RIP NFL

[Crash]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... certifies/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/28/report-league-will-lock-players-out-even-if-union-decertifies/)

[calmkiller]

WOOT UFL!

[RuthlessBurgher]

WOOT UFL!

Here's your chance to claim the "www.planetlocomotives.com" domain name while it is still hot. We'll need to start a new discussion board over there. :wink:

[birtikidis]

WE LOCO!

[aggiebones]

Let's not get dramatic. Geez
This was a televised move about a month ago. Just following the script. Do you think the players really want to miss 1 pay check?

[Crash]

If the Union decertifies, and then the NFL locks them out? Are the contracts still valid? Are players then free agents? The owners would basically be killing their own league and shutting it down, no?

So if they start a "new" league, wouldn't the players have to be drafted? Or just free agents free to go where they want?

The players want paid. That's why they decertify. But if they decertify and then the owners lock them out the league is basically closing up shop.

[Blockhead]

Panic, freak out, the end of the world is near. Where is the nearest bubble?

I'll just relax as it's all just negotiating.

[Crash]

We'll see. There are some agents who are convinced that the owners want to close up shop for one year, get a nice nest egg of TV money, and resume in 2012.

If the Union decertifies, and the players get locked out anyway? I'd say those concerns were correct.

The NFL will cease to exist. Every player in the league will be a free agent, and the draft will be cancelled because A) There will be no union for the players to be drafted into, and B) The NFL is taking their ball and going home.

The best case scenario now is an extension of the original deadline.

Other than that? The future of the league the way it is now is looking very bleak.

[Chachi]

Packers won the first Super Bowl....looks like they might have just won the last too.

[hawaiiansteel]

The NFL will cease to exist.


the players' union decertified once before in 1987.

and today's NFL is as successful as ever.

[Chadman]

Getting very close to seeing who blinks first...


Chadman is putting his money on the Owners winning this dispute by a nose...

[Crash]

The NFL will cease to exist.


the players' union decertified once before in 1987.

and today's NFL is as successful as ever.

The owners don't agree.

1987 was also a strike. This is a lockout by the owners.

If the union decrtifies, and then the players get locked out? The NFL is over. You will have 1500 players roaming the streets as free agents with no contracts because the league will have shut down.

This won't be resolved in 3 days. Just hope for an extension of the March 3 deadline date, because if the two steps above do take place? Nothing else matters.

[Blockhead]

The NFL will cease to exist.


the players' union decertified once before in 1987.

and today's NFL is as successful as ever.

The owners don't agree.

1987 was also a strike. This is a lockout by the owners.

If the union decrtifies, and then the players get locked out? The NFL is over. You will have 1500 players roaming the streets as free agents with no contracts because the league will have shut down.

This won't be resolved in 3 days. Just hope for an extension of the March 3 deadline date, because if the two steps above do take place? Nothing else matters.
overreact much?

[Crash]

The NFL will cease to exist.


the players' union decertified once before in 1987.

and today's NFL is as successful as ever.

The owners don't agree.

1987 was also a strike. This is a lockout by the owners.

If the union decrtifies, and then the players get locked out? The NFL is over. You will have 1500 players roaming the streets as free agents with no contracts because the league will have shut down.

This won't be resolved in 3 days. Just hope for an extension of the March 3 deadline date, because if the two steps above do take place? Nothing else matters.
overreact much?

How can the NFL exist when their is no union for the players and they get locked out? It's just like a company closing up with no notice.

Explain that, then go to the adult table.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Getting very close to seeing who blinks first...


Chadman is putting his money on the Owners winning this dispute by a nose...

However, that nose will subsequenly be cut off to spite their face. :wink:

[Crash]

If the Union decertifies and the owners don't declare an impasse and they lockout they will "win" but in reality everyone looses.

[Blockhead]

If the Union decertifies and the owners don't declare an impasse and they lockout they will "win" but in reality everyone looses.
maybe they"ll tighten it back up?

[hawaiiansteel]

in case of a prolonged lockout, there's gotta be some kind of football that we can watch ...

http://www.slanchreport.com/images/stories/lingerie-football.jpg

[Chadman]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dfClHjAuXrE/TNGxAOo5YqI/AAAAAAAACMA/xG9XV9SI_gU/s640/lingerie-football-league-ass-2.jpg

Are you ready for some....football?

[Djfan]

If it's as dire as some here think, the UFL will get some good players to add to their product.

I watched much of it this year and enjoyed it. It was surprising how many names you would all recognize.

[Crash]

If the NFLPA decertifies and the players are then locked out? It's dire. Like I said best case scenario is an extension of the Thursday night deadline. They aren't going to get a deal done in three days.

[Oviedo]

Drama queens much???????

The NFL is not going anywhere. This is a labor battle that the owners will ultimately win. The only question is how much pain and suffering will the players union and their idiot leader force on the players in the name of labor solidarity.

[Oviedo]

Good article and reason why the players need to stop being led off the cliff by a union leaders who pretends they are like poor minimum wage coal miners or janitors. They are highly paid professionals not suffering blue collar workers. Time for the charade to be dropped.

The owners will win. It's only about how much damage Dumbius Smith will do trying to establish his rep as a labor leader.


NFL may be able to weather 2-year lockout
By Chris Isidore, senior writerFebruary 28, 2011: 5:00 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- National Football League owners will continue to generate much of their revenue in 2011, even if next season's games are cancelled due to a labor dispute, according to a note Monday by rating agency Standard & Poor's.

In fact, some teams may be able to survive two years without any games being played, according to S&P, which said it has confidential debt ratings on various stadium bonds for facilities used by NFL teams and also tracks teams' finances.

Email Print CommentIf there is a work stoppage, the owners will have to pay most of the money they receive in 2011 back with interest once games resume.

But the continued flow of money from television networks, sponsors and some customers during a possible lockout puts the owners in good position to weather a potential canceled season.

The owners and the NFL Players Association are in negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement ahead of a Friday deadline. Without an agreement, a lockout of players could start that day.

Even though there are no games scheduled to be played until September, there are fears that the 2011 season could be lost as the league and players fight over how much revenue should be available to players.

Citing the ongoing talks, a spokeswoman for the NFLPA declined to comment on the S&P report. Spokesmen for the NFL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

S&P said the league's estimated revenue was about $9 billion last year, with the biggest share of that money coming from television rights deals, which it said will provide it with $4 billion in revenue in 2011.

The networks will be contractually required to pay that money to the league even if the games are not played, although the league will have to pay that money back to the networks, with interest, once games resume.

But that revenue stream, which S&P said is being challenged in court by the union, is an important source of funds that would help the owners avoid any default on their own obligations.

S&P also estimates that 50% to 80% of stadium revenues are generated from what it terms "contractually obligated income" from the sale of luxury suites, club seats, and in-stadium advertising.

The contract provisions typically require payment even if football games are not played, although once again, some of this revenue would need to be repaid once the games resume.

In judging the owners' ability to survive a prolonged lockout, S&P also cited a report in trade publication Sports Business Journal, that the league has built up a strategic reserve fund of about $900 million that teams can access in case of a work stoppage.

[Crash]

The NFL is not going anywhere.

If the union decertifies and then the NFL locks the players out? The NFL is no more. You need to read this stuff. The MINUTE a lockout happens to a decertified NFLPA? The NFL and the Steelers as we know it, are dead.

[Oviedo]

The NFL is not going anywhere.

If the union decertifies and then the NFL locks the players out? The NFL is no more. You need to read this stuff. The MINUTE a lockout happens to a decertified NFLPA? The NFL and the Steelers as we know it, are dead.


Wrong. The NFL as a business entity continues. There may be no union but a court will decide that since the decertification has been contrived as a negotiating ploy.

The NFL business entity can continue to conduct business anyway they determine appropriate. The reality is that there are more players wanting to play in the NFL than jobs available. That is why the players will lose and why the union has to resort to legal maneuvering to prolong this.

[Crash]

The NFL is not going anywhere.

If the union decertifies and then the NFL locks the players out? The NFL is no more. You need to read this stuff. The MINUTE a lockout happens to a decertified NFLPA? The NFL and the Steelers as we know it, are dead.


Wrong. The NFL as a business entity continues. There may be no union but a court will decide that since the decertification has been contrived as a negotiating ploy.

The NFL business entity can continue to conduct business anyway they determine appropriate. The reality is that there are more players wanting to play in the NFL than jobs available. That is why the players will lose and why the union has to resort to legal maneuvering to prolong this.

Um, this all started because the OWNERS opted out of the agreement. Not the players.

If both of those instances above occur? Are current player contracts even valid at that point? If the NFL "ceases operations" what contracts do players have to abide by?

[aggiebones]

Yes, the owners and their lawyers are complete morons Crash.

The Rooneys and other owners are just gonna let their billion dollar franchises just puff up in smoke to save a few million dollars.
And the players would be much happier in a league like the UFL and get paid $30-100,000 for the next 3-5 years while they work out making it a legit league. The veterans would only lose between $1mil to 15Mil a year. No worries, they'll have fought the league and ... 'won?' lol


I assumed by some of your obsessive behaviors here that you were a young 20 yr old, but maybe you are more like 18-19. You really need to settle down on your overblowing things.

I'm signing off on this thread. Farewell.

[Oviedo]

The NFL is not going anywhere.

If the union decertifies and then the NFL locks the players out? The NFL is no more. You need to read this stuff. The MINUTE a lockout happens to a decertified NFLPA? The NFL and the Steelers as we know it, are dead.


Wrong. The NFL as a business entity continues. There may be no union but a court will decide that since the decertification has been contrived as a negotiating ploy.

The NFL business entity can continue to conduct business anyway they determine appropriate. The reality is that there are more players wanting to play in the NFL than jobs available. That is why the players will lose and why the union has to resort to legal maneuvering to prolong this.

Um, this all started because the OWNERS opted out of the agreement. Not the players.

If both of those instances above occur? Are current player contracts even valid at that point? If the NFL "ceases operations" what contracts do players have to abide by?

If as you say, they have no contracts (not sure that is legally true) as you describe and all that enables them to do is go to the CFL. How many do you think want to do that?

The owners control the source of employment and therefore the access to the dollars the players wants and need. Therefore they have the upper hand and the end state will be a solution more on their side of the ledger than the players. Therefore as I have said it is only a mmatter of how much Dumbius Smith wants to drag this out.

