Cleveland Browns & The NFL

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:25 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936

Yay........

What a bunch of retards.

by **JacksonDysonJackson** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:45 pm

Seems very simple to me. Owners want more cash. NFLPA asks for the books to prove they need more cash. Owners refused to turn over their p/l. I'm with the playas.

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:11 pm

I wonder how long it will take for the lawsuits to start pouring in.

Honestly, i'm not on either side, they're both groups of rich assholes who should be able to act like adults.

No NFL, No Problem. (now that might change once summer starts to heat up and TC should be starting)

by **waborat** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:27 pm

Players are a dime-a-dozen...

Only about 46 suits in the US are able to buy a football team...

Bring back the scabs...

Put Tiki back on a bubblegum card

by **JacksonDysonJackson** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:28 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I wonder how long it will take for the lawsuits to start pouring in.

Monday?

I think the whole reason they moved to decertify was so they could form a class action lawsuit. Don't think they could as a union.

Agree with you about TC...just something about that time of year.

by **JacksonDysonJackson** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:36 pm

waborat wrote:Players are a dime-a-dozen...

Only about 46 suits in the US are able to buy a football team...

So then they shouldn't have a problem turning over the books, right?

The NFL is a business. No business in the world would agree to changing the structure of compensation without seeing proof the other side is hurting.

IMO, the owners know they have the playas over a barrel (since their paychecks will stop coming) and will ride this out until the players wilt. Time is on the owners side.

by **Erie Warrior** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:10 pm

Good. College football on Saturday's, fishing all day Sunday. The Browns blow anyway.

by **JacksonDysonJackson** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:13 pm

Nice flounder dude.

by **Fire Marshall Bill** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:30 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:Good. College football on Saturday's, fishing all day Sunday. The Browns blow anyway.

Winner ^^^^^^^^

Fishing and scooter ridin

NFL....now stands for No Fucking Legue

by **Ziner** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:58 pm

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -midnight/

Might be decertifying, but sounds like Free Agency could start at midnight. Talk about a clusterfuck. I would like to assume that our FO is plenty ready for this and have their targets locked and loaded.

Shit, I haven't even paid attention enough to know who the FA studs are. Asomugha is about all I know

by **JacksonDysonJackson** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:10 pm

Ziner, i don't understand that at all. WHat owner is going to sign a player from another team?

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:10 pm

How can they sign FAs when there is no CBA or NFLPA?

by **daddywags** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:05 am

I believe the way the players would like to see it go is they file a class action anti-trust suit claiming a lockout by all teams simultaneously runs afoul of the anti-trust laws (this has been done now). At the same time, they file a motion for a temporary restraining order preventing the teams from locking out the players. If the TRO is granted (and most I've seen assume it will be), the court would have to decide under what rules the league would move on "temporarily" while the preliminary injunction stage takes place. That would involve heavy briefing and most likely at least a short evidenciary hearing. The judge would then have to write a PI opinion and the parties would be off to the appellate court.

The players are making a (in my view) reasonable judgment that the court is not likely to allow the league to institute the lockout after the union is out of the picture. They also reasonably expect the judge to require the parties to continue working under the old rules (which worked well enough for everyone for a long time) until the litigation can be resolved. If he doesn't do that, he's essentially given the league a victory and all they have to do is stall in court as long as possible. That's a worst case scenario for the players, but IMhO, not a likely outcome, especially with this judge.

It's unlikely free agency could ever start "by midnight tonight," but it could be back to "business as usual" within a week or so. At least, that's what the players are counting on.

by **pup** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:08 am

How long until the collusion suit is filed after the owners sign off on no free agent acquisitions?

by **SoulDawg74** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:10 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I wonder how long it will take for the lawsuits to start pouring in.

Honestly, i'm not on either side, they're both groups of rich assholes who should be able to act like adults.

No NFL, No Problem. (now that might change once summer starts to heat up and TC should be starting)

SD:

Manning Brady and Brees already filed.

The owners are going to regret listening to that Ass Hat Carolina owner Richardson.

SoulDawg

by **SoulDawg74** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:11 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I wonder how long it will take for the lawsuits to start pouring in.

Honestly, i'm not on either side, they're both groups of rich assholes who should be able to act like adults.

No NFL, No Problem. (now that might change once summer starts to heat up and TC should be starting)

SD:

Manning Brady and Brees already filed.

The owners are going to regret listening to that Ass Hat Carolina owner Richardson.

SoulDawg

by **waborat** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:53 am

JacksonDysonJackson wrote:
waborat wrote:Players are a dime-a-dozen...

