Injunction request granted
- Thread starter salsadancer7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 88
- Views 6K
- Status
From Albert Breer on Twitter:
Sources: NFLPA is bracing for the NFL to be granted a full stay of the injunction to lift NFL lockout until the appeal is heard. Have heard the rumblings all morning. What full stay would mean: The lockout is on until 8th circuit hears case on June 3, rules thereafter. Full stay would, in essence, eliminate offseason programs for '11. Generally those wrap in mid-June, which is earliest we could get ruling.
Sources: NFLPA is bracing for the NFL to be granted a full stay of the injunction to lift NFL lockout until the appeal is heard. Have heard the rumblings all morning. What full stay would mean: The lockout is on until 8th circuit hears case on June 3, rules thereafter. Full stay would, in essence, eliminate offseason programs for '11. Generally those wrap in mid-June, which is earliest we could get ruling.
Because the union sucks at PR.
Really though, all they've done is say the owners suck (almost literally) while the owners in my opinion have tried to keep this going forward and have tried to make their case with facts and arguments, rather than statements like 'worst deal of all time'. The union halted the mediation, the union decertified, the union forced the NFL to defensively lock them out. The NFL could have done the same thing, but they didn't. They could have disagreed to extending the deadline and locked the players out, or induced the decertification, but instead the union made a demand that they knew would not be met at the 11th hour and then decertified before the offer could even be fully considered.
It's a lot more complicated than that though, as it's more than just players vs owners. It's the union, the NFL, owners, and players.... then on top of that the lawyers involved on each side. I am for the players (who are not idiots) and the owners.
People claim that the NFL would have locked them out anyways, but that's not how it ended up happening, so I don't really care. The union has been planning their decertification strategy since September, team by team getting authorization for their dissolution.
And, the owners have been planning their lockout strategy since the current TV contracts were negotiated back in 2009. Both sides are actually beginning to make me sick...
I agree Cosmo, there are no good guys this time...only villains all around.
Sandra
I don't really have a problem with this because the owners shoulder 100% of the risk of operating these franchises. The TV contracts do nothing more than show the owners tried to get insurance in the event there was a work stoppage not necessarily dictate that they were guaranteeing a lockout, all it guaranteed was $4b in loans that they would have to repay.
St. Louis courts have closed for the day, the expected permanent stay is looking like it might not come today, but there's still a chance.
I could, like a lot of football fans care less about the details. Just give me my football back!!!
One things for certain though. Without summer camp and without the new playbook to study, my Brownies with their new coaching staff are at a huge disadvantage the longer this drags on, as well as any other team with a new staff. Ugh!!
One things for certain though. Without summer camp and without the new playbook to study, my Brownies with their new coaching staff are at a huge disadvantage the longer this drags on, as well as any other team with a new staff. Ugh!!
OK, so the player shoulders NO RISK at all? Really?! Have you see the health of the average football player after they retire?
NFL is killing its players, and league doesn't care - NFL - CBSSports.com Football
Yep....no risk at all.
OK, so the player shoulders NO RISK at all? Really?! Have you see the health of the average football player after they retire?
NFL is killing its players, and league doesn't care - NFL - CBSSports.com Football
Yep....no risk at all.
So you're comparing ensuring the FINANCIAL VIABILITY of the league to the lifestyle and DREAM that players are persuing voluntarily (and getting paid handsomely to do so)!?
... a report that by it's own statistics is about players who've been out of the league roughly 32+ years? (or are they rapidly aging as well?)
So if you're so into player safety, you must agree 100% with Goodell's suspensions and policies involving injuries? You're FOR the lockout, since the longer there's no games, players lives are extended? That's what you're trying to throw in my face here isn't it with this 5 month old blog full of commentary against an 18 game schedule which hasn't even been part of the discussion for 2 months at this point?
The NFL is working to improve player safety by changing a number of rules related to workouts before and during the season, as well as the new concussion rules next season (though I am not sure how they'll respond to teams like the Steelers who try and break them a la Hines Ward 'neck injury' that after the game 'oh, he has a concussion).
