam just because it wins or because you're a fan of the sport? its going to bring new meaning to fans. its just evolution.

Just like the NBA 'evolved' into crap I can't watch,,, ,,,, until the playoffs

 

[theogt]

Again, "could be" "would likely".

Like I said, one is a half-truth and the other is an outright lie.

 

[AdamJT13]

Here's the link to the actual essay by John Mara --

http://www.giants.com/news/headlines/story.asp?story_id=44856

I'd love to see the list of "half-truths" and "outright lies" in his essay.

Surely, if that were the case, the NFLPA would be assailing the essay instead of endorsing it, would it not?

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Like I said, one is a half-truth and the other is an outright lie.

The potential of something happening in the future, given the uncertainty of the situation, is now construed as an outright lie?

 

[theogt]

Here's the link to the actual essay by John Mara --

http://www.giants.com/news/headlines/story.asp?story_id=44856

I'd love to see the list of "half-truths" and "outright lies" in his essay.

Surely, if that were the case, the NFLPA would be assailing the essay instead of endorsing it, would it not?

Here.

Even a settlement of the Brady lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs agree to certain rules, could be challenged by other players – now or in the future. The league and individual clubs would likely be hit with a barrage of lawsuits. We could end up with an unregulated system in which a disproportionate amount of money goes to "stars" and where teams in small markets struggle for survival. The very concept of a league with 32 competitive teams would be rendered virtually inoperable.

There are two outright lies.

1. "The league and individual clubs would likely be hit with a barrage of lawsuits." It is not likely that a barrage of lawsuits would be filed if a settlement is reached. In fact, there have only been a handful of lawsuits by the players against the NFL in the history of the NFL. If a settlement is reached and CBA is entered into as a result, any new lawsuits would be dismissed immediately. It is more likely than not that not one single lawsuit would be filed. Thus, to say it is "likely" that a barrage of lawsuits would follow is incorrect. I can only assume it was an intentionally misleading statement, which is a lie.

2. "We could end up with an unregulated system". This is also a lie. First, any system will have rules, even if the players ultimately won on the merits of the case and took that ruling to its utmost extreme. That is because antitrust law does not prohibit all restrictions; only unreasonable ones. Thus, certain restrictions would be upheld and some stricken. Second, the players are not asking to remove all regulations, or even most regulations. The players' offer, which could be accepted at any time by the owners, included a system of regulations virtually identical to the previous CBA system.

Not to mention the completely irrelevant notion of team revenue disparity. The players are not challenging revenue sharing. If the clubs chose to share revenue, they could do so.

 

[Zaxor]

I would love for it to happen...

 

[Jordan55]

I'm siding with the owners on this one, I'm for keeping the CBA as it is with some adjustments not a revamping of the league. We have all seen what to much unknown change can bring.

 

[AdamJT13]

Here.

There are two outright lies.

1. "The league and individual clubs would likely be hit with a barrage of lawsuits." It is not likely that a barrage of lawsuits would be filed if a settlement is reached. In fact, there have only been a handful of lawsuits by the players against the NFL in the history of the NFL.

How many lawsuits have been filed against the NFL just in the past three months? Is it wrong to say that more *might* follow? It's certainly possible, one would think. And in his opinion, it's likely. That doesn't make it a lie, just like your opinion that the appeals court was "unlikely" to grant a stay was not a lie, it was merely your opinion. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But he's certainly not lying.

If a settlement is reached and CBA is entered into as a result ...

That part of the essay didn't address a new CBA, only a settlement of the Brady lawsuit.

2. "We could end up with an unregulated system". This is also a lie.

Again, stating that it is a possibility is not a lie unless it is not possible. And it IS possible to have an "unregulated system."

Not to mention the completely irrelevant notion of team revenue disparity. The players are not challenging revenue sharing. If the clubs chose to share revenue, they could do so.

Asserting that something is possible doesn't mean that the opposite is not also possible. In a system that is unlike the previous CBA, there might not be the same level of revenue sharing or any revenue sharing at all, in which case the small-market teams could struggle.

Frankly, when you said his essay was "full" of lies and half-truths, I was expecting a list of more than two or three things.