Only about 46 suits in the US are able to buy a football team...

So then they shouldn't have a problem turning over the books, right?

The NFL is a business. No business in the world would agree to changing the structure of compensation without seeing proof the other side is hurting.

IMO, the owners know they have the playas over a barrel (since their paychecks will stop coming) and will ride this out until the players wilt. Time is on the owners side.

Sarcasm in my post there, Jack...

Have the owners actually come out and said they're hurting? (ala NBA, MLB) or do they feel it's the right of every owner to hold onto profits as it is them who put up the risk?

Personally, getting tired of this same shit every decade or so...

Bottom line as far as fans are concerned, one side would sleep with yer gal & the other would just spit on ya

by **mistero** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:38 am

I with the owners, Do not come back until the union is a bad memory. Take 3 years..4..whatever. Come back when players salaries make sense. Cut them all.

by **Ziner** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:28 am

JacksonDysonJackson wrote:Ziner, i don't understand that at all. WHat owner is going to sign a player from another team?

Cerebral_Downtime wrote:How can they sign FAs when there is no CBA or NFLPA?

Frankly I have no idea. This stuff is well over my head. Ain't no labor lawyer.

by **leadpipe** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:00 am

If you're gonna give up a billion, it's reasonable that you wanna see some books.

That being said, there's the same amount of chance the general public sees Major League Baseball's REAL books.

Anyways, the players checks will stop at a far faster rate than the legal process takes, and while the players in this day and age should be closer to Carson Palmer in being able to say, FU, I got money in the bank, there are far too many Antonio Cromarties, with not a dime to their name. Face it, if you're taking down several hundred G's in a paycheck, and the players association has to practically plead with you to save some from your last couple checks....these aren't cats that are gonna dig themselves into the foxhole.

by **motherscratcher** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:20 am

mistero wrote:I with the owners, Do not come back until the union is a bad memory. Take 3 years..4..whatever. Come back when players salaries make sense. Cut them all.

Sure, a lot of the salaries don't make sense, and rookies make too much, but is the league non-competitive because of it? The NFL is the one league where it seems that market doesn't matter. You are as good as your player, coaches, and front office.

I tend to side with the owners, but I think that might have more to do with my feelings about the NBA and MLB.

Someone explain to me we should give a shit how things are run as long as the league has parity and the Browns have a chance on merit. Why should we be calling for players to be cut so that we could watch scrubs in the only league that's working?

by **General** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:29 am

What's the o/u on one of these cats showing up in the unemployment line with his whole posse? ::doh::

by **waborat** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:42 am

Just saw that the antitrust suit includes the draft...

Question to all yooz wiseguys, does this mean the draft could be dumped next month?

by **General** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:52 am

If they shut down for any length of time does that mean that the "student-athletes" actually become students? Will they have to actually obtain a meaningfull degree or can we use them to fill in the draft requirements of fielding 2-3 open wars? Since I have not seen professional football since 1996 I am kind of enjoying this. Oh yeah, a friend (in a professional position)got a raise after 5 years due to the economy.........2%. So my heart is really not bleeding over their billions.

by **JacksonDysonJackson** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:33 pm

Wabo,

Eisen on NFL Network last night said that the draft would not be effected. It was kind of a passing comment, so take it with a grain of salt.

by **yogi** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:47 pm

Anyone that picks sides in this really needs to re-look at the situation.

They are both f-ing greedy mFing bastards that are screwing the fans by charging whatever we will pay to watch a game we love.

They are arguing over percentage points that will eventually lead to more billions of dollars because of the growth of this great game.

Who gets the greater share of billions of more dollars... makes me sick.

Please dont choose sides in this cause no matter who wins or if its a draw, one thing is certain, prices will continue to go up and we, the fans, lose. :pb:

by **Fire Marshall Bill** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:59 pm

yogi wrote:Anyone that picks sides in this really needs to re-look at the situation.

They are both f-ing greedy mFing bastards that are screwing the fans by charging whatever we will pay to watch a game we love.

They are arguing over percentage points that will eventually lead to more billions of dollars because of the growth of this great game.

Who gets the greater share of billions of more dollars... makes me sick.

Please dont choose sides in this cause no matter who wins or if its a draw, one thing is certain, prices will continue to go up and we, the fans, lose.

Rack the man!

To the plaeyrs and the owners a great big :fu:

by **hiko** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:44 pm

motherscratcher wrote:Someone explain to me we should give a shit how things are run as long as the league has parity and the Browns have a chance on merit. Why should we be calling for players to be cut so that we could watch scrubs in the only league that's working?

