Jump to content

Doc

Community Member
  • Posts

    66,085
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Doc

  1. You said Doty was the Special Master. He isn't. Yes, a Federal Judge's decision trumps a Special Master's. True the owners don;t get the money, but for them it is more important that the players don't get it either--and they haven't. The owners havve lost little money so far, if any. Every player with an off-season workout bonus has lost them completely.

    Sure they lost money! Tons of it. They paid the players hundreds of millions more from 2006-2010, and they didn't demand hundreds of millions more from the networks to extend the 2006-2011 contracts those extra 3 years. This is undeniable. The players who lost workout bonuses (the big money players, who have the most say in the NFLPA) don't need the chump change anyway and should get it back once they report.

    One judge stayed the lockout. 2 of the next 3 judges allowed the lockout to continue, so had they agreed with the first judge, the lockout would have ended--not magically, but by court order. You really misunderstand the ANI case. The case was brought agaisnt the NFL. They supported a SC review and decision because they had little to lose (billions?? to a knit cap company??) and much to gain. Had they won, it would have been the most monumental event is sports labor history. There would never be a need for them to enter into a CBA. The union would have been irrelevant.

    The ANI case was essentially dead in the water until the NFL agreed to let the SC hear it, because they thought they would win. You even thought they'd win. They didn't.

     

    As for what happened with staying/allowing the lockout, what the judges ruled there has/had no bearing on what the judges may have ruled regarding the lockout insurance. And as I said above, since the NFL did trade-away higher-revenue TV contracts for the lockout insurance, it was a long shot that the judges would have sided with the owners.

    Yes a work stoppage. What do you think would have happened if the owners turned down the union's offer? There was no other offer coming from the union. They would have done exactly as they did this year--decert and lockout. There would have been a work stoppage after an uncapped year. A year after that the network contracts would have started negotiations. If you are a TV exec, do you throw the same money at a league with that going on?

    What would have been "going on," doc? No games figure to be lost this season since it will be a brief "work stoppage," and that's ALL the networks care about. Why would it have been any different in 2008? Not to mention if there were any games missed in 2008, there was still the 2009 and 2010 seasons before starting to talk about new contracts, and surely you are saying the work stoppage would have lasted for years.

  2. Who knows, but I have zero faith that Malloy & pals will do anything but totally capitulate if it's voted down. In fact, that's probably the plan -- no real reform happens but they can say "oh look, we tried!"

    No need to capitulate. Just do what my colleague said he'll do, and it will give the appearance of doing something in response. Except it will only make things worse. Gee, where have we heard that before? :rolleyes:

    p.s. amazing how CT was able to function as one of the lowest taxed states in the union 30 years ago. Now we're top 3 and these idiots want another billion from the taxpayers. Thanks Lowell.

    Gotta pay for all the welfare recipients. People are moving to CT because the benefits are better and easier to get (direct quote by a medicaid patient to one of the ENT surgeons I work with). And people with jobs are moving out. Great.

  3. You're confused--you are the one who doesn't believe the quotes even when the pricinpals are quoted.

    Depends on who says what and what is said. Have you found even a single quote by any owner where he/she states the 2006 CBA was a good deal and/or the economy was the reason they opted-out?

    If judges were "more likely to agree with the other judge", there would be no lockout right now.

    What, the lockout would have magically disappeared? No, the owners thought that they could get away with the "lockout insurance" and locked-out the players, much like they thought they had a slam-dunk in the ANI case. A judge however ruled against it. Other judges likely would have sided with that judge. And the owners lost (roughly) a couple billion in the process.

    How much would a renewed TV contract be valued at during a lockout? You pretend to forget that the union again and again laid down the same offer--59.5% of all revenue--whereas the NFL was offering 56%. At an impasse, the union walked out and refused to negotiate further--preferring to let the CBA expire and looking forward to what Upshaw promised would be the first of many uncapped years. For the league, it was either give them the 3.5% (which the owners, in the aggregate, never actually paid) or lock them out after the next season. Upshaw was a much tougher negotiator than this clown Smith and everyone knew exactly how tough. He gave them 3 more days to think it over--again. The sticking point wasn't the extra 3.5%, it was the revenue sharing amongst the owners, doc. Upshaw was a strong proponent of this.

     

    The overwhelming majority of the owners knew how important it was to keep the games going at that time. And if it cost them a few hundred million (the CBA was only in effect for 3 years), they made a few extra billion by avoiding a work stoppage. That's not a bad return on the investment, right doc?

    Work stoppage? What work stoppage? There was never going to be a work stoppage and this latest CBA "fight" is proof-positive of that. Why do you think there would have been one back then, and there won't be one now? And even if there had been one, at best it lasts a year, which leaves another 3 years before the next round of TV contract talks.

  4. Well, yes--insurance costs money. But how much it cost, no one will ever know. Certainly D. Smith didn't suspect anything fishy about the renewed contracts. He was falling over himself praising the owners for doing such a greeat job with them. How come a smart guy like him couldn't figure out there was so much omney left on the table?

