Injunction request granted
- Thread starter salsadancer7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 88
- Views 6K
- Status
I think everyone else is as confused as you. I'm taking the "wait and see" approach. Hoping for the best. A lot of conflicting information and assumptions out there right now....
The appeals court stayed the injunction, so the lockout is back.
The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals restores NFL lockout, grants request for temporary stay - ESPN
Appeals court restores NFL lockout, grants temporary stay
The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals restores NFL lockout, grants request for temporary stay - ESPN
Appeals court restores NFL lockout, grants temporary stay
Last edited:
The owners want a lockout as much as we do. They can't legally set rules for free agency among other things when there is no union.
If the owners wanted a lockout it would have started in February.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
If the owners wanted a lockout it would have started in February.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
meStevo said:
The owners want the lockout because that will force the upper 5%... IE, the superstars, to accept a lesser contract for their lower paid bretheren. That has been stated by many that cover the NFL and it makes absolute sense.
The lockout and decertification of the union are mutually exclusive.
Plus, the league (owners) put clauses in the broadcast contracts to have them get paid more if there was no football in 2011 than if there was. While it doesn't definitively prove they wanted a lockout, they were definitely preparing for no football this season...
Before the previous collective bargaining agreement was done?? Not if they clearly wanted to be painted as the bad guys.
Last edited:
What gives you this impression? Show me a link or any statement that shows a proposal of the salary cap decreasing since that would be the only way to change that. The 'worst deal in the history of sports' as De Smith called it increased the cap to $161m per club by 2014. The biggest problem with this proposal is that it didn't account for league growth, but that's something that usually gets worked out with negotiations... and the players walked away from that.
Convenient quote if you're backing the players, in the end the owners wanted to keep mediating and the players did not, made an unreasonable demand that they knew the NFL wouldn't OK (open full books or no more extensions - after not even looking at the data the owners had offered to the union) so they decertified shortly after making that offer (before the NFL could accept/reject it, so they stopped even considering it). That forced the NFL to lock them out - defensively, since moving forward with free agency among other things would be a violation of antitrust rules.
Seperate issue, but was made moot since the union forced the owners to lock the players out out.
For some reason I thought it was expired a little closer to the Super Bowl, forgot that the extensions were on a March expiration date not a late February one. The owners could have pretty easily just not accepted the terms of extending anything and locked them out though. The players made that decision for them.
Neither side is in the clear for blame, but to pin this squarely on the owners is to make yourself look silly or not allow yourself to understand the facts. If the NFL is able to lock the players out then they may be able to force the players back into mediation rather than a court-induced labor negotiations, that is their goal. If their lockout is deemed legal then the Brady v NFL case which is suing them for imposing rules of any kind on a non-union workforce would have a much higher probability of being defeated if they aren't actually doing that.
I don't really care who looks better or who 'wins', I just want football. It's pretty clear to me that the players need to be knocked down a few notches so that they'll negotiate reasonably. I also kinda wish De Smith and Jerry Richardson would get hit by a car, or somehow rendered incapacitated for the duration of negotiations because big mouths and absolute statements are why we are where we are today.
So when's the last time you guys asked to see your bosses' paycheck when negotiating your pay?
Last edited:
It's the OWNERS that are demanding an EXTRA BILLION dollars in the deal, not the Players, they players actually ACCEPTED a reduction, which would allow the OWNERS more money and the Owners balked.
As for the Broadcasters part of this, NOTHING is settled yet.
Where did you get the idea that the Broadcasters were required to pay MORE than the norm if there was NO games ?
When was this balking? The players and owners have been much less than $1b apart since even the federal mediation in March. I have no idea what the second part of this is referring to. Would love to read about it, since you aren't prone to just making things up like some of the other posts in this thread seem to have done. I am guessing if anything you read of the players making an offer and the owners rejecting it, rather than the players 'accepting' anything. I haven't read of very many offers by the players. They keep their media interactions simple and boisterous, rather than granular and informative like the NFL has done.