Even if the players give the owners back all the revenue they want and agree to 18 games they at a minimum still will earn hundreds of thousands of dollars and many will earn millions. Hardly abused suffering workers.

[Crash]

The Rooneys and other owners are just gonna let their billion dollar franchises just puff up in smoke to save a few million dollars.

You mean like they are doing now? A $9 BILLION a year industry, and yet the owners are willing to shut it down. You need to remember, this is a lockout, not a strike. The players have their agreement and want to work. It's the owners who are causing this.

[Blockhead]

Contract negotiations take time and are hard to understand, especially if you never have been through it.

[Oviedo]

The Rooneys and other owners are just gonna let their billion dollar franchises just puff up in smoke to save a few million dollars.

You mean like they are doing now? A $9 BILLION a year industry, and yet the owners are willing to shut it down. You need to remember, this is a lockout, not a strike. The players have their agreement and want to work. It's the owners who are causing this.

..and the owners of a $9B business should be able to run their business anyway they want. How many of the companies we work for ask us how and what we want them to run the business?

The NFL will get the business model they want by the time this is all said and done and the players can then decide whether they want to work for the NFL just like any other employee and any other business. What do you think they will decide? They all have the option to use those free college educations they were given and become successful businessmen themselves can't ehy?????

[Crash]

But at what cost though? If this plays out like it's headed that isn't a good thing. The long term future of the league will be screwed, and for what? A better piece of a $9 billion dollar pie.

[papillon]

First, I believe that the NFL will lockout the players on Wednesday prior to the union de-certifying on Thursday. I don't think the owners can lock out a non-entity (the union). I think we'll hear of the lockout tomorrow and the decertification on Thursday.

That then leaves a business entity (NFL) looking for employees. The current employees, on the surface, don't want to play under the draconian conditions set by the business. They don't have to, the business is certainly free to hire new employees. The question becomes how long will they wait before they begin the process replacing their employees. The new employees wouldn't be crossing a picket line or be considered scabs, because there is no union, they are simply men looking for work.

The kink in this whole thing for the owners could be the judge (Doty) that has been presiding over the current CBA. He is definitely in the corner of the players.

I would also assume that all contracts will be honored, after all, they are contracts signed by both parties. The question becomes is there language about being paid only if there is training camp, pre-season and games. Are the owners obligated to pay even if there isn't football? After all, a contract is a contract, correct?

Phillyesq needs to stop by and give us the skinny on the legal aspects of decertifying and what it means. Calling Phillyesq, calling Phillyesq...

Interesting times ahead.

Pappy

[Crash]

You can't use scabs during a lockout can you? I thought you can only do that during a strike?

[steelblood]

Crash is crashing.

[feltdizz]

The Rooneys and other owners are just gonna let their billion dollar franchises just puff up in smoke to save a few million dollars.

You mean like they are doing now? A $9 BILLION a year industry, and yet the owners are willing to shut it down. You need to remember, this is a lockout, not a strike. The players have their agreement and want to work. It's the owners who are causing this.

..and the owners of a $9B business should be able to run their business anyway they want. How many of the companies we work for ask us how and what we want them to run the business?

The NFL will get the business model they want by the time this is all said and done and the players can then decide whether they want to work for the NFL just like any other employee and any other business. What do you think they will decide? They all have the option to use those free college educations they were given and become successful businessmen themselves can't ehy?????

Coke changed their flavor because they could? :stirpot

[feltdizz]

With three days until the owners lock out the players for refusing to give up their claims to $1 billion of the sport's $9 billion in annual revenues, local officials and players are raising concerns that a canceled season could deprive cities of needed economic activity -- as much as $160 million per city, according to the NFL Players Association -- at the worst time possible. But now that the argument is working against it, the NFL calls such concerns "fairy tales."

Economists have debunked claims that a shutdown would devastate a stadium's host city, or that a new stadium offers the kind of windfall that would justify significant public contributions. But NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had a different take in 1997, when he was a league executive. "A new stadium provides more than just a new place to watch a game," Goodell said at the time. "It can revitalize and stabilize both a team and a city."

[Crash]

Outstanding!

Friggin' Goodell.... :tt2

[Chadman]

The Rooneys and other owners are just gonna let their billion dollar franchises just puff up in smoke to save a few million dollars.

You mean like they are doing now? A $9 BILLION a year industry, and yet the owners are willing to shut it down. You need to remember, this is a lockout, not a strike. The players have their agreement and want to work. It's the owners who are causing this.


Crash- if the 'players have their agreement' as you claim, why is their a labour dispute? Who is their agreement with? And if they are happy with their work conditions- why are they asking for a piece of the extra billion dollars the owners share? They don't have an agreement, and they only want to work if they get more money out of it.

It's a two way street- the owners are not solely to blame for the current situation.

[Crash]

Crash- if the 'players have their agreement' as you claim, why is their a labour dispute?

Because the owners, not the players, opted out.

The players want to play. To the point they may decertify to try and force the 2011 season to go on under the current terms of the CBA.


And if they are happy with their work conditions- why are they asking for a piece of the extra billion dollars the owners share?

You have it backwards. It's the OWNERS who want an extra billion shaved off the top. They now want two billion before the revenue split.

[Oviedo]

[quote]Crash- if the 'players have their agreement' as you claim, why is their a labour dispute?

Because the owners, not the players, opted out.

The players want to play. To the point they may decertify to try and force the 2011 season to go on under the current terms of the CBA.


And if they are happy with their work conditions- why are they asking for a piece of the extra billion dollars the owners share?

You have it backwards. It's the OWNERS who want an extra billion shaved off the top. They now want two billion before the revenue split.[/quote:2dsrck7v]

The extra billion has always been off the top. It was not accounted for to cover things like the start up and operation of the NFL network and building new stadiums. In their last proposal to the owners the players actually put that back into the equation so their proposal actually took more from the owners because of their basis of net versus gross revenues. So Chadman is right. It is the players trying to redefine the starting point.

[aggiebones]

The Rooneys and other owners are just gonna let their billion dollar franchises just puff up in smoke to save a few million dollars.

You mean like they are doing now? A $9 BILLION a year industry, and yet the owners are willing to shut it down. You need to remember, this is a lockout, not a strike. The players have their agreement and want to work. It's the owners who are causing this.


OK, one last comment.

So, there's no difference in the long run between a strike and a lockout. In the end, its a tool to force one side to do something. The owners are locking the players out. So what? Then they get the deal done at some later point and the union will get the band back together and they'll play. Why, cause 90% of the players will be retiring in 5 years and need the money. And those that follow will have no hard feelings cause they were still in college at the time. If the players hold out, then they'll lose a portion of this year possibly...and they'll never get it back. Cause even if they win as a union, they won't all win. Some may get higher contracts, some won't. The line in the and will be crossed or they will be making a big mistake.
Remember, back in '87 players held second jobs cause they had to for the most part. They don't need to know. They get no sympathy from fans.


If you want to worry about the league shutting down or become ruined, then keep a close eye on the concussion syndrome problems. They will be the undoing of the violent nature of the league. Cause better helmets won't do it. That will just trigger more neck traumas cause the guys will hit faster and harder. This is where you need to worry Crash. Not about lawyers pulling tricks to get someone else to blink. If the owners said, we want half your money, the players would really have to give it to them. What are they really gonna do? Sell their wares elsewhere? The owners are just reminding them who the owners are. The players like to believe it is their league, but they are just employees.

[Blockhead]

Crash- if the 'players have their agreement' as you claim, why is their a labour dispute? Who is their agreement with? And if they are happy with their work conditions- why are they asking for a piece of the extra billion dollars the owners share? They don't have an agreement, and they only want to work if they get more money out of it.

It's a two way street- the owners are not solely to blame for the current situation.
The players got a deal better than many owners wanted last time. That's why they put in place the ability for the owners to get out of it. They chose to take that path as the expense growth is rising faster than the revenue growth, thus the owners makine less of a percentage.

The players now will realize they are all replaceable employees. I hope the owners stick to their guns until they get a deal they are happy to accept. Without the owners, there is no league. The players come and go.

[Oviedo]

The Rooneys and other owners are just gonna let their billion dollar franchises just puff up in smoke to save a few million dollars.

You mean like they are doing now? A $9 BILLION a year industry, and yet the owners are willing to shut it down. You need to remember, this is a lockout, not a strike. The players have their agreement and want to work. It's the owners who are causing this.


OK, one last comment.

So, there's no difference in the long run between a strike and a lockout. In the end, its a tool to force one side to do something. The owners are locking the players out. So what? Then they get the deal done at some later point and the union will get the band back together and they'll play. Why, cause 90% of the players will be retiring in 5 years and need the money. And those that follow will have no hard feelings cause they were still in college at the time. If the players hold out, then they'll lose a portion of this year possibly...and they'll never get it back. Cause even if they win as a union, they won't all win. Some may get higher contracts, some won't. The line in the and will be crossed or they will be making a big mistake.
Remember, back in '87 players held second jobs cause they had to for the most part. They don't need to know. They get no sympathy from fans.


If you want to worry about the league shutting down or become ruined, then keep a close eye on the concussion syndrome problems. They will be the undoing of the violent nature of the league. Cause better helmets won't do it. That will just trigger more neck traumas cause the guys will hit faster and harder. This is where you need to worry Crash. Not about lawyers pulling tricks to get someone else to blink. If the owners said, we want half your money, the players would really have to give it to them. What are they really gonna do? Sell their wares elsewhere? The owners are just reminding them who the owners are. The players like to believe it is their league, but they are just employees.

This is why the owners win. The players offer a niche skillset with a very, very limited market


If the owners said, we want half your money, the players would really have to give it to them. What are they really gonna do? Sell their wares elsewhere? The owners are just reminding them who the owners are. The players like to believe it is their league, but they are just employees.

The players all know it, their union knows it. As I have stated many times it is just a matter of how long the union wants to drag out the inevitable.

[Crash]

The owners don't care about player safety or concussion issues.

If they did they wouldn't be trying to hawk 18 regular season games and flat out lying by saying thats what fans want.

Fans don't want 18 games. They want a break in cost of pre-season tickets.

