Fingon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 John, I very much doubt that the players can do anything to bring Anti-Trust laws into play. This is because a federal court has recently decided that the NFL is one organization, and not a collection of separate entities. Therefore, their actions are exempt from many of the statutes of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. edit: Yep, i'm correct. The NFL is immune from collusion laws because a Federal Appeals Court has ruled them to be a single entity http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ure-challenges/
VOR Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Actually he said flat out that the reason he didn't vote for it was because he didn't understand it. The other idiot owners didn't either, but that doesn't mean Ralph did. Ralph simply didn't understand what he was signing and didn't want to agree with something he didn't understand. That was the smart move, not the fact that he saw how bad a deal this was. Actually Ralph's real reason for voting it down was what he said after "I didn't understand it" (which was the part of that interview that few saw, thanks to ESPN): "I thought the players got too much." The "I didn't understand it" was a half-joke, meant to play on the perception that he voted against the deal because he was old and senile and thus didn't understand the greatness of it. He did admit that 45 minutes wasn't enough time for such a long and important document, but he understood enough about it, more than the other owners at the time, because they eventually scuttled it at the earliest opportunity.
Chandler#81 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Excellent thread! Especially so when considering that no one ever knows how these shake out. I'll add that I don't expect 'Scab-Ball' this time around, given what's at stake and the presence of another league. Hoping for the best, as the worst would be a year without NFL..
GG Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 John, I very much doubt that the players can do anything to bring Anti-Trust laws into play. This is because a federal court has recently decided that the NFL is one organization, and not a collection of separate entities. Therefore, their actions are exempt from many of the statutes of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. edit: Yep, i'm correct. The NFL is immune from collusion laws because a Federal Appeals Court has ruled them to be a single entity http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ure-challenges/ NFL is well armed for the battle, and this decision can further its standing, if SCOTUS rules in the league's favor.
Fingon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 NFL is well armed for the battle, and this decision can further its standing, if SCOTUS rules in the league's favor. From what I've heard, it would be a gigantic upset for the ruling to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 NFL is well armed for the battle, and this decision can further its standing, if SCOTUS rules in the league's favor. To give a little insight into how much the NFL values the cozy anti-trust legislation that it enjoys with the United States government, during the Bills Super Bowl years my best friend was an aide to the Senator who chaired the committee that dealt with anti-trust, so he was obviously close with Pete Rozelle and the new guy Paul Tagliabue (I think Rozelle left in 1989). My friend would get Super Bowl tickets from the Senator, and because the Senator knew he was a huge Bills fan, each year we were in the bowl my buddy got four of the ten tickets that the Senator received from the NFL. They were always the perfect seat. 40-50 yard line, 20-30 rows up depending on the stadium. In Minneapolis, we were several rows in front of Donald Trump. In LA, we were several rows in front of Jack Nicholson.
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 John, I very much doubt that the players can do anything to bring Anti-Trust laws into play. This is because a federal court has recently decided that the NFL is one organization, and not a collection of separate entities. Therefore, their actions are exempt from many of the statutes of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. edit: Yep, i'm correct. The NFL is immune from collusion laws because a Federal Appeals Court has ruled them to be a single entity http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ure-challenges/ thanks very much. i stand corrected or, at the very least, updated. note, though, that there is ongoing talk on capital hill that if the union (and to some degree, the league) don't get their retired players' concerns with pension corrected, congress, led by Maxine Watters, will consider action. it's a threat, don't know how realistic, but it's there. as for vacation, Lori, i'll hoist a couple for sure. and yes, StuckInCinc, bringing the camera! jw Sabres interested in Cammalleri (?)
Kelly the Dog Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Actually Ralph's real reason for voting it down was what he said after "I didn't understand it" (which was the part of that interview that few saw, thanks to ESPN): "I thought the players got too much." The "I didn't understand it" was a half-joke, meant to play on the perception that he voted against the deal because he was old and senile and thus didn't understand the greatness of it. He did admit that 45 minutes wasn't enough time for such a long and important document, but he understood enough about it, more than the other owners at the time, because they eventually scuttled it at the earliest opportunity. I could be mistaken but I think the "I thought the players got too much" statement was well after the vote. And well after everyone had a chance to look it over and the Bills lawyers did understand it and argue the pros and cons, and it wasn't the same interview or time period as the "I didn't understand it" part.
K-9 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 John, I very much doubt that the players can do anything to bring Anti-Trust laws into play. This is because a federal court has recently decided that the NFL is one organization, and not a collection of separate entities. Therefore, their actions are exempt from many of the statutes of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. edit: Yep, i'm correct. The NFL is immune from collusion laws because a Federal Appeals Court has ruled them to be a single entity http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ure-challenges/ Not entirely correct. The NFL cannot collude to set salaries nor can they collude to set ticket prices. GO BILLS!!!
