Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup
by SoulDawg74 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:07 pm
by hiko » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:30 pm
SoulDawg74 wrote:Cock roaches exposed to sudden light to appeal.Manning and others could be deemed free agentsSoulDawg
by e0y2e3 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:45 pm
by Triple-S » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:49 pm
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
by e0y2e3 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:53 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:54 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:This is essentially the worst thing that could have happened.Empowers the NFL and NBA players in a manor that isn't going to be beneficial re: addressing any of the actual problems.End of the day this is going to cause a lot more stress and probably end up overruled on appeal. Accomplishing nothing than than completely fucking up the NBA and NFL negotiations.The NFL could fuck up a wet dream.
by jerryroche » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:53 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:56 pm
jerryroche wrote:Am I right in assuming that, no matter who wins, ticket prices will go up again? One side wins, they go up a lot; other side wins, they go through the roof?The golden goose may never die, but it could well get to a point where it's on oxygen 24/7 -- thanks to greed on the left, greed on the right, and greed in the middle!
by mattvan1 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:19 pm
peeker643 wrote:They have four and a half months before kick off to figure out some complex shit.
peeker643 wrote:Bunch of fucking idiots. Some of these morons thought they could get a lift in tomorrow so their workout bonuses would kick in and now some of the idiot owners will want blood just because they got kicked in the balls.
by danwismar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:35 am
peeker643 wrote:And I am at the jump off point. They could keep me with no increase or with a competitive football team.Maybe.
by gdbenz » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:19 am
by jb » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:08 am
by pup » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:33 am
by peeker643 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:35 pm
jb wrote:Ur piece today was the best thing you've ever written, Gary. Right in your wheelhouse.Keep 'em coming so I understand this mess!
by gdbenz » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:36 pm
by Madre Hill, Superstar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:26 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:57 pm
by daddywags » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:57 pm
by gdbenz » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:02 pm
by danwismar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:59 pm
by jb » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:04 pm
by jb » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:08 pm
danwismar wrote:Really good piece by Allen Barra that's worth a read...http://sbn.to/fvVCl5He says the ruling is a game-changer for the players...credits DeMaurice Smith...and says the issues will be quickly resolved because the owners know how much trouble they're in...
by danwismar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:06 pm
by hiko » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:31 pm
Yeah, I’d negotiate. Since there is no league minimum anymore, I’ll give ya $40k/ year. Take it or leave it. By the way, there is now a 20 game season, find your own facilities to work out at, we have full pad practices every day until games start, there is no health insurance, no retirement pension, and oh yeah, our team only has 11 players, you have to play both offense, defense and special teams. Don’t like it? Go file a grievence with your union...
by jb » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:46 pm
by hiko » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:36 am
by danwismar » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:36 am
by gdbenz » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:24 am
by jb » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:23 am
gdbenz wrote:Dan, the union sure does have the owners on the run, right up to the point that they realize that the only thing worse than losing in court to them is beating them in court. Smith and the lawyers haven't yet explained all the downside of a league without rules because to them the object isn't to make a better league but to beat the owners.
by jb » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:26 am
hiko wrote:I really thought they were smarter than this. I really thought that they would work things out before it got to this point.Like the Captain said in Starship Troopers as the bugs started destroying the starfleet: Someone made a mistake. Someone made a big goddam mistake!
by yogi » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:27 am
gdbenz wrote:Dan, the union sure does have the owners on the run, right up to the point that they realize that the only thing worse than losing in court to them is beating them in court. Smith and the lawyers haven't yet explained all the downside of a league without rules because to them the object isn't to make a better league but to beat the owners. It won't be a windfall for the players but a reason for them to re-form a union and strike a deal. Teams will spend less, not more, for players. Players who don't want to work cheap will be replaced with players who will. Remember, for every player in the NFL, there's at least 10 others who didn't make it that would take those jobs in a minute.
by danwismar » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:06 pm
by jb » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:20 pm
But it not like there's no downside for the owners just because they are in possession of the checkbooks. No NFL owner relishes the idea of facing his fans to explain that Brady, Manning or Brees won't be suiting up this year, but not to worry...Joe Blow and Tommy Turd will be there, so come on down to the $500 per seat luxury box anyway.
I'm just the guy seeing my deadline (5/1) for season ticket money creeping up, with the prospect of the opener seeming farther away by the day, instead of closer. Maybe I'm grasping at any positive-looking straw.
by hiko » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:23 pm
by danwismar » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:53 pm
jb wrote:Well, looking at the history of professional sports labor relations, can you find me one instance of the players winning that resulted in anything positive for the fans?
by daddywags » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:16 pm
by jb » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:59 pm
by gdbenz » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:06 pm
by jb » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:14 pm
by hiko » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:22 pm
GB, is it possible the owners could reorganize themselves into a single entity that is the NFL rather than 32 distinct franchises thru some issuance of stock after the formation of a corporation?
by daddywags » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:37 pm
Football teams that need to cooperate are not trapped by antitrust law. “[T]he special characteristics of this industry may provide a justification” for many kinds of agreements. Brown, 518 U. S., at 252 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions.
by gdbenz » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:31 pm
by hiko » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:42 pm
gdbenz wrote:A couple of things. First, the owners could absolutely re-formulate as a single entity with 32 divisions, but doing so isn't simple. What would have to happen is that each franchise would have to dissolve and the league take over the ownership. Doing that is not a simple task because every team is a well established corporation with debt on their books that could become immediately due and payable upon a disolution of the business. There are a lot of other complications to it, but technically speaking it could be done to avoid the anti trust problem. Indeed, if you note almost all of the other new leagues that have formed over the years have tried just that approach--to have the league own the franchises as wholly-owned subsdiaries. This was done precisely to avoid anti trust issues. The model is difficult to execute but far easier if you're starting from scratch. Second, there are a whole whose of non-economic decisions that could be collectively made by the 32 separate teams that wouldn't run afoul of antitrust laws. The key issues that makes the league successful,however, are all virtually economic in nature--salary caps, minimum salaries, television contracts, the draft, free agency restrictions, etc. Those would never pass scrutiny under antitrust laws, something that the owners already know full well.
by e0y2e3 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:36 pm
by hiko » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:37 am
e0y2e3 wrote:SBJLizMullen: Breaking--Judge Nelson in NFL Lockout case: "Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED."As pissed as I am about them fucking with the NBA situation I am really looking forward to the comedy of the next 24 hours.Just one owner needs to breakout and sign someone.
by gdbenz » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:03 am
Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL
Users browsing this forum: gbot and 3 guests