[Crash]

Editorial: NFL Owners' Greed, Hypocrisy Clouds Their Finest Hour

by CHRIS LANDERS
FEB. 10, 2011

As the confetti streamed down onto the victorious Green Bay Packers at the end of Super Bowl XLV, the National Football League and its fans should have been rejoicing. The Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers — arguably the two most storied franchises in the game — had just played one of the tightest contests in recent memory. An eminently marketable star was born in Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers. A whopping 111 million people tuned in to the game, making it the most watched event in American television history. And yet, during the league’s finest hour, that confetti in the air felt more like a storm cloud.

On Mar. 4, the league’s collective bargaining agreement between the owners and the players’ union will expire, meaning there will be no football until a compromise is reached. With the amount of inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides, a compromise does not look forthcoming. Right now, the only thing that can slow down the economic freight train that is the NFL is the NFL itself.

It’s time for the adults to come forward and solve this, and most of the blame for the huge gap between the two sides has to fall at the feet of the owners.

I should preface this argument by saying I realize how ridiculous the situation is. These are millionaires arguing with billionaires over who will end up slightly less obscenely rich, all while playing a kid’s game. I get it. That being said, here’s why the players are in the right (and right, in this case, is a very relative term).

The debate can more or less be boiled down to two issues, both of which are demands from the owners: redistribution of revenue and a longer regular season.

The owners are asking for an extra 18 percent of total annual revenue — a total of $1 billion — because they are allegedly losing money due to increased operating costs, despite a decade of unprecedented prosperity for the NFL. Yet the owners refuse to open their books to the players to prove that they’re losing money.

The only team that has released financial records is the Packers, who are legally obligated to do so because they are a publicly owned franchise. Oddly enough, Green Bay’s finances tell a different story than the owners. The last two seasons, the team has averaged a net profit of over $4 million. From 2003–2008, that number was an unfathomable $20 million. Keep in mind that those profits were posted in a city with a population of about 100,000, by far the smallest of any team in the NFL.

The owners are essentially asking the players to hand over one billion dollars without offering any justification. The owners are the ones handing out irresponsibly overpriced contracts to undeserving players. Football is far and away this country’s most popular sport and the NFL should be a cash cow by default. The Carolina Panthers, who finished with a dreadful 2–14 record last season, still had an average attendance of over 70,000 people per game. That’s not to mention the lucrative TV deals struck with networks like FOX and CBS, and none of that money goes to the players. If a team is bleeding cash, a hypothetical without any basis in fact, it has no one but its shortsighted owner to blame.

The hypocrisy of the owners doesn’t end there. The other main point of contention has been the desire of the owners to add two extra games to the current 16-game regular season schedule. The league has cited the possible increase in revenue as well as the public’s disdain for preseason games as reasons for the move.

However, the lack of tolerance for preseason games is just that: a lack of tolerance for preseason games. Just because fans don’t want to watch — much less pay to see — third-string players battle it out in August doesn’t mean they’re clamoring for more regular season football. In fact, a recently released poll showed lukewarm support at best for the longer season. The league and the owners are trying to force a correlation between the two because of the extra cash that one more home game would generate.

The proposed schedule also flies directly in the face of the league’s movement to ensure the long-term health of its players. Commissioner Roger Goodell instituted stricter rules regarding on-field hits, levying severe fines of up to $125,000 to players who endangered others with blows to the head. The NFL has also been under fire regarding its policies on concussions and lack of health benefits for retired players.

How then, in light of this increased awareness of the importance of player safety spearheaded by the league itself, can an extended regular season be feasible? The players’ reaction has been predictable, with most agreeing that risking their bodies for two more paychecks simply isn’t worth it.

What could possibly be the justification for these demands? Pure and simple greed. The owners aren’t losing money; in fact, they’re riding the wave of an economic golden goose that has grown into a $9 billion industry in spite of a recession. The owners couldn’t care less about player safety as long as it doesn’t conflict with the bottom line.

These are billionaires whose egos have been hurt, and their reaction has been incredibly immature. This shouldn’t be about how many zeros you can add to your net worth, it’s about putting a great product out for fans to enjoy and letting players prosper safely. Every action taken by ownership has been a thinly veiled attempt to exact revenge on the players’ union and add to already unfathomable riches. This should be the time where the NFL takes its popularity to new heights, and the league can’t get out of its own way because of the hypocrisy and greed of its owners.

[Blockhead]

Fans don't want 18 games. They want a break in cost of pre-season tickets.
I'm a fan. I'll gladly take two less pre-season games for 2 more regular season games.

I couldn't care less about pre-season tickets. The years I bought seasons, I just sold them off for close to face.

[Oviedo]

Fans don't want 18 games. They want a break in cost of pre-season tickets.
I'm a fan. I'll gladly take two less pre-season games for 2 more regular season games.

I couldn't care less about pre-season tickets. The years I bought seasons, I just sold them off for close to face.

:Agree

[Blockhead]

The owners are asking for an extra 18 percent of total annual revenue — a total of $1 billion — because they are allegedly losing money due to increased operating costs, despite a decade of unprecedented prosperity for the NFL. Yet the owners refuse to open their books to the players to prove that they’re losing money.


Seems perfectly reasonable to me. When the business needs to cut expenses, they do it.

If the players want to go elsewhere for work, they are more than welcome to do so.

No business should open their books to their employees. The franchises all act seperately as businesses and own different parts in their businesses, stadiums, parking lots, etc. It would be incredibly stupid to base the salaries on the books. It would kill the smaller market teams and make a baseball like system, that's why the cap is based on "shared" revenues. That's what makes it a level playing field.

The books are none of the employees business..

[Oviedo]

The owners are asking for an extra 18 percent of total annual revenue — a total of $1 billion — because they are allegedly losing money due to increased operating costs, despite a decade of unprecedented prosperity for the NFL. Yet the owners refuse to open their books to the players to prove that they’re losing money.


Seems perfectly reasonable to me. When the business needs to cut expenses, they do it.

If the players want to go elsewhere for work, they are more than welcome to do so.

No business should open their books to their employees. The franchises all act seperately as businesses and own different parts in their businesses, stadiums, parking lots, etc. It would be incredibly stupid to base the salaries on the books. It would kill the smaller market teams and make a baseball like system, that's why the cap is based on "shared" revenues. That's what makes it a level playing field.

The books are none of the employees business..

:Agree Obviously you are someone who really understands business where the people who own the business actually run the business and don't ask the employees for permission to make decisions.

If you don't like working for a business that operates that way, get another job that pays you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Oh I'm sorry NFLPA, you can't get those kind of jobs. The NFL is a business not the equivalent of a public works program for athletes.

[Blockhead]

:Agree Obviously you are someone who really understands business where the people who own the business actually run the business and don't ask the employees for permission to make decisions.

If you don't like working for a business that operates that way, get another job that pays you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Oh I'm sorry NFLPA, you can't get those kind of jobs. The NFL is a business not the equivalent of a public works program for athletes.

I've been self-employed the last 11 years and have owned and/or sold/liquidated multiple businesses. I will tend to lean towards the owners. Owners accept the risk. Employees are free to go anywhere else and work.

[Oviedo]

:Agree Obviously you are someone who really understands business where the people who own the business actually run the business and don't ask the employees for permission to make decisions.

If you don't like working for a business that operates that way, get another job that pays you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Oh I'm sorry NFLPA, you can't get those kind of jobs. The NFL is a business not the equivalent of a public works program for athletes.

I've been self-employed the last 11 years and have owned and/or sold/liquidated multiple businesses. I will tend to lean towards the owners. Owners accept the risk. Employees are free to go anywhere else and work.

I'm a manager responsible for profit and loss. I understand how to run a business too. If you want the NFL to fail let it become baseball where a players union dictates terms of employment to the detriment of the product.

The reality is that unions are useless. They had a purpose during the transition from an agrarian economy to an urban, indutrial economy but in the last 30-40 years they have ultimately cost more jobs than they saved (ask steelworkers and auto workers) because they are totally focused on the short term to the detriment of all else.

[Crash]

So if the deal was so bad, why did the owners agree to it?

If anything this "cut" is only trying to happen because other owners (Like Kraft, and Jones) want to eliminate the revenue sharing plans of decades past.

The players are willing to help, but the owners don't want to show the books.

I think any employee group who is being held ransom for an 18% cut? Should be allowed to see why.


I've been self-employed the last 11 years and have owned and/or sold/liquidated multiple businesses.

Just like 43. Imagine that, junkie boy.

[Blockhead]

So if the deal was so bad, why did the owners agree to it?
Current circumstances. The players had swung the momentum and leverage. That's why the owners accepted, added an out clause and started preparing to get the leverage back. It's common negotiating tactics.


If anything this "cut" is only trying to happen because other owners (Like Kraft, and Jones) want to eliminate the revenue sharing plans of decades past.
That's incorrect. The vast majority of the owners like revenue sharing and realize the benefits.


The players are willing to help, but the owners don't want to show the books.

I think any employee group who is being held ransom for an 18% cut? Should be allowed to see why.

Books are no business of the employees. If the employees don't like the terms of their employment, they can refuse to work. Nobody forced Ben to sign his extension. He is free to go elsewhere and use his abilities to make that $102 million.

[Blockhead]

I'm a manager responsible for profit and loss. I understand how to run a business too. If you want the NFL to fail let it become baseball where a players union dictates terms of employment to the detriment of the product.
I used to hold a position similar where my bonus was based on profits.


The reality is that unions are useless. They had a purpose during the transition from an agrarian economy to an urban, indutrial economy but in the last 30-40 years they have ultimately cost more jobs than they saved (ask steelworkers and auto workers) because they are totally focused on the short term to the detriment of all else.
Unions are not useless but they typically cause more damage because they view their membership and union as bigger leverage than it is. Many businesses have simply closed and moved because of unions. How'd that work out for the membership?

[Chadman]

From Chadman's limited knowledge of what is going on-

1. The owners really DON'T need to open the books for it's employee's. As a business owner, I know it's not my employee's business to know how much profit or loss I make any given week, month or year. It is, as has been mentioned by a couple of posters, the OWNERS that put their financial well being on the line by signing players to big salaries, building stadiums, gift shops, or any other type of expense- not the players. The players are employees- paid to do their job, not risk their own money. If they have no financial outlay invested in the NFL, why do they get to dictate any of the financial decisions that need to be made at the management level? Do the owners have the right to demand the players show them their bank account details? What they spend their money on? No? Why is it fair to demand the reverse??