I'd rather watch scrubs than lose Restricted Free Agency and the Franchise Tag.

(Not that we'll see scrubs - this is a lockout, not a strike)

Per PD:

By dissolving and announcing it no longer represents the players in collective bargaining, the union cleared the way for class-action lawsuits against the NFL, which opted out of the CBA in 2008. The antitrust suit -- forever to be known as Brady et al vs. National Football League et al -- attacked the league's policies on the draft, salary cap and free-agent restrictions such as franchise-player tags.

Basically, if the players had their way, they'd get the kind of freedom and power that the players in the NBA enjoy... to the detriment of the sport as a whole. You can't really blame the players for doing that - I'm sure they've convinced themselves that they are oppressed. But in all reality what's best for the league and the sport and most especially the fans is for player power to be curtailed.

As Yogi said, it's crazy to take sides, and I dislike both the owners and the players and identify with neither and could care less about their "problems". But the NFL that I want to see - hard salary cap, rookie wage scale, franchise tags, restricted free agency (basically everything that keeps the NFL from being the NBA) - would be best served by the owners breaking the players.

I love football, and if college football could just figure out a way to have a playoff system, it would probably be the #1 sport in the land and I would more easily live without the NFL. But until that happens, the NFL is the King, and I want it back.

PS - Love how the 2 biggest prima donnas in the biz are paving the way to player "freedom".

by **Madre Hill, Superstar** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:55 pm

Dunno how we went from where we were last week to this. I'm not entirely sure if the players are looking for more freedom, or if they just went nuclear option on the owners to squeeze 'em into opening the books.

by **hiko** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:09 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:Dunno how we went from where we were last week to this. I'm not entirely sure if the players are looking for more freedom, or if they just went nuclear option on the owners to squeeze 'em into opening the books.

I'm sure you're right. But the players are really fucking this up.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/league-claims-decertification-came-too-early-to-avoid-sham-defense/

The problem for the players is that Article LVII, Section 3(a) of the CBA required them to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit if they failed to file it before the expiration of the labor deal. So they’ve opted, apparently, to file the lawsuit in accordance with the terms of the CBA and hope that they can cobble together an argument that will allow the waiver of the “sham” defense to still apply.
The league’s position is pretty simple. By failing to wait until the CBA expired to decertify, the plain terms of the agreement preserves the league’s ability to argue that the process of shutting down the union is a sham.
And it is a sham. Everyone knows it’s a sham. But if the league can’t argue in court that it’s a sham, it doesn’t matter. If the league can argue that it’s a sham, then the league will be in good position to avoid an injunction and maintain a lockout.

by **mistero** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:49 pm

We've had a hiring freeze and no raises for two years. Do you think anyone went to the administration and demanded to see the books? Nope, mopst people are just happy to still have a job. We might grumble but we have to take it on faith the company is losing money or treading water. No employee has a right to see the books.

Another thing, I would love to see free agency die. There must be some way to keep players from switching teams every two years. If not eliminated altogether, more restricted would be nice.

by **Madre Hill, Superstar** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:07 pm

mistero wrote:We've had a hiring freeze and no raises for two years. Do you think anyone went to the administration and demanded to see the books? Nope, mopst people are just happy to still have a job. We might grumble but we have to take it on faith the company is losing money or treading water. No employee has a right to see the books.

I was going to leave your first quote alone as your 'get off my lawn' moment. Right now, though, I'm having visions of George III gut laughing at your attitude. I think I'll just leave it at that, and go back to shaking my heads at both sides of this dispute.

by **SoulDawg74** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:58 pm

hiko wrote:
motherscratcher wrote:Someone explain to me we should give a shit how things are run as long as the league has parity and the Browns have a chance on merit. Why should we be calling for players to be cut so that we could watch scrubs in the only league that's working?

I'd rather watch scrubs than lose Restricted Free Agency and the Franchise Tag.

(Not that we'll see scrubs - this is a lockout, not a strike)

Per PD:

By dissolving and announcing it no longer represents the players in collective bargaining, the union cleared the way for class-action lawsuits against the NFL, which opted out of the CBA in 2008. The antitrust suit -- forever to be known as Brady et al vs. National Football League et al -- attacked the league's policies on the draft, salary cap and free-agent restrictions such as franchise-player tags.

Basically, if the players had their way, they'd get the kind of freedom and power that the players in the NBA enjoy... to the detriment of the sport as a whole. You can't really blame the players for doing that - I'm sure they've convinced themselves that they are oppressed. But in all reality what's best for the league and the sport and most especially the fans is for player power to be curtailed.

