Peter Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Vrabel -Oops In reality, he has confirmed what everyone knew already: Decertification was a sham. It also seems as though there are some fissures among the players. The players who are not named Manning, Brady, etc. are beginning to realize that the road they are going down may not be beneficial to the non superstars in the league.
808 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 easier to get 32 guys to agree then 1300. i still side more with the owners then players but both are being jerkoffs.
Bangarang Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 It was only a matter of time before the players that weren't making elite money and didn't have endorsement deals coming out of their nose started feeling a little nervous about the possibility of not working and getting paid. There's too much money on the table for there to not be a season. A deal will get done and there will be a football this year.
Spiderweb Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Vrabel -Oops In reality, he has confirmed what everyone knew already: Decertification was a sham. It also seems as though there are some fissures among the players. The players who are not named Manning, Brady, etc. are beginning to realize that the road they are going down may not be beneficial to the non superstars in the league. Peter, Peter, Peter, and the rest of those here that keep beating this same old tired drum. Sham? No. Negotiating tactic, you bet. Yet you cannot continue to beat this drum without also adding that the owners over a couple years ago, planned for a lockout and negotiated TV deals that guaranteed them an income stream games or not. Get real.....
Doc Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Peter, Peter, Peter, and the rest of those here that keep beating this same old tired drum. Sham? No. Negotiating tactic, you bet. Yet you cannot continue to beat this drum without also adding that the owners over a couple years ago, planned for a lockout and negotiated TV deals that guaranteed them an income stream games or not. Get real..... Why is decertification not a sham but a "negotiating tactic," but the "lockout insurance" isn't considered the same?
JESSEFEFFER Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 If you are in the NFL = "Not For Long" crowd, you will never recoup what you will lose from missing even half of a season no matter what the differences are between the negotiating teams or what the eventual settlement is.
Captain Hindsight Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 If you are in the NFL = "Not For Long" crowd, you will never recoup what you will lose from missing even half of a season no matter what the differences are between the negotiating teams or what the eventual settlement is. There is something called the future. Sometimes it isnt about the present
Cash Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Why is decertification not a sham but a "negotiating tactic," but the "lockout insurance" isn't considered the same? Who has ever called the lockout insurance a sham? What a weird take that would be. I guess it would mean that the TV deal had provisions on paper for the networks to continue paying the NFL, but in actuality, the NFL wouldn't receive any payments? That would be a sham, but I don't think that was the case. The lockout insurance was certainly a negotiation tactic, and would've proven a very effective one if it didn't expressly violate the terms of the old collective bargaining agreement.
rjwii Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Peter, Peter, Peter, and the rest of those here that keep beating this same old tired drum. Sham? No. Negotiating tactic, you bet. Yet you cannot continue to beat this drum without also adding that the owners over a couple years ago, planned for a lockout and negotiated TV deals that guaranteed them an income stream games or not. Get real..... of course they did, it is business. they signed a bad deal and had the option to get out of it. the players exercised their right to litigate. the result if the players win an anti trust lawduit is the breakup of the NFL and the introduction of the wild west. i don't think anyone wants that. the only people scheduled to win are the lawyers.