2. The players are being asked to accept less money.....really? Are the owners going to demand that all players signed to current contracts must shave 5-10% off the agreed amount of that contract? No? So- how are the players losing money? No- what is REALLY happening is this- the owners have decided to not allow player wages to increase beyond what they are comfortable paying. It's really, kind of a reasonable thing to do- who wants to lose money after all? It will mean that players can't just demand 10% more than so-and-so did last season in an attempt to get the manager a better cut on the deal..

3. The Owners are not earning less every year due to costs. No- not on the books, they are not. However- percentage wise, the profit margin is decreasing due to player wage rises. Instead of allowing this to continue, the owners are nipping it in the bud before they actually do get to a point where they lose money every year. The owners possibly have not explained that in a way that the media/players have picked up on- possibly by design in some respect- but it's extremely likely that the percentage increase/decrease in profit is the issue- not actually losing money, but losing earning capacity.

4. Chadman was of the thinking that the 18 game schedule was an option put forward by the owners to appease the players demands for a larger slice of the pie. As in- ok, you can have more money if we can have the ability to earn more. If the players were to accept the proposal put forward by the owners originally, bringing the percentage split between players & owners back more in favour of the owners, pretty sure the 18 game schedule is moot & off the table- not on top of the deal.

5. One thing the players demand which is VERY acceptable is the NFL's responsibility to put in place a fund for injured & retired players to help with lingering effects of their trade. That is reasonable. But not required. But if the owners are smart, they could put that on the table as part of the peace pipe deal to get the 2 sides closer- and it looks good in the public eye.

[SteelTorch]

Fans don't want 18 games. They want a break in cost of pre-season tickets.
I'm a fan. I'll gladly take two less pre-season games for 2 more regular season games.

I couldn't care less about pre-season tickets. The years I bought seasons, I just sold them off for close to face.

:Agree
That's cause you're among the fans who don't give a sh** about the players. You just want your extra two games. :wink:


Anyway, this is Goodell's legacy. I'm only hoping this will mean a greater chance of him getting fired in the near future.

[Crash]

Score one for the players.....The NFLs $4 billion war chest just sank.

Judge Doty sides with players in “lockout insurance” case
Posted by Mike Florio on March 1, 2011, 6:42 PM EST

The NFLPA previously had little or no leverage in labor negotiations with the union.

Key word: Previously.

Brian Murphy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that Judge David Doty has ruled that the NFL violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by striking deals with television networks that require ongoing payments to the league during a work stoppage.

Judge Doty has ordered another hearing to determine whether the players’ remedy will be financial damages or an injunction preventing the league from pocketing the money during a lockout.

The ruling comes the night before a full day of mediation in Washington, D.C., little more than two days before the expiration of the current labor deal. Though the league surely will balk at the ruling and vow to appeal the decision to a higher court, the possible inability of men like Jerry Jones to pay the mortgage on places like the Jerry Dome suddenly makes it much harder for the league to withstand a lockout.

And while this will do nothing to soften the league’s insistence that the next labor deal should be Doty-free, we think Doty made the right ruling. Once the league agreed to pay the players 59.6 cents of every dollar made (after $1 billion comes off the top), the league assumed a duty to maximize revenues.

At a minimum, the league assumed a duty not to trade the ability to generate more revenue for a contractual term that benefits the owners — and that hurts the players.

That said, the impact of the ruling on the talks is unknown. It will be important for the league to make concessions in light of the decision, and for the union not to overreach.

Murphy has forwarded a copy of Judge Doty’s 28-page ruling, from which we’ll be lifting any interesting quotes.

[hawaiiansteel]

I believe Judge Doty made the right ruling in this particular case, did the owners really think they were going to get away with collecting lockout insurance?

[Crash]

That $4 billion was the owners trump card and Doty just tore it up.

[SS Laser]

I have a few questions for you guys. How can you see the NFL as any old business? I read a ton on here and do not post much so I know a few of you guys are smarter then that.

This is a very different case here boys. I see the NFL kind of like the movie business. Without the "stars" the movie sucks. Without the big movie companys "movies"
suck. I think you see what I am saying. So the players are not just everyday employee's who can be replaced. Yes I know some can. But not all. Some players are special. But there also is no NFL without the big money owners. ROCK MEET HARD PLACE!

So who gets screwed here the fans. Crash I hope you have to live this year without Ben for a season. Oh how nice it would be. But then I would mis the steelers! ROCK MEET HARD PLACE. :lol:

This will get done at some point. Every owner and player likes all the money we pay them.
They just have to decide who gets richer quicker.

[Crash]

If you want to see a lockout wipe a year out because of me you have some issues my friend.

[Crash]

Are the owners going to demand that all players signed to current contracts must shave 5-10% off the agreed amount of that contract? No? So- how are the players losing money?

Well right now there is no cap. So teams can cut whomever they choose with no penalty. With no cap also means there is no salary floor also, so teams can spend as little as they want.

[Chadman]

Are the owners going to demand that all players signed to current contracts must shave 5-10% off the agreed amount of that contract? No? So- how are the players losing money?

Well right now there is no cap. So teams can cut whomever they choose with no penalty. With no cap also means there is no salary floor also, so teams can spend as little as they want.

That doesn't discount my point at all.

No player is being asked to earn less. All existing contracts are status quo. As for cutting players- cap or no cap teams cut players. The guarenteed money in their contract is not refunded though, is it?

[Oviedo]

I have a few questions for you guys. How can you see the NFL as any old business? I read a ton on here and do not post much so I know a few of you guys are smarter then that.

This is a very different case here boys. I see the NFL kind of like the movie business. Without the "stars" the movie sucks. Without the big movie companys "movies"
suck. I think you see what I am saying. So the players are not just everyday employee's who can be replaced. Yes I know some can. But not all. Some players are special. But there also is no NFL without the big money owners. ROCK MEET HARD PLACE!

So who gets screwed here the fans. Crash I hope you have to live this year without Ben for a season. Oh how nice it would be. But then I would mis the steelers! ROCK MEET HARD PLACE. :lol:

This will get done at some point. Every owner and player likes all the money we pay them.
They just have to decide who gets richer quicker.

Good analogy but one critical flaw in your argument. The difference is that the "stars" of the NFL have no other movies to audition for or any other movie compnaies to go and perform with. There is no Broadway for them to peddle their wares. There are no independent artzy film companies for them to stretch their talents. There are no TV shows for them to do. They only have one source of employment and income...the teams owned by the owners operating under the banner of the NFL.

I totally agree this will get done as soon as Dumbius Smith and the hardcore union radicals get enough pressure from the players that they are losing too much.

[feltdizz]

I have a few questions for you guys. How can you see the NFL as any old business? I read a ton on here and do not post much so I know a few of you guys are smarter then that.

This is a very different case here boys. I see the NFL kind of like the movie business. Without the "stars" the movie sucks. Without the big movie companys "movies"
suck. I think you see what I am saying. So the players are not just everyday employee's who can be replaced. Yes I know some can. But not all. Some players are special. But there also is no NFL without the big money owners. ROCK MEET HARD PLACE!

So who gets screwed here the fans. Crash I hope you have to live this year without Ben for a season. Oh how nice it would be. But then I would mis the steelers! ROCK MEET HARD PLACE. :lol:

This will get done at some point. Every owner and player likes all the money we pay them.
They just have to decide who gets richer quicker.

Good analogy but one critical flaw in your argument. The difference is that the "stars" of the NFL have no other movies to audition for or any other movie compnaies to go and perform with. There is no Broadway for them to peddle their wares. There are no independent artzy film companies for them to stretch their talents. There are no TV shows for them to do. They only have one source of employment and income...the teams owned by the owners operating under the banner of the NFL.

I totally agree this will get done as soon as Dumbius Smith and the hardcore union radicals get enough pressure from the players that they are losing too much.


UFL and Canadian football is the indie film biz for the NFL. Players can become coaches or move on to other avenues in sports to make money.

It's actually a great analogy by laser and it's the trump card the players have. Who wants to watch the Steelers with Joe the Plumber at QB? The owners don't have a product without the best athletes in the world. If they put bums on the field the stands will look like Carolina or Miami...

Unions aren't evil... people talk about the unions like they are the reasons businesses fail. Those businesses were failing regardless because labor is dirt cheap in China. Detroit didn't fail because of unions.. they failed because Japan makes better cars.

Without unions we will see the US turn into a 3rd world country.

The only thing I agree with is a rookie cap. That is out of control.

[Djfan]

The reality is that unions are useless. They had a purpose during the transition from an agrarian economy to an urban, indutrial economy but in the last 30-40 years they have ultimately cost more jobs than they saved (ask steelworkers and auto workers) because they are totally focused on the short term to the detriment of all else.


As a teacher who worked under a very bad principal, I have to disagree here. By nature I am a "leave me to do my job and ride on that merit" kind of guy, but a bad principal could have ruined my career forever. Glad the union was there for me. He was ultimately fired, but not before doing lots of damage.

[Oviedo]

I have a few questions for you guys. How can you see the NFL as any old business? I read a ton on here and do not post much so I know a few of you guys are smarter then that.

This is a very different case here boys. I see the NFL kind of like the movie business. Without the "stars" the movie sucks. Without the big movie companys "movies"
suck. I think you see what I am saying. So the players are not just everyday employee's who can be replaced. Yes I know some can. But not all. Some players are special. But there also is no NFL without the big money owners. ROCK MEET HARD PLACE!

So who gets screwed here the fans. Crash I hope you have to live this year without Ben for a season. Oh how nice it would be. But then I would mis the steelers! ROCK MEET HARD PLACE. :lol:

This will get done at some point. Every owner and player likes all the money we pay them.
They just have to decide who gets richer quicker.

Good analogy but one critical flaw in your argument. The difference is that the "stars" of the NFL have no other movies to audition for or any other movie compnaies to go and perform with. There is no Broadway for them to peddle their wares. There are no independent artzy film companies for them to stretch their talents. There are no TV shows for them to do. They only have one source of employment and income...the teams owned by the owners operating under the banner of the NFL.

I totally agree this will get done as soon as Dumbius Smith and the hardcore union radicals get enough pressure from the players that they are losing too much.