As Yogi said, it's crazy to take sides, and I dislike both the owners and the players and identify with neither and could care less about their "problems". But the NFL that I want to see - hard salary cap, rookie wage scale, franchise tags, restricted free agency (basically everything that keeps the NFL from being the NBA) - would be best served by the owners breaking the players.

I love football, and if college football could just figure out a way to have a playoff system, it would probably be the #1 sport in the land and I would more easily live without the NFL. But until that happens, the NFL is the King, and I want it back.

PS - Love how the 2 biggest prima donnas in the biz are paving the way to player "freedom".

SD:

The first strike got broken when the biggest names in the league crossed the picket line , thats why I said the owners seriously miscalculated this time when the leagues biggest margues were standing on the front line .

Ignorant Hawkes like that idiot Richardson fanned the flames instead of alleviating a volatile situation , by publically bracing for war he allowed the union to bolster their defense .

Stoopid ass , when you want to cut em half pretend your suing for piece.

SoulDawg

by **hiko** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:03 pm

I have read a lot more on this today, and I have learned this important fact:

Everybody sucks.

by **Madre Hill, Superstar** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:26 am

hiko wrote:I have read a lot more on this today, and I have learned this important fact:

Everybody sucks.

You learned this just now?

by **mattvan1** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:04 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:Dunno how we went from where we were last week to this.

Mediation 101. Start with the small and inconsequential things. Color of the carpet in the locker room, size of numbers on the jersey, shit like that. Make progress and give the media and fans false hope. Save the tough discussions for later -

"Give us our $1,000,000,000,000."

"Fuck you"

Decertify

Lock out

Litigate

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:30 pm

mattvan1 wrote:
Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:Dunno how we went from where we were last week to this.

Mediation 101. Start with the small and inconsequential things. Color of the carpet in the locker room, size of numbers on the jersey, shit like that. Make progress and give the media and fans false hope. Save the tough discussions for later -

"Give us our $1,000,000,000,000."

"Fuck you"

Decertify

Lock out

Litigate

Pretty much this.

I think we're forgetting the real victims here. The agents. These people have families to feed, alot of FA need new contrcts and they're getting shut out with no mention of their hardships and struggles.

by **Madre Hill, Superstar** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:00 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I think we're forgetting the real victims here. The agents. These people have families to feed, alot of FA need new contrcts and they're getting shut out with no mention of their hardships and struggles.

And what about the concession stand owners who can't sell the same amount of beer for $5 or $8 anymore? They have kids to feed too!

by jb » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:39 pm

JacksonDysonJackson wrote:IMO, the owners know they have the playas over a barrel (since their paychecks will stop coming) and will ride this out until the players wilt. Time is on the owners side.

Only if that TV $ is available. If the fits court decision holds, I expect the owners to cave first. DeMaurice means business and he seems like he knows his way around the legal system more than Jeff whats his face.

by **RickNashEquilibrium** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:06 pm

F#$k all these a$#holes. Do what I've done to help the economy and be a REAL fan: Instead of paying riduclous prices for tickets/concessions, get some cash, 10 of your best friends, and give that business to your local watering hole. Anyone who's been to a Brownsbacker bar, or better yet, the R-Bar down in Cbus for Blue Jackets game, knows that's an environment where you can party hard, drink harder, and not get escorted out for making a mess about it. I understand seeing it live is like nothing else, but there is nothing I can do at the Muni or at CBS that I can't do with a ton of my friends in a driveway or at 1899/Chases/Hobnobbers/Any other bar Mentor/Willoughby/D-Town.

by jb » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:08 pm

Not take sides?

All I know for a fact from being a fan since 1972 is this:

When the players "win" anything, in any sport, the fans get screwed. Always. Higher prices, non-cmpoetitive playing fields, and more prima donnas.

by **yogi** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:23 pm

jb wrote:Not take sides?

All I know for a fact from being a fan since 1972 is this:

When the players "win" anything, in any sport, the fans get screwed. Always. Higher prices, non-cmpoetitive playing fields, and more prima donnas.

Yup.

In a nutshell. The owners will always make their money. If they payout more they will charge more with their cut on top of expenses.

Anyone that sides with the players is asking for higher ticket and concession costs.

:pb:

by jb » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:54 pm

yogi wrote:Anyone that sides with the players is asking for higher ticket and concession costs.

Worse yet is unfettered player movement and no salary cap.

Whoo hoo, go players. My ass.

The only bright side is it might bury the small pocket Rooney's.

by **SoulDawg74** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:26 pm

jb wrote:
yogi wrote:Anyone that sides with the players is asking for higher ticket and concession costs.