BillsfaninFl Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) Guys, this is not a new development. If you read the owners' submittal, you would have seen weeks ago that a number of examples were given where union representatives were admitting that the union is doing this as a strategy, and that they are not really decertifying. This is why the owners called it "not dealing in good faith." They also stated that the union did this years ago, as evidence that this is an illegal tactic that they are doing again. Of course, the owners are also using "bad faith" tactics, but they are not stupid enough to admit it. So why didn't the union leadership not make it clear to their representatives that comments like these will undermine their attempt to strengthen their bargaining position? Or... if they did, why would multiple player reps indicate that the union is not really decertifying? Perhaps the reps are responding to a growing number of digruntled players who think their union leadership is taking too radical an approach. As a fan, I only care about the game of football being played as it has been, next season and beyond. I do not care about either group of greedy people involved in this. They all have a hell of a lot more money than I do. If the players win these lawsuits, football will not remain the same, and if the league's antitrust status is removed, the game will be a watered down version of what it is now. If the owners get their way, the game will continue relatively unchanged. Therefore, I hope the owners win. Edited April 21, 2011 by BillsfaninFl
T master Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) There all a greedy bunch of bastards !!! did i say that ???? Edited April 21, 2011 by T master
bigc14120 Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Either give me a full season with a full preseason so the players and teams are ready, or give me my money back. I lived through the 80's fiasco...the Bills played Miami in "Rich" stadiu,/. I was there. One week of practice....the worst display of professional athletes I ever saw, and I was forced to pay for it. No quality football for about a month. I am saying, settle early, or send my money back. The product will be substandard if they do any partial season or partial preseason. And, don't give that bs about it will be the same for all teams....they will all play bad...and that is not what we pay for. We pay for great play...not punch the clock play. I don't have any problem with them striking forever or locking out forever, just don sell me garbage.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Vrabel -Oops In reality, he has confirmed what everyone knew already: Decertification was a sham. It also seems as though there are some fissures among the players. The players who are not named Manning, Brady, etc. are beginning to realize that the road they are going down may not be beneficial to the non superstars in the league. I thought everybody thought it was a sham?
Hplarrm Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 of course they did, it is business. they signed a bad deal and had the option to get out of it. the players exercised their right to litigate. the result if the players win an anti trust lawduit is the breakup of the NFL and the introduction of the wild west. i don't think anyone wants that. the only people scheduled to win are the lawyers. Not necessarily a break up of the NFL as an outcome of a player anti-trust win, but also possible that a win means a break up of the NFL as we know it. The best outcome for the NFLPA is not to totally destroy the NFL but to bust the trust of the MFL team owners and allow for the formation of a new alternative league which increases competition. Competition improving product is really the good ol American way and its why the GOP historically under Teddy Roosevelt put such an emphasis on busting trusts. The previous NFLPA threat to decertify itself as a bargaining agent for the players with the NFL was such a brilliant move in the late 80s because it would have forced NFL team owners to actually compete with each other signing individual athletes to personal service contracts. Rather than compete in a true free market the NFL team owners ran kicking and screaming to agree to a CBA which in its final iteration granted the players not only partnership status with the owners but arguably the CBA made the players majority partners in this deal by assigning the vast majority of total revenues to the players. Rather than kill the NFL, players have profited the most when there is competition from an alternative league. Whether than competition is from an ultimately successful league like the AFL (which bidded up the salary of players from Namath on down) or failed leagues like the USFL (which bid up contracts like Jim Kelly's to a level Mr, Ralph at first would not pay) the players profit most when there is competition. Right now I think the players are set up to win this thing because in the end the courts will want a negotiated agreement and in any compromise the players likely win out.
K Gun Special Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Not necessarily a break up of the NFL as an outcome of a player anti-trust win, but also possible that a win means a break up of the NFL as we know it. The best outcome for the NFLPA is not to totally destroy the NFL but to bust the trust of the MFL team owners and allow for the formation of a new alternative league which increases competition. Competition improving product is really the good ol American way and its why the GOP historically under Teddy Roosevelt put such an emphasis on busting trusts. The previous NFLPA threat to decertify itself as a bargaining agent for the players with the NFL was such a brilliant move in the late 80s because it would have forced NFL team owners to actually compete with each other signing individual athletes to personal service contracts. Rather than compete in a true free market the NFL team owners ran kicking and screaming to agree to a CBA which in its final iteration granted the players not only partnership status with the owners but arguably the CBA made the players majority partners in this deal by assigning the vast majority of total revenues to the players. Rather than kill the NFL, players have profited the most when there is competition from an alternative league. Whether than competition is from an ultimately successful league like the AFL (which bidded up the salary of players from Namath on down) or failed leagues like the USFL (which bid up contracts like Jim Kelly's to a level Mr, Ralph at first would not pay) the players profit most when there is competition. Right now I think the players are set up to win this thing because in the end the courts will want a negotiated agreement and in any compromise the players likely win out. The players are set up to win because the NFL is operating as a monopoly. I dont see how Mike Florio thinks he stumbled onto something here. He's an idiot and should have known this from the beginning. Of course decertification was a tactic, but it was their legal right to do so. He thinks the NFL will file a brief based on Vrabel's comment. Moron its too late to submit and on top of that, if what he says was correct, which its not, the NFL would have included that in their opposing papers.