UFL and Canadian football is the indie film biz for the NFL. Players can become coaches or move on to other avenues in sports to make money.

It's actually a great analogy by laser and it's the trump card the players have. Who wants to watch the Steelers with Joe the Plumber at QB? The owners don't have a product without the best athletes in the world. If they put bums on the field the stands will look like Carolina or Miami...

Unions aren't evil... people talk about the unions like they are the reasons businesses fail. Those businesses were failing regardless because labor is dirt cheap in China. Detroit didn't fail because of unions.. they failed because Japan makes better cars.

Without unions we will see the US turn into a 3rd world country.

The only thing I agree with is a rookie cap. That is out of control.

We can disagree about unions. Look at where there are the biggest most powerful unions: Government workers, Teachers and MLB. All are poor performing organizations.

I don't think employees in high tech companies that predominantly don't have unions would consider themselves third world. Most employees working for those companies get paid more than employees in union dominanted industries.

[papillon]

I have a few questions for you guys. How can you see the NFL as any old business? I read a ton on here and do not post much so I know a few of you guys are smarter then that.

This is a very different case here boys. I see the NFL kind of like the movie business. Without the "stars" the movie sucks. Without the big movie companys "movies"
suck. I think you see what I am saying. So the players are not just everyday employee's who can be replaced. Yes I know some can. But not all. Some players are special. But there also is no NFL without the big money owners. ROCK MEET HARD PLACE!

So who gets screwed here the fans. Crash I hope you have to live this year without Ben for a season. Oh how nice it would be. But then I would mis the steelers! ROCK MEET HARD PLACE. :lol:

This will get done at some point. Every owner and player likes all the money we pay them.
They just have to decide who gets richer quicker.

The owners however have resources to pull from to employ players (stars) and so do the movie production companies. The movies (football games) may see a drop in quality and the value of their business decline until they get back up to speed, but the resources are there for the hiring. Now, it is in the best interests of both sides to get an agreement hammered out and continue the product as it is currently marketed.

The NFL most likely operates under the economic principals of a Cartel or monopoly and even in those models there are supply, demand and price scenarios that maximize profit. Even though they have a monopoly there are limits to how tickets, merchandise, etc can be priced to maximize profit. I'm sure the NFL employs a few microeconomics professionals to help them price their product and right now they are forecasting the future without games being played and how to maximize their profit.

It's a business like any other business and there are economic models available to them to ensure that they are maximizing profit and it would be astonishing if they aren't.

Pappy

[feltdizz]

I have a few questions for you guys. How can you see the NFL as any old business? I read a ton on here and do not post much so I know a few of you guys are smarter then that.

This is a very different case here boys. I see the NFL kind of like the movie business. Without the "stars" the movie sucks. Without the big movie companys "movies"
suck. I think you see what I am saying. So the players are not just everyday employee's who can be replaced. Yes I know some can. But not all. Some players are special. But there also is no NFL without the big money owners. ROCK MEET HARD PLACE!

So who gets screwed here the fans. Crash I hope you have to live this year without Ben for a season. Oh how nice it would be. But then I would mis the steelers! ROCK MEET HARD PLACE. :lol:

This will get done at some point. Every owner and player likes all the money we pay them.
They just have to decide who gets richer quicker.

Good analogy but one critical flaw in your argument. The difference is that the "stars" of the NFL have no other movies to audition for or any other movie compnaies to go and perform with. There is no Broadway for them to peddle their wares. There are no independent artzy film companies for them to stretch their talents. There are no TV shows for them to do. They only have one source of employment and income...the teams owned by the owners operating under the banner of the NFL.

I totally agree this will get done as soon as Dumbius Smith and the hardcore union radicals get enough pressure from the players that they are losing too much.


UFL and Canadian football is the indie film biz for the NFL. Players can become coaches or move on to other avenues in sports to make money.

It's actually a great analogy by laser and it's the trump card the players have. Who wants to watch the Steelers with Joe the Plumber at QB? The owners don't have a product without the best athletes in the world. If they put bums on the field the stands will look like Carolina or Miami...

Unions aren't evil... people talk about the unions like they are the reasons businesses fail. Those businesses were failing regardless because labor is dirt cheap in China. Detroit didn't fail because of unions.. they failed because Japan makes better cars.

Without unions we will see the US turn into a 3rd world country.

The only thing I agree with is a rookie cap. That is out of control.

We can disagree about unions. Look at where there are the biggest most powerful unions: Government workers, Teachers and MLB. All are poor performing organizations.

I don't think employees in high tech companies that predominantly don't have unions would consider themselves third world. Most employees working for those companies get paid more than employees in union dominanted industries.

There isn't a large talent pool for hi tech companies to choose from... just like football players.

hi tech companies are also outsourcing a ton of work to 3rd world countries.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Are the owners going to demand that all players signed to current contracts must shave 5-10% off the agreed amount of that contract? No? So- how are the players losing money?

Well right now there is no cap. So teams can cut whomever they choose with no penalty. With no cap also means there is no salary floor also, so teams can spend as little as they want.

That doesn't discount my point at all.

No player is being asked to earn less. All existing contracts are status quo. As for cutting players- cap or no cap teams cut players. The guarenteed money in their contract is not refunded though, is it?

It has happened before in hockey.

Following the 2004-2005 NHL lockout in which an entire season was lost, all players with remaining years left on their contracts had contracts rolled back 24%.

[hawaiiansteel]

Bonuses on hold for several Steelers

Wednesday, March 02, 2011
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/images/201103/20110302steelers.1_330.jpg

Peter Diana/Post-Gazette
Steelers linebacker James Harrison is scheduled to receive a $900,000 roster bonus Friday.

If linebacker James Harrison thought his $100,000 in fines last season hurt, he is about to find a hole in his pocket nine fold.

The Steelers will owe their All-Pro a $900,000 roster bonus Friday, but, unless the NFL and players union come to a highly unexpected agreement by midnight Thursday on a new collective bargaining agreement, Harrison won't see that money Friday or perhaps for six months or more.

Harrison should not feel too bad because rookie Maurkice Pouncey is due an option bonus this month of more than $5 million that he won't see for maybe quite some time.

And that first-round tender contract offer they made Willie Colon Tuesday as a "restricted" free agent? That most likely will be as elusive as the Steelers' seventh Lombardi Trophy.

The players and owners will continue to meet with a federal mediator in Washington today, but no significant progress has been reported after nearly two weeks of such discussions. The NFL, meanwhile, will convene a meeting of all 32 owners or top executives today just outside of the nation's capital.

That is when the owners are expected to approve a lockout of their players if there's no new CBA when the current one expires at midnight Thursday. That expiration/lockout will bring the NFL to a halt, which means none of the roster/option/delayed signing bonuses due at the start of the next calendar year will be paid until, well, there is a next calendar year.

And that may take awhile.

"There's not going to be a big push by anyone to take less than what they want at this point," said safety Ryan Clark, the Steelers' union representative to the NFL Players Association. "There's time to negotiate and get what's fair. Both sides will continue to work toward what they feel is a fair goal for them."

That could mean a lockout through the usual training camp periods or longer.

There is little pressure to strike a deal more than six months before the regular season is scheduled to begin and there's little money being lost at the moment. Players receive their salaries only during the season. The exceptions are those in the minority who have bonuses due this month based on contracts that were signed previously --and they won't receive that money until there's a new CBA.

"Nothing will be paid until the first day of the new league year," said Bill Parise, Harrison's agent. "We're going to get paid sooner or later. The impasse won't last forever. We'll play football this year. I think everybody feels that way."

That last point is debatable, but Harrison has plenty of company among those who must wait longer for their March bonuses. Steelers in the same boat range from the youngest, Pouncey, to the most veteran, Hines Ward. March bonuses have become more prevalent over the past decade as teams tried to minimize the effect of signing bonuses on salary caps and also as a way of permitting them to release a player before the bonus comes due as the Steelers did with Joey Porter in 2007.

Parise said Harrison has been aware for quite some time that his March bonus might not come in a timely manner and was prepared for it. The union has been telling its players for two years to prepare for such things.

For those who have not, missing that balloon payment could signal the first bit of hardships the players will experience because of a lockout.

"It is if you budgeted money for the spring and come up short," said agent Eric Metz, a Monroeville native.

The NFL continues to operate as usual, even though it can see the cliff it is about to reach by the end of Thursday.

Many teams are even sending out restricted tender offers to players who usually would become unrestricted free agents Friday, and that includes the Steelers. Under past CBA rules, players would become unrestricted after four years of service. That changed last year when rules changed for the final year of the CBA -- players could not become unrestricted until they had six years of service.

Colon was among those affected; he was restricted last year rather than unrestricted, and for the third consecutive year, the Steelers have tendered him a contract as such. He earned $2,198,000 last season.

A new CBA, though, is unlikely to make players go six years before becoming unrestricted free agents so the Steelers' tender to Colon likely will be rendered useless, ultimately.

"Obviously, the union doesn't expect that to be upheld," Metz said of the RFA tenders to players who have completed at least four years. "That was what the strikes in the '80s were for; they're not going to give that back."

Agent Joe Linta confirmed the tender to Colon. The Steelers have two potential RFAs in quarterback Dennis Dixon and offensive tackle Tony Hills, but there was no word on whether they received tenders or not.

Metz has two clients who have received one-year contract tenders from the Arizona Cardinals as restricted free agents, even though they have four years of service behind them. One is wide receiver/punt returner Steve Breaston, who played at Woodlands Hills High School. The other is starting center Lyle Sendlein.

"That's' happening," said agent Ralph Cindrich of Pittsburgh who also has players in that situation. "No one knows for sure if they'll hold up."

It's a world of unknown the entire NFL appears about to enter.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11061/11 ... z1FT1gxHeG (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11061/1128944-66.stm#ixzz1FT1gxHeG)

[Blockhead]

It has happened before in hockey.

Following the 2004-2005 NHL lockout in which an entire season was lost, all players with remaining years left on their contracts had contracts rolled back 24%.

If the players union doesn't take a deal and a season is lost, I certainly hope the owners do something similar. These player unions need put in their place. They take no risk in their contracts, do not take any of the risk of ownership, yet want to pretend they somehow are more than what they are, employees, replaceable employees.

[Crash]

It has happened before in hockey.

Following the 2004-2005 NHL lockout in which an entire season was lost, all players with remaining years left on their contracts had contracts rolled back 24%.