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Mr. Wilson has suggested that what owners saw and voted on was a very bare-bones version of the agreement, without any of the fine print (and not a lot of large print, for that matter). and if i recall correctly, no one could make heads or tails of the deal for two months or so, because union and nfl lawyers were still working out the details. Mr. Wilson's problem with it was he wasn't going to vote on something that was handed to him 45 minutes ago. and if the CBA didn't pass, he was willing to chance going into uncapped year. jw
VOR Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I could be mistaken but I think the "I thought the players got too much" statement was well after the vote. And well after everyone had a chance to look it over and the Bills lawyers did understand it and argue the pros and cons, and it wasn't the same interview or time period as the "I didn't understand it" part. Nope, same interview.
Fingon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Not entirely correct. The NFL cannot collude to set salaries nor can they collude to set ticket prices. GO BILLS!!! How does one collude with themselves? If they are ruled to be a single entity, then by definition they cannot collude.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Nope, same interview. Doesn't jive with jw's reporting or my recollection or sense, since how would it be possible for Ralph to read the document himself in the 45 minutes (which I don't at all think he did) and decide the players got too much? But we'll have to agree to disagree.
K-9 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Mr. Wilson has suggested that what owners saw and voted on was a very bare-bones version of the agreement, without any of the fine print (and not a lot of large print, for that matter). and if i recall correctly, no one could make heads or tails of the deal for two months or so, because union and nfl lawyers were still working out the details. Mr. Wilson's problem with it was he wasn't going to vote on something that was handed to him 45 minutes ago. and if the CBA didn't pass, he was willing to chance going into uncapped year. jw As I recall, Ralph had a huge issue with the qualifiers regarding revenue sharing for small market teams as well as to the hastiness with which the owners ratified the contract. The revenue sharing 'qualifiers' were STILL undefined and RW was astute as always in realizing that the Bills and teams like the Bills, would be at an even bigger competitive disadvantage. Ralph turned out to be the sage many of us predicted he would be when more light was shed on the agreement. Those of us that knew he wasn't the senile old man that many in the media (ESPN) insinuated him to be, anway. GO BILLS!!!
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Excellent thread! Especially so when considering that no one ever knows how these shake out. I'll add that I don't expect 'Scab-Ball' this time around, given what's at stake and the presence of another league. Hoping for the best, as the worst would be a year without NFL.. If they don't come to an agreement, you can expect to see "Scab-Ball". The reason is very simple..............Television. The Networks have a contract & even with Scabs, nothing else they could Televise would have the ratings of an NFL Game.
stuckincincy Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Mr. Wilson has suggested that what owners saw and voted on was a very bare-bones version of the agreement, without any of the fine print (and not a lot of large print, for that matter). and if i recall correctly, no one could make heads or tails of the deal for two months or so, because union and nfl lawyers were still working out the details. Mr. Wilson's problem with it was he wasn't going to vote on something that was handed to him 45 minutes ago. and if the CBA didn't pass, he was willing to chance going into uncapped year. jw No Mike Brown credit? Let's not be provincial...
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Doesn't jive with jw's reporting or my recollection or sense, since how would it be possible for Ralph to read the document himself in the 45 minutes (which I don't at all think he did) and decide the players got too much? But we'll have to agree to disagree. to be fair, i don't exactly recall what Mr. Wilson said/not said at time the CBA was announced. it's all a little hazy. i do know it didn't take long for him to get on the revenue-sharing pulpit in meeting with Pataki and announcing the long-term future of Bills franchise was in jeopardy. the most recent reference to not having all the information in front of the owners was from Mr. Wilson's recollections from interview this past weekend. he did say the deal was "no good financially" (though he might be speaking in hindsight), and stressed that owners never got a chance to see "the other side of the paper, all the rules and policy-making and so forth," while noting that many of the other owners (except for Brown ... happy now Cinc? ) were quick to raise their hands in approval. the point being: it was a rushed and patchwork process pieced together at the last minute, which i think goes against any suggestion that the owners understood exactly what they were getting themselves into. jw ADDS: "Didn't"
Lori Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 An interesting thread from back in the day: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=44910 I'm still looking for the initial "CBA signed" discussion. More: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=42924
stuckincincy Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 to be fair, i don't exactly recall what Mr. Wilson said/not said at time the CBA was announced. it's all a little hazy. i do know it didn't take long for him to get on the revenue-sharing pulpit in meeting with Pataki and announcing the long-term future of Bills franchise was in jeopardy. the most recent reference to not having all the information in front of the owners was from Mr. Wilson's recollections from interview this past weekend. he did say the deal was "no good financially" (though he might be speaking in hindsight), and stressed that owners never got a chance to see "the other side of the paper, all the rules and policy-making and so forth," while noting that many of the other owners (except for Brown ... happy now Cinc? ) were quick to raise their hands in approval. the point being: it was a rushed and patchwork process pieced together at the last minute, which i think goes against any suggestion that the owners understood exactly what they were getting themselves into. jw ADDS: "Didn't" Happy. Brown should be appointed as Secretary of the Treasury....
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 An interesting thread from back in the day: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=44910 I'm still looking for the initial "CBA signed" discussion. KellyTFBD, you might resist temptation to open thread ... after seeing how you agreed with Clayton's position against Mr. Wilson. no offense, though, at the time there was plenty of confusion and also plenty of relief that a deal -- any deal -- had been struck. we are, however, awaiting your retraction then again, i thought Mike Williams at the time was a good pick. jw
Recommended Posts