Worse yet is unfettered player movement and no salary cap.

Whoo hoo, go players. My ass.

The only bright side is it might bury the small pocket Rooney's.

SD:

Sheeeeiiiit wish that it were so, but ain't never gonna happen
Because them Fucks got their baby Nickles making babies

SoulDawg

by **JacksonDysonJackson** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:16 pm

yogi wrote:
jb wrote:Not take sides?

All I know for a fact from being a fan since 1972 is this:

When the players "win" anything, in any sport, the fans get screwed. Always. Higher prices, non-cmpoetitive playing fields, and more prima donnas.

Yup.

In a nutshell. The owners will always make their money. If they payout more they will charge more with their cut on top of expenses.

Anyone that sides with the players is asking for higher ticket and concession costs.

Meh...the NFL is better on TV anyways. Except when Criqui-isms are flowing through your speakers.

by **comish** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:21 pm

I am clearly 100% BESIDE the UNION on this :hide:

by **yogi** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:33 pm

JacksonDysonJackson wrote:
yogi wrote:
jb wrote:Not take sides?

All I know for a fact from being a fan since 1972 is this:

When the players "win" anything, in any sport, the fans get screwed. Always. Higher prices, non-cmpoetitive playing fields, and more prima donnas.

Yup.

In a nutshell. The owners will always make their money. If they payout more they will charge more with their cut on top of expenses.

Anyone that sides with the players is asking for higher ticket and concession costs.

Meh...the NFL is better on TV anyways. Except when Criqui-isms are flowing through your speakers.

Whatever. They will add more commercials, have advertsements on uniforms and run visual ads while you're watching the game not just in-between plays plus subliminal audio messages as well.

Of course, there will be a day when you will pay to watch any game.

by **JCoz** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:47 am

JacksonDysonJackson wrote:
waborat wrote:Players are a dime-a-dozen...

Only about 46 suits in the US are able to buy a football team...

So then they shouldn't have a problem turning over the books, right?

The NFL is a business. No business in the world would agree to changing the structure of compensation without seeing proof the other side is hurting.

IMO, the owners know they have the playas over a barrel (since their paychecks will stop coming) and will ride this out until the players wilt. Time is on the owners side.

A. The Owners dont have to be "hurting" to attempt claim more than they get right now.

B. They'd be fucking morons to open the books, they aren't at all obligated to do so.

by **JCoz** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:04 am

No telling if the quoted text is accurate, but if it is, this wasn't much of a negotiation on the part of the players. Add up the comments from their lead man coming into this, "This is WAR!" and its easy to believe the players union is exactly where they decided they'd be months ago, dissolved and going into litigation.

Fuck em. All of them. The owners for allowing themselves to get suckered into a deal they didn't want years ago, and the union for essentially refusing to negotiate.

I mean, where I work I spend an awful lot of time negotiating contracts and compensation and entitlement, and the quoted text doesn't sound much like a negotiation on the players part IYAM.

The NFL said its offer included splitting the difference in the dispute over how much money owners should be given off the top of the league's revenues. Under the expiring CBA, the owners immediately got about $1 billion before dividing the remainder of revenues with the players; the owners entered negotiations seeking to roughly double that.

But the owners eventually reduced that additional upfront demand to about $650 million. Then, on Friday, they offered to drop that to about $325 million. Smith said the union offered during talks to give up $550 million over the first four years of a new agreement -- or an average of $137.5 million.

"We worked hard," said Goodell, who was joined at mediation on Thursday and Friday by nine of the 10 members of the owners' powerful labor committee. "We didn't reach an agreement, obviously. As you know, the union walked away from the mediation process."

Also in the NFL's offer, according to the league:

• Maintaining the 16 regular-season games and four preseason games for at least two years, with any switch to 18 games down the road being negotiable.

• Instituting a rookie wage scale through which money saved would be paid to veterans and retired players.

• Creating new year-round health and safety rules.

• Establishing a fund for retired players, with $82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years.

by **peeker643** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:08 pm

Love how the 'union' is begging draftees to not go to NYC too for the draft.

That's some negotiation strategy they have there: be petty, small and make requests of people who aren't in your club to give up a moment they've worked hard to have.

That's nothing more than spite.

Ain't nobody missing gate checks and game checks at the end of the day. Quit being whiny, fucking bitches and get shit done.

Either that or shut the fuck up and go away.

Sick of all these assholes and their squabble over $9billion

They can all get eye cancer and die at this point. Fuck all of 'em.

Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Who is online

Who is online