If the players union doesn't take a deal and a season is lost, I certainly hope the owners do something similar. These player unions need put in their place. They take no risk in their contracts, do not take any of the risk of ownership, yet want to pretend they somehow are more than what they are, employees, replaceable employees.

Yeah how was attendance during scab ball again?

[ScoreKeeper]

They take no risk in their contracts?

This is not baseball where the contract is guaranteed. An NFL player can be cut at any time and their contract voided.

I am not on the side of the players in this, for the most part, but to say they take no risk when the average career is 3.5 years and contracts are not fully guaranteed, is incorrect.

[Blockhead]

They take no risk in their contracts?

This is not baseball where the contract is guaranteed. An NFL player can be cut at any time and their contract voided.

I am not on the side of the players in this, for the most part, but to say they take no risk when the average career is 3.5 years and contracts are not fully guaranteed, is incorrect.
They sign them based on the guarantees. If they are cut, they are free to sign elsewhere. Nobody gives them a bill for expenses of the stadium, training, field maintenance, etc. They get paid but bear no expenses.

[ScoreKeeper]

They take no risk in their contracts?

This is not baseball where the contract is guaranteed. An NFL player can be cut at any time and their contract voided.

I am not on the side of the players in this, for the most part, but to say they take no risk when the average career is 3.5 years and contracts are not fully guaranteed, is incorrect.
They sign them based on the guarantees. If they are cut, they are free to sign elsewhere. Nobody gives them a bill for expenses of the stadium, training, field maintenance, etc. They get paid but bear no expenses.
Yep, no expense at all. No health risks, no medical bills, no nothing.

Like I said, I am not on the players side, but your view is short sited and, in all honesty, ignorant.

[Crash]

They sign them based on the guarantees. If they are cut, they are free to sign elsewhere. Nobody gives them a bill for expenses of the stadium, training, field maintenance, etc. They get paid but bear no expenses.

Um...that's why this lockout is occurring. They want players to pitch in for stadium financing.

The players say OK, but show us why.

The owners refuse to open the books.

As this goes on it's apparent that the owners didn't want to hurry to a deal. They had their $4 billion nest egg.

Now that Judge Doty has squashed it, now they seem willing to talk.

[Blockhead]

Yep, no expense at all. No health risks, no medical bills, no nothing.

Like I said, I am not on the players side, but your view is short sited and, in all honesty, ignorant.

They don't pay for their health insurance and receive a guaranteed pension in a very short time.

They get paid big money for the risk factor. If they wish not to take it, they are free to find employment in other fields.

[ScoreKeeper]

Yep, no expense at all. No health risks, no medical bills, no nothing.

Like I said, I am not on the players side, but your view is short sited and, in all honesty, ignorant.

They don't pay for their health insurance and receive a guaranteed pension in a very short time.

They get paid big money for the risk factor. If they wish not to take it, they are free to find employment in other fields.
Pension in a very short time? Health Insurance? Yeesh. We'll stop here. Both are a joke.

And to the other post by Crash: The owners should not open their books to the players. No company owner has the onus to open their books to any employee.

[Blockhead]

Pension in a very short time? Health Insurance? Yeesh. We'll stop here. Both are a joke.

How so? Players receive top notch care, rehab, preventative and pension in 3.5 years iirc.

Actually, just checked. It's 3 years and minimum of $290/year so after 5 years, a player gets a pension equal to at least $1450/month. Name me another employer that offers such a pension plan so quickly. Most employers don't even offer pension plans. You'll have to forgive me but I have no sympathy for NFL players.

[ScoreKeeper]

Pension in a very short time? Health Insurance? Yeesh. We'll stop here. Both are a joke.

How so? Players receive top notch care, rehab, preventative and pension in 3.5 years iirc.

Actually, just checked. It's 3 years and minimum of $290/year so after 5 years, a player gets a pension equal to at least $1450/month. Name me another employer that offers such a pension plan so quickly. Most employers don't even offer pension plans. You'll have to forgive me but I have no sympathy for NFL players.
Fine. That's your opinion. An ignorant and short sited opinion, but your opinion non the less. But when you look at the former players that served major time (Johnny U., Webby, etc), made the league what it is and the money machine it is, and then could not get enough insurance to cover his medical bills, something is broken.

Take all that fine money and put it towards player benifits after they retire. That would make sense.

[Blockhead]

Fine. That's your opinion. An ignorant and short sited opinion, but your opinion non the less. But when you look at the former players that served major time (Johnny U., Webby, etc), made the league what it is and the money machine it is, and then could not get enough insurance to cover his medical bills, something is broken.

Take all that fine money and put it towards player benifits after they retire. That would make sense.
Nobody is debating the rules of the sixties/seventies. We are talking about today's CBA.

The NFL owners do a lot more than the players union in regards to retired players and trying to rectify things of the past. I think your blame might be misguided, at least partially.

That said, I am so sick of hearing how the players of old built the league. That is such bull****. The owners built the league. Nobody forced Joe Namath to play then or to waste all of his money on alcohol and celebrity. He's made plenty. If he's broke, I have no sympathy.

[hawaiiansteel]

Steelers, Colts, Packers would be OK, but Titans, Broncos, Browns won't be as lucky

BY GREGG ROSENTHAL
NBCSports.com
March 3, 2011


I lost hope in Indianapolis.

At the NFL Scouting Combine, those behind the scenes no longer questioned the NFL work stoppage. It was assumed, just part of the schedule. The only question left was how long and how painful the lockout would be.

Publicly, NFL coaches and generals managers said things were business as usual.

“Whatever the rules are, there will be the same rules for 32 teams,” Chiefs G.M. Scott Pioli said.

That’s true, but not all 32 teams face the same challenges. Pioli’s Chiefs are relatively well situated to handle a summer off. Others aren’t so lucky. Let’s rank what teams will be hurt most by the lockout. (And what teams may actually benefit.)


1. Titans
Tennessee faces the trifecta of uncertainty: They have two new coordinators and absolutely no option to start at quarterback. (Uh, Rusty Smith??)

2. Broncos
This is the wrong offseason to break in a newbie football czar (John Elway) and a new defensive scheme under John Fox. Trading Kyle Orton could be nearly impossible, and Tim Tebow will miss valuable practice time.

3. Browns
Browns football czar Mike Holmgren will pay for delaying the end of the Eric Mangini era. Presumptive starting quarterback Colt McCoy won’t get to learn his new scheme and the defensive players don’t fit the team’s new 3-4 defense. With a first-time coach in Pat Shurmur, it’s like they are starting all over again.

4. Panthers
Notice a trend atop the rankings? Teams with new coaches are going to be at a big disadvantage if there’s a long lockout. The Panthers may be stuck with Jimmy Clausen as their Week 1 starter in a brand new offense.

5. Vikings
Promoting Leslie Frazier to coach should help the defense maintain continuity. Then again, the team has holes all over the roster and a potentially limited free agent period to address them. Finding a veteran quarterback will be difficult without being able to trade before the draft.

6. Seahawks
The Pete Carroll Program is entering Year Two, but how much progress was really made? Their quarterback position is actually more unsettled, and the team needs time to install a new offense. This is a team likely to continue a massive overhaul whenever a CBA is reached, so time is at a premium.

7. 49ers
Perhaps Jim Harbaugh has spoke so glowingly of Alex Smith this offseason because he knows he won’t have any better options. An abbreviated free agent period in August or September will lead to a lot of shotgun marriages. (And a high divorce rate next offseason.)

8. Dolphins
Miami would love to add pieces to their bankrupt offense, especially with new coordinator Brian Daboll. Instead, they could get stuck with another season of Chad Henne in a loaded AFC East.

9. Bengals
The best way to get value for Carson Palmer would be to trade him before the draft. That won’t be possible now, and it’s anyone’s guess what quarterback will run new coordinator Jay Gruden’s West Coast offense next year.

10. Cardinals
Pressing pause isn’t a great idea for a team with John Skelton as their best returning quarterback. Oh, and Arizona’s annually disappointing defense has yet another new coordinator.

11. Eagles
New coordinator Juan Castillo hasn’t coached defense since the 1980’s. He needs the offseason just as much as the players. Any team that is active in free agency like Philly could also get penalized this year. Speaking of which ...

12. Redskins
Without their annual offseason championship to win, what do the Redskins have? After one year of Mike Shanahan, the roster actually has more holes than when Jim Zorn was dumped.

13. Rams
Teams near the top of our list have a lot of young players with new coaches. St. Louis’ offense is extremely green at quarterback, receiver, and tackle. Post-lockout, they will have to take a crash course in Josh McDaniels’ playbook – one of the most complex in football.

14. Texans
It will be tough to Wade Phillips to install his 3-4 defense without practice time. The Texans have a lot of players like Mario Williams and Brian Cushing playing in very different roles. A bright side -- the offense has enough continuity and returning parts to survive a lockout just fine.

15. Bucs
The youngest team in the league needs as much time on the field together as possible.

16. Cowboys
Dallas brought in a new defense coordinator – Rob Ryan – but the scheme remains the same. Continuity is solid on offense, although that’s not necessarily a good thing with this aging offensive line.

17. Bills
Buffalo doesn’t rank too high because they have a returning coaching staff and they aren’t overly active in free agency. Still, a lockout could stall the progress of a potential incoming rookie quarterback.

18. Lions
Well, quarterback Matthew Stafford probably wouldn’t be healthy enough to practice much anyway. Detroit would like to be active in free agency, but a lockout wouldn’t be crushing for Jim Schwartz’s program.

19. Jets
Rex Ryan’s team has plenty of veterans that don’t need a lot of practice time. The tricky part here is the Jets have a lot of big free agent decisions and would love to pick up some veterans via trade and free agency. There will be no Santonio Holmes-type deals this time around for an annually active team.

20. Raiders
New coach Hue Jackson already ran much of the offense last offseason, so a transition shouldn’t be too rough. The Raiders lockout-proofed their roster by re-signing Richard Seymour, John Henderson, Stanford Routt and Kamerion Wimbley in February.

21. Bears
Jay Cutler and his young wideouts could use more time around Mad Mike Martz so they can figure out what he’s talking about.

22. Jaguars
You could make the argument a long lockout helps the young Jaguars a bit, if only because it hurts division rivals Tennessee and Houston.