It's OK though I guess, it's not like you guys talk about football around here anymore unless it's on TV. Was surprised to see this thread pop up, not surprised by quality of the posts it contained though.
"it's not like you guys talk about football around here anymore unless it's on TV"
????????
You want to talk about football NOT on TV ?
Isn't that what were doing, talking about whats happening between seasons ?
Yes, in a 2 week old thread about the 2 month old lockout... there wasn't even a thread about the draft until the day before it happened.
There were 66 pages of discussion this time last year between February and now. It was the most popular thread in this section of the forum despite other sports actually being played.
Last edited:
So you're comparing ensuring the FINANCIAL VIABILITY of the league to the lifestyle and DREAM that players are persuing voluntarily (and getting paid handsomely to do so)!?
So you are saying that the only true sign of sacrifice is financial? The sacrifice BEFORE they even become and NFL player? LIFESTYLE? So you are saying playing in the NFL is a lifestyle choice? IF you are, then how is owning a NFL franchise any different? And don't the owners get paid QUITE HANDSOMELY for these overpriced seats, food and parking..which the LOCAL fans mostly pay for TWICE(once as a tax payer and second time as a season ticket holder)?
I am challenging YOUR statement that states that the only ones making sacrifices is the owners. I mean if you want to talk about financial sacrifices, the cities that these stadiums are in make 10 times the sacrifices than the owners do. With most owners barely putting no more than a 1/3 of the total cost of most stadiums.
THEN the owners charge a "seat license" to have the right to buy season tickets.
All I said was the owners are assuming 100% of the risk of running their business, that's what was being discussed, the 'lockout insurance' case. Here, I'll quote it for you:
Part of this collective bargaining is to have the NFL absorb more of those costs to build these stadiums. Old deals don't cover the price of newer stadiums like they used to, or do you see them getting cheaper before they get more expensive? Gillette stadium was $325m in 2002. The New Meadowlands was $1.3b. $300m of that came from the City, the rest was split between the Giants and the Jets. The 49ers have only raised $113m in tax money for their $1b stadium, they aren't getting one without the NFL's help, Raiders probably won't either (unless any of the inconceivable stadium sharing plans happen).
To sustain their business, there must be income, that's why the NFL arranged a $4 billion dollar loan in the TV contract for this coming season in the event it doesn't happen. Yes for NFL owners it is their LIFESTYLE to be a business person and their RESPONSIBILITY to run a business soundly for all those involved, including the players in their employ (who make an average of like $750k/year) and the thousands who benefit in the community as a result of the franchise being located there from year round jobs at the stadium to the financial infusion events drive to the cities that have those nice venues.
In most if not all cases, voters approve measures to pay taxes to pay for stadiums for their football teams. I have no idea where you're getting a city making '10 times the sacrifice' like they're paying $15/gal for gas or $9 for a loaf of bread or something because they are weighted down with the presence of an NFL team ruling over the city with an iron fist and an open wallet.
I see you've selectively quoted and are just letting the rest of the failed arguments from the 2006 blog fade away?
I'm still waiting for answers to half of the other random stuff you've made up and posted, like the owners are doing this so the top 5% of players take a pay cut.
Don't you think the current labor situation might have something to do with that?? No free agency, no trades. During the opening night of this year's draft, a couple commentators remarked that there were actually empty seats in the gallery. It's been a long time since that happened...
That same thread was 37 pages long by 3/11 last year... the same date this year that the lockout started, and well before the NFL draft.
There were just more people participating in this forum then. That's why this thread.
To my point, most of the posts in last year's thread were updates and discussions on FA and trade transactions, who's not showing up at the OTAs, etc., all things that are not happening this year. Most of the transaction posts seem to be from you, like this one for example:
http://www.satelliteguys.us/202360-nfl-preseason-2010-2011-official-discussion-45.html#post2141603
It kinda makes sense that post traffic about the NFL would be down without those offseason activites to announce and discuss...
Case in point, biggest day of the lockout 66 days in, not a single post here about it.
- Status
Similar threads