pBills Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Vrabel -Oops In reality, he has confirmed what everyone knew already: Decertification was a sham. It also seems as though there are some fissures among the players. The players who are not named Manning, Brady, etc. are beginning to realize that the road they are going down may not be beneficial to the non superstars in the league. Of course they are still talking to the NFLPA. The Decert only means that they can't be represented by the union. The players who are not "superstars" in my opinion aren't really thinking this through. Having high-profile names like Manning, Brady, etc, players who are normally the closest with the owners, was the best move moving forward. What owner or person is going to give a crap about Player Smith who sits 2nd or 3rd on the bench.
Niagara Bill Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Peter, Peter, Peter, and the rest of those here that keep beating this same old tired drum. Sham? No. Negotiating tactic, you bet. Yet you cannot continue to beat this drum without also adding that the owners over a couple years ago, planned for a lockout and negotiated TV deals that guaranteed them an income stream games or not. Get real..... Spidy Spidy Spidy The only drum to beat here is Smith. He is the issue. What the players are beginning to realize is that the issue is not about money...it is about power and Smith wants power. Money is something the owners know how to deal with. The one thing they will not give up is their power.
Ramius Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Peter, Peter, Peter, and the rest of those here that keep beating this same old tired drum. Sham? No. Negotiating tactic, you bet. Yet you cannot continue to beat this drum without also adding that the owners over a couple years ago, planned for a lockout and negotiated TV deals that guaranteed them an income stream games or not. Get real..... Yes it is a sham because the players have every intention of re-certifying if they get what they want. They want to have it both ways. They want to reap the benefits of being both a union and not being a union. Hence the reason we're all correctly calling it a sham decertification. Since its shown to be a sham and the players are still operating under a "union" (at least some of them), that severlely hurts the court case of the NFLPA. The judge will be less inclined to grant an injunction against the lockout. Spidy Spidy Spidy The only drum to beat here is Smith. He is the issue. What the players are beginning to realize is that the issue is not about money...it is about power and Smith wants power. Money is something the owners know how to deal with. The one thing they will not give up is their power. +1 This is why i think this splinter group has a real shot. They aren't subject to Smith's general douchebaggery and asshattery, and are looking out for themselves. The rank and file players simply care about getting the most money possible, not gaining power and getting their name known. I feel they would actually bargain in good faith, unlike the de smith-"led" NFLPA.
KRC Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Yes it is a sham because the players have every intention of re-certifying if they get what they want. They want to have it both ways. They want to reap the benefits of being both a union and not being a union. Hence the reason we're all correctly calling it a sham decertification. Since its shown to be a sham and the players are still operating under a "union" (at least some of them), that severlely hurts the court case of the NFLPA. The judge will be less inclined to grant an injunction against the lockout. Honestly, I do not think it is going to hurt the court case. I still see the players winning it. However, the players are going to have a more difficult time with the NLRB. Look, we all know that since De Smith was put in place, they were going to decertify and go to court. It had nothing to do with the owners, their actions or their potential actions. They wanted this from the start. The owners were going to opt out of the CBA and lock out the players. They realized they screwed up the last time and were going to remedy the situation. For anyone to point fingers at any one side and say, "See...look what they did!!" is ridiculous. They BOTH have had this in place for a LONG time. One did not trigger the other.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Honestly, I do not think it is going to hurt the court case. I still see the players winning it. However, the players are going to have a more difficult time with the NLRB. Look, we all know that since De Smith was put in place, they were going to decertify and go to court. It had nothing to do with the owners, their actions or their potential actions. They wanted this from the start. The owners were going to opt out of the CBA and lock out the players. They realized they screwed up the last time and were going to remedy the situation. For anyone to point fingers at any one side and say, "See...look what they did!!" is ridiculous. They BOTH have had this in place for a LONG time. One did not trigger the other. Yep. This was all predictable and you could see it coming down the tracks two years ago.
Recommended Posts