23. Giants
The Giants own enviable continuity on offense and plenty of talent on defense. They aren’t a team that is afraid to spend in free agency, but a lockout wouldn’t hurt them much.

24. Falcons
Falcons G.M. Thomas Dimitroff and coach Mike Smith have been together longer than most of the NFC’s power tandems. That says a lot about job security in the league.

25. Ravens
Still searching for receivers after all these years. Baltimore may be prevented from making a splashy move like the Anquan Boldin trade, but their veteran roster should hold up well in a lockout.

26. Saints
Having a coach on the field like Drew Brees will be an advantage if there’s no actually coaching going this offseason. While they have a lot of free agents, New Orleans’ scheme continuity will help.

27. Chargers

Philip Rivers and his receivers should be able to hit the ground running. Ron Rivera’s absence could complicate things on defense, but it’s not like the Chargers can start any slower than they usually do.
28. Chiefs
Going back to Todd Haley as a de facto offensive coordinator should be a lot easier than bringing in a new guy.

29. Patriots
The weirder the rules are, the more that creative front offices should thrive. The Patriots and other quick-thinking teams can better adapt and sniff out market inefficiencies.

30. Steelers
Missing out on a free agent period won’t exactly be devastating for a draft-and-develop team like Pittsburgh. Perhaps more time off could actually help any Super Bowl runner up hangover.

31. Packers
We stacked the bottom of our list with the best front offices. Ted Thompson is going to stay the course no matter the league rules, and he has the ultimate trump card -- the most talented roster in the league.

32. Colts
It’s hard to imagine a team affected less by a lockout than the Colts. They could care less about free agency and their schemes haven’t changed in a decade. Their free agent class will be all their returning injured players.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41881898/ns/sports-nfl/

[Crash]

If the Union decertifies, and then the NFL locks them out? Are the contracts still valid?

Looks like the Big 3 agree with me.


Brady, Manning, Brees file antitrust suit

MINNEAPOLIS (AP)—Star quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes), Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) were among 10 players who sued the NFL in federal court Friday, accusing the league of conspiracy and anticompetitive practices that date back years.

Their lawsuit asked the court to prevent a lockout.

Less than two hours after the players’ union decertified, clearing the way for antitrust lawsuits, the players filed their 52-page claim and supporting documents in U.S. District Court. They asked the court for class-action status.

They filed a request for an injunction that would keep the NFL and the teams from engaging in a lockout. Invoking the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust statute from 1890 that limits monopolies and restrictions on commerce, the players said they were entitled to triple the amount of any damages they’ve incurred.

Which means the stakes could be in the hundreds of millions.

The players accused the 32 NFL teams of conspiring to deny their ability to market their services “through a patently unlawful group boycott and price-fixing arrangement or, in the alternative, a unilaterally imposed set of anticompetitive restrictions on player movement, free agency and competitive market freedom.”

The collective bargaining agreement with the league was expiring Friday.

The NFL did not immediately file a response. Commissioner Roger Goodell called on the union to re-open negotiations.

A hearing date hasn’t been set.

The legal wrangling took place in a federal courthouse in Minnesota, hundreds of miles from the mediated negotiations in Washington. It’s the setting for what could be a long legal fight between owners and players with the 2011 season in jeopardy.

The names on the complaint were striking: Brady, Brees, Manning and a few others, listed in a block of text at the top of the first page. They’re plaintiffs, for now, not simply players.

They allege that the NFL conspired to deny the players’ ability to market their services in what is a $9 billion business. They spelled out what they called a long history of NFL antitrust violations, citing as constraints the potential lockout, rookie salary limitations and the franchise and transition player designations. Teams use those designations to keep key free agents off the open market, but the players also are well compensated when they sign new contracts.

Tom Condon, who represents Manning and Brees, wrote in a statement submitted to the court that a “‘lockout’ imposed by the NFL threatens to rob Mr. Brees and Mr. Manning, and all other NFL players, of an entire year, or more, of their brief playing careers, which cannot be recaptured.”

“This is especially problematic because of the virtually constant need for NFL players to prove their skill and value on the playing field,” wrote Condon, one of more than a half-dozen agents who offered statements supporting their clients. “Missing a year or more of playing in the NFL can cause the skills of NFL players to become rusty from lack of competition, making it difficult for them to regain the full talents they exhibited prior to the absence from play. This could shorten or even end the careers of NFL players.”

The players also said—lockout or not—if teams “fail to pay any such required payments to any player, that player’s contract shall, at the player’s option, be declared null and void.”

That’s a potentially explosive claim: Players would have the right to get out of their contracts if they don’t get a paycheck, even if a settlement is reached.

The NFLPA’s general counsel, Richard Berthelsen, said a lockout would cause “irreparable injury” to NFL players even if it’s only a few games or simply offseason activities that are wiped out.

“If young players are forced to forego an entire season, they will miss out on a year of the experience and exposure that comes from playing against NFL-level competition and receiving NFL-level coaching, both of which are a must for young players,” Berthelsen wrote.

The players want their case in front of U.S. District Judge David Doty, who has overseen NFL labor matters since the early 1990s and has several times ruled in favor of the players.

The case was assigned to U.S. District judge Patrick Schiltz, though it still could end up in front of Doty. The court has designated it as a related case to the Reggie White-led class-action suit that Doty guided toward a 1993 settlement, opening the doors to free agency.

The league has tried in the past to remove Doty from the case, alleging bias toward the players.

Doty issued a ruling last week that backed the NFLPA in a dispute over $4 billion in TV revenue that players argue was illegally collected by the owners as a war chest to survive a work stoppage.

Also involved in bringing the lawsuit: San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson(notes), Minnesota linebacker Ben Leber(notes) and defensive end Brian Robison(notes), New England guard Logan Mankins(notes), New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora(notes), Kansas City linebacker Mike Vrabel(notes), and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year’s draft.

“The torch has been passed to a young Aggie who has decided to put his name on a lawsuit,” NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith said.

Manning, Jackson, Leber and Mankins are free agents. The Colts tagged Manning as a franchise player, while the Chargers did the same with Jackson and the Patriots with Mankins. The union is disputing the validity of those tags.

AP Pro Football Writer Barry Wilner in New York and Associated Press Writer Amy Forliti in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

[hawaiiansteel]

Also involved in bringing the lawsuit: San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson(notes), Minnesota linebacker Ben Leber(notes) and defensive end Brian Robison(notes), New England guard Logan Mankins(notes), New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora(notes), Kansas City linebacker Mike Vrabel(notes), and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year’s draft.



good thing we got rid of that Vrabel fellow, we don't need no stinkin' troublemakers on our team... :)

[Crash]

Watch the media who gets paid by NFLN all of the sudden start bashing those three when they start playing again.

The fact that Tom Brady may cost him a paycheck/job could send Rich Eisen over the edge.

[Blockhead]

Watch the media who gets paid by NFLN all of the sudden start bashing those three when they start playing again.

The fact that Tom Brady may cost him a paycheck/job could send Rich Eisen over the edge.

Rich Eisen has had a multi million dollar salary for a lot of years. Something tells me he's fine and his contract is fully guaranteed. The NFLN isn't going to stop producing shows in a lockout.

[Crash]

League claims decertification came too early to avoid “sham” defense
Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011, 1:20 PM EST

The fact that the NFL has locked out a supposedly non-union work force implies that the league believes the union has not properly and effectively decertified.

And the NFL has now expressly said so.

“The union only pretended to decertify in 1990,” NFL outside counsel Gregg Levy said in a statement provided to PFT. “As history has confirmed, that purported decertification was a sham. In an effort to protect its ability to repeat the fraud a second time, the union tried in the White settlement to limit the NFL’s ability to challenge in an antitrust court any future attempt by the union to pull off a similar sham. But that limitation could have applied only if the purported decertification occurred after expiration of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The union was in such a rush to get to court that it did not wait until SSA expiration. The league is therefore free to show that this ‘decertification’ is also a sham.”

Levy is referring to Article LVII, Section 3(b) of the CBA, which states as follows: “The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority
of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives,
agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.” (Emphasis added.)

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.

Of course, that’s bad news for the fans, because it means that a lockout will continue until a deal is reached at the bargaining table. With the players taking personally the treatment they’ve experienced of late, the players may be willing to cut off theirs noses to spite their faces, which means that the offseason could indeed be compromised if not completely forfeited.

[Blockhead]

The de-certification is clearly a sham. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.

[hawaiiansteel]

NFL brings out the big guns for Litigeddon

Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gay-marriage-federal_chun3.jpg?w=142


With the labor fight shifting from a conference room to a courtroom, the NFL has lined up a couple of big names to help win the case.

The league has announced that David Boies (pictured) and Paul Clement will join Gregg Levy in the handling of the antitrust litigation filed by Tom Brady and other players on Friday.

Boies, one of the best-known lawyers in the country, has been involved in numerous high-profile cases, including the Bush v. Gore litigation that determined the 43rd President of the United States. More recently, Boies secured a $1.3 billion copyright infringement verdict for Oracle. Boies currently presents plaintiffs who are attacking California’s ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional.

Clement was the 43rd Solicitor General of the U.S., serving from June 2005 through June 2008.

Levy, a finalist for the job of Commissioner in 2006, is a partner at Covington & Burling, the firm that produced former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

The players are represented by locally in Minnesota by the firms of Berens & Miller and Briggs & Morgan. Also on the pleadings are James W. Quinn and Bruce S. Meyer of Weil, Gosthal & Manges of New York, and Jeffrey Kessler and two other attorneys from Dewey & LeBouef. Kessle has served the NFLPA for years and enjoys a high profile, especially in sports litigation. The fact that the NFL generally dislikes him means that he’s doing something right.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... itigeddon/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/nfl-brings-out-the-big-guns-for-litigeddon/)

[RuthlessBurgher]

I'm really surprised to see Von Miller's name on that list. With the draft a month-and-a-half away, you'd think he'd be doing whatever possible he could NOT to tick off his potential employers. He's been considered to be a top 5 talent in this draft, but I wonder if his draft status takes a hit because of this (owners may fear drafting a guy who is already facing off against them in court). Quite a risk by the young man, I think.