The 'owners want $1b' is a drum being beat by people who are pro-players and aren't keeping up with the news and just keep asking 'is it over yet? damnit goodell, i hate you.' It's never been as simple as that.
It's settled for the most part. See the making things up point about the requirement to pay more... no idea where cosmo_kramer got that. There is a hearing this week or next for damages in that case. Doty ruled that the NFL failed to maximize potential revenue to ensure that payments would continue even if there's no games being played.
The owners are running a business, they insured their cashflow in the event of a work stoppage during the next season, I don't really have much of a problem with that as long as they are negotiating in good faith. The NFL hasn't given me any reason to think they aren't, due to the conduct of De Smith and the former NFLPA.
This is from a Peter King article in 2009, when the current TV deal was signed:
NFL's new DirecTV deal will pay even if 2011 lockout happens - Peter King - SI.com
http://www.satelliteguys.us/247095-direct-tv-pays-nfl-even-if-3.html#post2490299
In the very beginning the revenue sharing was being talked about and the Owners wanted to move it to a 50/50 split IIRC, it's currently 40/60, the players OK'd it and the owners decided that THAT still wasn't enough.
The players never asked for more money in ANY of this.
It's the owners that are demanding more of the pie.
I STILL feel it will get settled before the season starts, but I feel bad for us fans when it does get done IF it takes into August as training will be non existant, the level of play will drop, particularly for those with new coaches, schemes and new QB's.
Hell, many teams don't look like a team even WITH the off season and Pre season practices.
The players never asked for more money in ANY of this.
It's the owners that are demanding more of the pie.
I STILL feel it will get settled before the season starts, but I feel bad for us fans when it does get done IF it takes into August as training will be non existant, the level of play will drop, particularly for those with new coaches, schemes and new QB's.
Hell, many teams don't look like a team even WITH the off season and Pre season practices.
Yes, that is correct and a Judge can CHANGE that in a nano second.
Do you not think that D* has insurance incase that should happen as well ?
A judge can change a legally, agreed to contract between two willing parties?? Good luck with that; it didn't happen in 2009 when it was signed, why should that work now?? Apparently D* agreed to the clause to protect the exclusivity of the Sunday Ticket package. The NFL had them by the balls.
Insurance doesn't matter. The NFL still will get their money, whether it comes from D* or an insurance company. The point is that the NFL added clauses specific to no games being played, or partial loss of games in 2011. The other networks only get another year added on to the agreement.
DirecTV is out $420m if there's no season, the $4 billion the NFL would have received from the rest of the networks is actually a loan and would be paid back.
I see you quietly edited your first post that Jimbo and I replied to about the NFL getting more money in the event of a lockout which was never true.
Hearing for damages in the lockout insurance case is 5/12.
The editing I did to that post was simply to correct a spelling mistake. The reference to more money is still there.
This was the document I referred to in the DirecTv thread. It clearly spells out the agreement with DirecTv, CBS, and FOX.
http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Lockout%20Insurance%20Case%20Decision.pdf
I think you misunderstood. DirecTV is out $420m, networks essentially loan $4b to the NFL and contracts are extended.
Any instance of them paying 'more' looks to just be provisions to gradually increase the price of the package... which happens every renewal.
The NFL was found guilty of not maximizing profits with these contracts because of the clauses you cite, the NFLPA believed they could/should have been even higher fees (which would have led to more money potentially going to the players if there was no lockout).
So I guess I don't see why you even brought this up.
Any instance of them paying 'more' looks to just be provisions to gradually increase the price of the package... which happens every renewal.
The NFL was found guilty of not maximizing profits with these contracts because of the clauses you cite, the NFLPA believed they could/should have been even higher fees (which would have led to more money potentially going to the players if there was no lockout).
So I guess I don't see why you even brought this up.
- Status
