spartacus Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I always thought that they could only use replacement players if there is a strike, not a lockout. there will be no lockout The NFL will play in 2011 under the last offered proposal before there is an impasse. If the players do not choose to play under those rules, it will be their choice to implement a work stoppage.
Thurman#1 Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I love it. I feel the NFL should use replacements. Let the overpaid babie sit for about 2 years then see how badly they want their million dollar jobs back. Millionares can't beat Billionares, it just doesn't work that way. The players can whine and B word all they want but they are ALL overpaid. Don't kid yourself. Last time the millionaires and hundred-thousandaires whipped the billionaires' butts.
Doc Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Don't kid yourself. Last time the millionaires and hundred-thousandaires whipped the billionaires' butts. Come now. Nobody got hurt by the last deal, until the situation changed. And now conditions will be MUCH more favorable for a lockout/work stoppage in 2011 than they were back in 2008.
Steely Dan Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Sounds like the NFL is preparing for the lockout. The thought of us using UFL players excites me. Link provided: http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/...in&hpt=Sbin The thought of seeing UFL players excites you? Does a bad local cover band excite you as much as the real artists concert? It will be deplorable, and worse it will probably count towards the games for your season tickets. I always thought that they could only use replacement players if there is a strike, not a lockout. It's gonna be interesting to see what happens soon. Link The current collective bargaining agreement expires in March 2011, and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has characterized the possibility of a work stoppage as a ``14'' on a scale of 1 to 10. Unless the union gets everything it wants off the bat they're going to strike, IMO. DeMaurice Smith has to show them he's willing to go to the wall the first time something like this happens or the NFL will think it can push him around.
DarthICE Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Don't kid yourself. Last time the millionaires and hundred-thousandaires whipped the billionaires' butts. Not really. The Billionares this time are in complete unison to let a labor strike happen. When they are unified like that, the other guys have no chance.
Mr. WEO Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Come now. Nobody got hurt by the last deal, until the situation changed. And now conditions will be MUCH more favorable for a lockout/work stoppage in 2011 than they were back in 2008. Yeah, that's right---the players have the owners "bent over" again on this one, huh? When will those stupid owners ever figure things out? hahahahahahaha!
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Yeah, that's right---the players have the owners "bent over" again on this one, huh? When will those stupid owners ever figure things out? hahahahahahaha! I'm sorry, but there's NO way the players should be able to command 60% of revenues. IF, and that's a giant IF the owners act in unison on this one, it's going to be tough for the players to fight back.
Doc Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Yeah, that's right---the players have the owners "bent over" again on this one, huh? When will those stupid owners ever figure things out? hahahahahahaha! Try to keep up, doc. I was talking about the last round of CBA negotiations, where the players truly DID bend over the owners. You're the only one who can't see it, or more precisely, doesn't want to see it. And now there's talk of using UFL players. Yes, sounds like the owners have it all figured out.
Mr. WEO Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Try to keep up, doc. I was talking about the last round of CBA negotiations, where the players truly DID bend over the owners. You're the only one who can't see it, or more precisely, doesn't want to see it. And now there's talk of using UFL players. Yes, sounds like the owners have it all figured out. Oh, I understood your tired response--hence I said "again". Try to keep up. No, I can't see 59.5% of nothing. I believe you even conceded this at one point. Taking it back now, I see. Yup, those poor owners--still smarting over the billions they socked away since the last CBA--now they are again at the mercy of the powerful players' union! I think the UFL story is a nice touch for the NFL---they are starting to toy with the union like a cat does a mouse. Like......well, you know.
ndirish1978 Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 We could have a shot at the playoffs! I mean we don't really have NFL players now, so our team could return intact! The question is, could this year's Bills beat the UFL champs?
Mr. WEO Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I'm sorry, but there's NO way the players should be able to command 60% of revenues. IF, and that's a giant IF the owners act in unison on this one, it's going to be tough for the players to fight back. Take another look, Joe, it never happened. Never will. Only possible if every owner spends to the cap always. It essentially was a voluntary program for the owners and only affected the players who were getting new contracts. No one else got a raise. The "victory" for the union was imaginary.
Doc Posted May 9, 2010 Posted May 9, 2010 Oh, I understood your tired response--hence I said "again". Try to keep up. No, I can't see 59.5% of nothing. I believe you even conceded this at one point. Taking it back now, I see. Yup, those poor owners--still smarting over the billions they socked away since the last CBA--now they are again at the mercy of the powerful players' union! I think the UFL story is a nice touch for the NFL---they are starting to toy with the union like a cat does a mouse. Like......well, you know. There was no need to concede, much less take back, anything doc. I showed you that the owners have spent several hundred billion dollars more annually since they signed that new CBA than they otherwise would have spent. The actual percentage was a fool's errand. Look, I realize you painted yourself into a corner back in 2006 when you chortled at Ralph being one of 2 owners to vote no on the new CBA. Only to see Ralph be proven right a scant 2 years later and now there being talk of a lockout! At this point, you feel as if you need to go down with the ship where the CBA is concerned. I get it.
Max997 Posted May 9, 2010 Posted May 9, 2010 Sounds like the NFL is preparing for the lockout. The thought of us using UFL players excites me. Link provided: http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/...in&hpt=Sbin there isnt anything wrong with being prepared just in case
Mr. WEO Posted May 10, 2010 Posted May 10, 2010 There was no need to concede, much less take back, anything doc. I showed you that the owners have spent several hundred billion dollars more annually since they signed that new CBA than they otherwise would have spent. The actual percentage was a fool's errand. Look, I realize you painted yourself into a corner back in 2006 when you chortled at Ralph being one of 2 owners to vote no on the new CBA. Only to see Ralph be proven right a scant 2 years later and now there being talk of a lockout! At this point, you feel as if you need to go down with the ship where the CBA is concerned. I get it. Wow, "several hundred billion dollars more annually since they signed that new CBA"?? Who gave you that number, your buddy Ralph? This sentence sums up tour grasp of the issue nicely. Anyway, your Freudian slip aside, the cap goes up each year. The difference with the new agreement wasn't catastrophic and was completely voluntary on the owners part AND almost all of any increase in salaries went to a handful of players and didn't even approach the "59.5%" of all revenues. You are the only one who still claims this is true. As I said before, Ralph doesn't get credit for claiming to be for small market revenue sharing and then voting against a CBA that would provide unprecedented Medicaid dollars for the lowest revenue teams. My guess is that he either didn't realize this or that he was worrried that the "qualifiers" in the CBA would rule him to be ineligible to qualify for the Medicaid. If the former is true, he's a doddering old fool. If the latter is true, he is a greedy, cynical miser who voted against relief for the truly needy in the league. Sorry, I'm going to side with the 30 owners in the room at the time who thought it made good business sense to get that deal done. They are vastly more wealthy now and hold the position of absolute strength heading into the current negotiations.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 10, 2010 Posted May 10, 2010 There aren't enough UFL players to fill 32 NFL rosters. (It's only a 4-team league!) So where are the rest of the players coming from? PTR
Doc Posted May 10, 2010 Posted May 10, 2010 Wow, "several hundred billion dollars more annually since they signed that new CBA"?? Who gave you that number, your buddy Ralph? This sentence sums up tour grasp of the issue nicely. In the future, when pointing out someone else's mistake, it would greatly help your argument if you didn't make one yourself. Not that you don't make them all the time. But the difference between you and me you see is that I ignore them because I knew what you meant. But when you've got nothing else...
Recommended Posts