[hawaiiansteel]

Mike Brown: “All the union cared about was the money”

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 12, 2011, 5:47 PM EST


Five years ago, Bengals owner Mike Brown was one of only two owners that didn’t approve the collective bargaining agreement. It wasn’t long before a majority of his colleagues agreed with his take.

Following Friday’s decertification and subsequent lockout, Brown spoke with Joe Reedy of the Cincinnati Enquirer about what comes next. Brown promised that no one in the organization will be fired or be forced to take a furlough.

“We have an obligation to our people and ask them not to carry an unfair burden,” Brown said.

Brown believes the union wanted to go to court rather than collectively bargain. And he doesn’t think the rookie wage scale or 18-game season ultimately prevented an agreement.

“It came down to the obvious point that all the union cared about was the money and these other things certainly didn’t matter enough,” Brown said. “It’s a tremendous situation that they have and it has become burdensome for the teams. Yes, we’re asking for some relief going forward. I don’t think that was unreasonable.”

On one hand, Brown is right: “The money” is essentially the one big issue no matter what anyone says. Solve that and the rest will fall in line.

On the other hand, Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports was on to something when he wrote about the emotion on the players side. Mistrust and anger from players may have played a bigger role on Friday than Brown understands.

Perhaps it shouldn’t have played that big a role, but this wasn’t just “business” to players. They feel like they are getting pushed around and wanted to fight back.

Brown’s words won’t help matters, but we’ll leave things on a note that’s worth keeping in mind for frustrated fans.

“I’ve been through ups and downs in labor negotiations in the NFL and there is one thing similar in all of them,” Brown said. “They do come to an end and you get back together and you go out and play football. This one will be no different.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... the-money/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/mike-brown-all-the-union-cared-about-was-the-money/)

[Crash]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.

[Steelgal]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.

That's what I thought too..... The guy that won't sell naming rights to his stadium like all but 30 of the other NFL teams have, I believe. He's gotta be the cheapest owner out there...

[Blockhead]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.

That's what I thought too..... The guy that won't sell naming rights to his stadium like all but 30 of the other NFL teams have, I believe. He's gotta be the cheapest owner out there...
Why should he be forced to sell naming rights? I think it's pretty admirable to keep the name of his father on the stadium versus just making money.

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

[Steelgal]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.

That's what I thought too..... The guy that won't sell naming rights to his stadium like all but 30 of the other NFL teams have, I believe. He's gotta be the cheapest owner out there...
Why should he be forced to sell naming rights? I think it's pretty admirable to keep the name of his father on the stadium versus just making money.

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

Then maybe he should find other ways to help make money instead of taking it from the owners who actually know what they're doing and are profitable.....

[Blockhead]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.

That's what I thought too..... The guy that won't sell naming rights to his stadium like all but 30 of the other NFL teams have, I believe. He's gotta be the cheapest owner out there...
Why should he be forced to sell naming rights? I think it's pretty admirable to keep the name of his father on the stadium versus just making money.

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

Then maybe he should find other ways to help make money instead of taking it from the owners who actually know what they're doing and are profitable.....
That's his right to run his business as he sees fit. That's the right you get as owner.

[hawaiiansteel]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.


yeah, I found that rather ironic also...with Mike Brown it's always about the money.

[Steelgal]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.

That's what I thought too..... The guy that won't sell naming rights to his stadium like all but 30 of the other NFL teams have, I believe. He's gotta be the cheapest owner out there...
Why should he be forced to sell naming rights? I think it's pretty admirable to keep the name of his father on the stadium versus just making money.

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

Then maybe he should find other ways to help make money instead of taking it from the owners who actually know what they're doing and are profitable.....
That's his right to run his business as he sees fit. That's the right you get as owner.

And it's my right to criticize him for how I think he's one of the worst owners in the league and the fact that HE of all owners is calling the players out for money is beyond absurd.

[Crash]

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

What has Brown done to earn his team except be Paul Brown's son?

[papillon]

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

What has Brown done to earn his team except be Paul Brown's son?

Same thing Dan Rooney and now Art Rooney II have done. the Rooneys have just been more successful.

Pappy

[Blockhead]

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

What has Brown done to earn his team except be Paul Brown's son?
Same thing you have self admittedly done to earn your monthly checks, nothing. Despite, in your own words, "being able to work if you wanted."

At least we know where our tax dollars go.

Just think how much more money the country would have if we didn't pay needless and baseless disability claims.

[Crash]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....same old song 43. Same tired song.

You boy, are a psycho. I feel for those around you.

[Blockhead]

Same tired song.

You boy, are a psycho. I feel for those around you.

Just repeating your own words.

How does that make me a psycho?

[Crash]

Same tired song.

You boy, are a psycho. I feel for those around you.

Just repeating your own words.

How does that make me a psycho?

You state the same tired anti-Tomlin, anti-Ben, anti-Crash, anti-Steelers crap. Face the facts bitch, no one wants you here. You rip this site on SN, but yet you are here AGAIN.

Put down the pipe, and go on your way you sick freak.

You aren't worth the effort anymore.

[hawaiiansteel]

http://joeljamescomedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/633768200264847410-Stalkers.jpg

[BackwoodsSteeler]

That takes balls the size of boulders coming from Mike Brown of all people.

That's what I thought too..... The guy that won't sell naming rights to his stadium like all but 30 of the other NFL teams have, I believe. He's gotta be the cheapest owner out there...
Why should he be forced to sell naming rights? I think it's pretty admirable to keep the name of his father on the stadium versus just making money.

The greedy players would just want their piece of it anyway and they have done NOTHING to earn it.

Then maybe he should find other ways to help make money instead of taking it from the owners who actually know what they're doing and are profitable.....
That's his right to run his business as he sees fit. That's the right you get as owner.
Then he should not expect sharing from owners who do what it takes to be a successful team. This whole thing is as much about a rift between the owners as it is about a rift between the owners and players.

[hawaiiansteel]

Players want books, piece of NFL? Not gonna happen

By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer
March 16, 2011


It's not a billion dollars or 18-game schedule or a rookie salary cap that keeps the NFL and its players from a peaceful settlement. Nope, it's trust. Neither side trusts the other, which is why the courts have been asked to intervene.

I'm serious. These guys can't even agree when the Players Association stopped being a union last Friday. The NFL said it was notified at 4 p.m. The players said it was 5:02 sharp, and why does it matter? Because it's another example of two sides with conflicting versions of the same story.

But when you ask why they don't trust each other, don't start there. Go to the contentious issue of "financial transparency," which players have been pushing for nearly two years. They want the NFL to open its books to justify its demands, and the NFL has said it will -- only with a third party, which the players view as a no can-do.

So talks dissolve, the union decertifies, the league initiates a lockout and let the litigation begin.

Players insist the league planned years for a lockout. Owners insist players never wanted to negotiate. I don't know that either is accurate, but I do know neither trusts the other -- and, yeah, that's what the NFL's first labor stoppage in 24 years is all about.

Owners insist they couldn't live with the past CBA because the acceleration of costs is beginning to outrun the pace of revenues. So they want something better, and what they want is a new collective bargaining agreement that initially included an additional $1 billion in cost credits.

Naturally, players were skeptical. They see a $9-billion business that is growing and just produced a Super Bowl with its best ratings ever and wonder: What's the problem? So they want answers. They want evidence. In short, they want the owners' books.

Fair enough. As executive director DeMaurice Smith said, if you're going to write a $1 billion check you want more than someone's word he needs it. I get it, especially after U.S. District Court Judge David Doty ruled the NFL acted against players' interests when it failed to maximize revenues from TV network deals.

But the NFL has offered something more than its word. It agreed to have a mutually acceptable neutral party inspect its team-by-team financial statements for the past five years, and, I don't know, but that sounds fair to me. Players squelched the idea, and I can only presume, but maybe it's because they don't trust team-audited statements or maybe it's because they wanted 10 years of documents, not five.

Get real, guys: You think multi-million dollar operations aren’t hiring high-powered accounting firms to do line-by-line reviews? I understand players' apprehension, but to say that you don't trust experienced CPAs means you've got bigger problems than not trusting ownership.

Look, NFL teams carry enormous debts because they borrow enormous sums of money. But you can't acquire millions of dollars from lenders without supplying audited financial statements. To suggest that those statements aren't comprehensive or, worse, might be compromised is to suggest that NFL owners are little more than crooks.

So if financial statements are legit, then what's the problem in having them turned over to players? Ah, there's where the league's distrust of the other side kicks in. Some clubs are more profitable -- enormously more profitable --- than others, and, frankly, if I'm the NFL I don't want players knowing who makes the most, who makes the least and how they're doing it. I'm sorry, I don't. Essentially, I don't want union employees second-guessing employers' expenditures because that's not how successful businesses are run.

And that's what this is all about, people. Business. Players can talk all they want about how the league reneged on its "partnership" with them, but at the end of the day there's no partnership here. There is a business, with employers and employees. The NFL is the employer, and the players are the employees. Simple as that. Plus, the average career span of these employees is 3.4 years each.

Smith said players offered $1 billion in cash to owners in exchange for an equity position in the league or its properties, then acted surprised when the league indicated it wasn't interested. Please. Tell me when it's ever a good idea for management and unions to partner. United Airlines tried it with its pilots, machinists and bag handlers, and that didn't turn out so well, did it?

Smith also said that what players were offering was no different than "companies all across America" that "turn to their employees to become vested partners in their business." Sorry, but, yes, it is because the NFL is not like companies all across America. It is not a publicly-traded enterprise.

Furthermore, it has no interest in having its employees become vested partners because -- let me repeat this again -- one side here is management, the other is a union, or what was once a union. By definition, the two are adversaries. They're not partners. Adversaries don't trust each other, and look no farther than these talks for proof.

"This is a business," said Smith shortly after talks broke off. "You've got two business partners, and on our side you play for 3.4 years, and on the other side you can take every economic indicator and pop them in a hat. And I would dare any one of you to pull out any economic indicator that would suggest that the National Football League has fallen on hard times.

"So with all due respect, the way two businesses should interact with one another is one based on trust and where trust if verified. For the last 14 days the National Football League has said, 'Trust us.' But when it came time for the verification they told us it was none of our business."

No they didn't. The NFL told players it trusted them as much as players trusted the league. At least that's something the two agree on.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1481 ... nna-happen (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14819383/players-want-books-piece-of-nfl-not-gonna-happen)