    Smith didn't know the NFL left money on the table in lieu of the "lockout insurance." Likely he was satisfied that the owners were able to get the same deal as before in an extension, seeing as how "the [economic] situation changed" since the 2006 contracts were signed.

    One judge ruled against it (players still have no money form this ruling). If the NFL's appeal ever ran it's course, the next group of judges may agree with the special master, who thought there was nothing "illegal" about the insurance.

    They "may" have agreed. But more likely they agree with the other judge.

    I'm sure the econonomy was weighing heavily on the minds of the owners with construction projects on the drafting tables. Anyway, everyone knew this CBA would not likely see its full term--even Upshaw knew this.

    I have yet to read a quote by ANY owner that says they opted-out of it because of the economy, much less that the 2006 CBA was a good deal at any time. And remember, I'm not the one who needs to hear people say things out loud.

    The owners will get back some from the players in the next CBA and everything will have worked out fine for them--and the players.

    Yep, they'll likely get something back and the lockout will end in short order. Just like what would have happened in 2006 if the owners didn't cave. Except they wouldn't have given the players hundreds of millions more in the interim.

  5. It is precisely because the new contracts were freshly minted that the owners didn't want to stop playing at that time. That a judge would find the lockout insurance no good in the future has no bearing on whether you take out the insurance. Another judge (or judges in this case) will as likely find in your favor on appeal. But we will never know because,a s predicted, this all will be settled well before the courts hear all arguments.

     

    You are free to continue to believe that the economic conditions in 2008 played no part in the ultimate decision to opt out.

    Obtaining the "lockout insurance" was another mistake on their part. They left money on the table in return for it. And ultimately a judge ruled against it.

     

    The economics of 2008 had nothing to do with opting-out. Again, the owners were talking about opting-out at the earliest possible time just months after they signed the thing. And again, no single owner blamed the economy for opting out. The economy just made things worse.

  6. No doc, the citizens of Erie, especially the non football fans, did not have an opportunity to voice their choice on whether their money would go towards "Ralph Wilson Stadium"--they were given no "option". The citizens of Arlington actually voted on the issue. That's a fundamental difference that renders your point senseless.

    Why? Is there any doubt in your mind that had the RWS upgrade/upkeep and subsequent lease renewal for 10 years been put to a vote, it wouldn't have passed with flying colors? Obviously it would have. The people of Erie county aren't stupid. So whether there was a vote (which would have cost the county even more money) or not is moot. The Bills bring money/jobs to the region, it's Erie County's stadium and it's not like their ticket prices increased by 25% and they had to purchase PSL's for thousands of dollars because it was a new stadium.

    As for the OR, perhaps I can expect the hospital to rename it "Mr. WEO OR" then, eh?

    You can put your name on it if you like. Makes no difference either way.

    Ooops--guess it doesn't now, huh! Not much else you can say, perhaps, once you get the facts straight. Anyway, the G3 program was available to Ralph at any time to use to defray the costs of renovation to the "Ralph Wilson Stadium" and to bring relief to the economically suffering fans of Erie County.

    The G3 program didn't exist back then (1998). It was created in 1999.

    We've been over this. The majority of owners felt it was best not to stop football (there is no question there would have been a decert/lockout, doc) in 2006. The 30-2 vote should make this obvious to you. The owners knew they could opt out soon if they wished and they would structure the upcoming TV contract renewals to benefit them in case there was a work stoppage in 2011. In business, it takes a couple hundred million to make an extra billion. If there were missed games in 2007 or 2008, the TV contract renewals would have been worth far less than they are now.

    Yes, we've been over this and apparently you didn't pay attention too well. By the end of 2005, the TV contracts had been negotiated and were to run from 2006-2011. So you see, the network contracts weren't a concern to the owners since they were over and done with and locked-in for 5 years, when it came time to hammer-out a new CBA. Maybe they were afraid because they wanted "lockout insurance," but as we saw, the "lockout insurance" they inserted in 2010 was struck-down by a judge. And again, there was NEVER any mention of "the situation changing" by the owners at any time. They talked about opting-out just months after passing it, opted out 2 years later, and even played without a cap for a year. If they could go back to 2006 and do it over again, to a man, they all would.

    Benson threatened to move his team to San Antonio as bloated corpses were floating through New Orleans! DOes that make him "old guard" or New guard"?

    I'd say old guard. Davis, Irsay, Modell, and Adams are the only owners who have moved their teams, and they're all old guard.

  7. why are you suprised? this is WHO HE IS. Somewhere in the "hope and change" mania of 2008 no one stopped to actually look at who the hell he is and what he stands for.

    Let me add that I had no idea that Minny would be stupid enough to elect Al Freakin' Franken (although after Jessie Ventura, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised) and that Specter would flip and give the Dems a super majority in the Senate.

  8. Well, first of all, I was only asking questions… probably questions that can't really be answered but questions that ought to be asked nonetheless.

     

    And the reason I'm asking these questions is to try to figure out to what degree "the game is the product" and to what degree "the players are the product." I think the truth lies somewhere between the two.

     

    I was not making any statements earlier but now that we're at that point, I do think the sport would suffer (reduced revenues) if you took away a critical mass of the top players.

     

    Decent quarterbacking in particular is in very short supply in the NFL and most lousy games are a result of lousy quarterbacking. If there was an epidemic of bad quarterbacking, I think that would affect the product and therefore its popularity.

     

    I did not watch any UFL games so I wasn't able to test this theory by watching JP Losman win a championship.

     

    With only a few exceptions, I generally don't watch college football because there are several glaring moments each game where I have to remind myself, "these guys are not pros, and most of them won't play in the NFL."

     

    Things like missed field goals, bad passing attacks, receivers who can't get one foot down, much less two… those things ruin college football for me.

     

    After kicking this around, I think that many of the players in the NFL ARE interchangeable/replaceable but that there are a group of elite players who drive the NFL's popularity. It's why these players generally are paid more.

     

    IMO, if you took away the top 100-200 players, the game would suffer lost revenue. I just don't know to what degree.

    It's all relative and not all players are created equal. So some of them will have to be better than others, and those are the "stars." But as we've seen, you remove on star and usually another takes his place.

  9. There is, up to a point. That point being 4 home games a year. And Ralph already moved 1.

     

    You brought up Kraft as an example of an owner who went FURTHER than Ralph in potentially moving the team, but that is inaccurate. Ralph has already started moving games out of Buffalo. IMO, and by definition, that is further than playing all of your games at home.

    A game a year moved. Not the team. And it moved within Buffalo's "territory."

  10. I felt Ralph should contribute something to a new stadium (years ago) or at least to it's upkeep. The people of Arlignton voted to finance the stadium with new usage taxes (that would not much affect them. I don't recall the Erie citizens being given that option of not allowing Ralph to pay anything for his place of business to be refurbished.

    Erie citizens had the same option as Arlington citizens did: either fund it or see the team go elsewhere. Why you can't see this point is anyone's guess. And Ralph doesn't need to pay for, much less own, the stadium, any more than you don't pay for, much less own, any OR in which you make your living.

    As for the Giants stadium, you are wrong again: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/8922174?f=related

    Doesn't matter one way or the other. That's just 2 more teams, which brings the grand total of teams who spent the majority of the cost of a their new stadiums to 5 (barely since Gillette was half paid-for by the NFL's G3 program). Out of 32 teams. And in the case of Jones and the NY owners, they're going to take major baths on them.

    As for Ralph's claim that he didn't understand the CBA, or didn't have time to, the unions position didn't change as far as the 60%--every single owner was well aware of this. Someone in the Bills organization knew, Ralph was clueless. The sticking point was the revenue sharing--that's what the holdup was--and Jones was the one who needed to be convinced by Kraft and Rooney, etc.

    Okay, Ralph was clueless and the other owners (except for Brown) were stupid. Fair enough. At least Ralph had the good sense to vote "no." What was the other owners' excuse?

    It's not patently obvious why a lockout then would be better than a lockout now. A deal is in the works as we speak, "taste" or no taste.

    I'd say a lockout before shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars more (over the last 5 years) would be better. So would most other people.

    Yes, GB, Pitt, and NO have a national fanbase as do the Skins, the Cowboys anf the Pats--you left them off your list. Benson is as "new guard" as Jones, doc.

    Benson joined the club in 1985 and didn't make waves like Jones did. Jones is the first true new guard owner. And many teams have national fanbases, doc. Even the Bills. But since it doesn't fit your viewpoint, it's better to pretend otherwise. I get it.

  11. I highly doubt it will be sold to the lowest bidder :lol:

    And selling to the highest or lowest bidder are the only 2 options. <_<

    My point was, what will people think of the man after his passing and the team is moved by the new owner... when he could have easily set something up before his demise to ensure the team stays in Buffalo.

    Even if he were to sell before he dies, he cannot stipulate to the new owner that the team cannot be moved.

  12. Its been common knowledge for years that the Buffalo Bills will be sold to the highest bidder once he dies

     

    ""Wilson said the team will be sold on his death, not bequeathed to his wife or his daughters. And Wilson knows he can't guarantee that the buyer will keep the team in Buffalo:""

     

    ""Wilson said it's possible that the next owner could be someone who would want to keep the Bills in Buffalo, but he's not willing to speculate beyond that.""

     

    ""For all the uncertainty currently surrounding the Bills' future in Buffalo, the specific circumstances haven't really changed much in the past five years or so. Ralph Wilson still owns the Bills and he still refuses to sell the team as long as he's alive or to guarantee that the team will be sold to a Western New York-based owner after he's gone, so the possibility still remains that the Bills could eventually move to Toronto or Los Angeles.""

     

     

     

     

    http://www.aolnews.c...ph-wilson-dies/

     

    http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2906872

     

    http://www.thegoodpo...r-how-long.html

     

    He never claimed the team would be sold to the highest bidder. Since his wife and daughters don't want the team, it will be sold posthumously, and whatever the next owner does is beyond his control.

×
×
  • Create New...