dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "He didnt explain it right but he is right in his
> idea. You all suggested to him it would be illegal
> for them to conduct a draft if the NFLPA doest
> agree to it, and he suggested the owners could do
> it with college players, and that is plausible,
> not illegal as stated... It all depends on the
> criteria and rules that are established and the
> NFLPA dont have to be the god on that if the
> owenrs choose to go a different route and that is
> not illegal for them to do such.."
>
> You care to explain at all Crowder, how this is
> even close to being plausible? Being 32 seperate
> entities it is absolutely out of the question. You
> being a buisness owner, I figured you'd know
> better then anyone else. This was the crux of my
> whole argument with Treasure in this thread by the
> way, so i'll be waiting with bated breath for this
> explanation


What explanation do you need? What is the problem, you dont believe the owners would have a right to negotiate with another group besides De Smith and the NFLPA? My explanation is in the past post, I am not going to repeat it all for you, go back and read. And even Phinfans agrees it is plausible... So I am not sure what exactly you are questioning?

Phinsfan2 Wrote:

> Where did I come close to suggesting the players
> deserve more money because they are poorer?
> That's right, I didn't. You did, to make some
> deranged comment about socialism. Frankly I
> doubt you have any clue what socialism is, or even
> what our own system is for that matter, but this
> isn't a political chat board so let's not go
> there. I'd hate to have to lock this thread.
>


The Richer /poorer thing definitely smelled of the argument where the Owners are Rich , so they should cave. But your right, this is not a political board and I don't want to ruin what has so far been a good spirted conversation. I apoligize for that comment .

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > You're backing Treasure because he takes an
> anti
> > player stance, plain and simple.
>
>
>
> WRONG. Thats all you want to see. Thats your
> issue.
>
> What I'm saying is everything is stacked against
> the owners at this point. The players and the
> agents Hold all the leverage. You want to win? You
> need to draft MY player. They you need to garantee
> MY player So Many millions. Doesn't work out?
> Sorry charlie.........see ya on the next one!
> And the players deserve Half WHY? Do they take
> any chances? Do they invest anything personal back
> into the team? They are employees. Show me
> another company that you get 50-50 earning rights
> in your first year? Its B.S. And you know it. You
> refuse to see it.
>
> The Owners need some Leverage and protection too.
> They are getting screwed and so are the fans.
> Thats US BTW..........


Owners vs players is an arguable point, in fact it's been argued ad-naseum on this board, Crowder is probably the best argue-ee in the owners defense (and he's brought up a couple of good points along the way) and Phinsfan has been the best defender of the players stance IMO (he's also brought up a ton of good points/arguments in favor of the players), but making a statement like "the owners should just rip up the contracts, hold a 20 rnd draft and pay the players what they want" is an absolute absurd idea because it can't happen without negotiating a new CBA (my back to square one argument), and it would be un-American to do so. Thats the only thing I called you out on.

Now, i've said it a million times and i'll say it once more......I don't really care who wins this thing, I just wan't it over! If the players have to play for 10% less, then oh well, boo hoo. If the owners have to keep paying these guys what they pay them, then I say "you reap what you sow" boo hoo. I hold the owners slightly more responsible for this mess because they started it, they opted out of the current CBA when they could of just waited the extra 2 years then made their case, but like I said.....only SLIGHTLY more responsible.

The only way this really affects us as fans, is IF the cap is lowered alot, then that means teams will have to start cutting high priced solid vets, ala Vernon Carey, and we as fans will be bitching about "why are they cutting him and playing a 6th rnd rookie?" It is a pipe dream to think (hint, hint Crowder) that the owners will ever lower ticket prices. Thats just never gonna happen, plain and simple.

Thats a Good point too. Not all owners play above the board too. I would love to drop a Nickel on the floor infront of Jerry Jones to see how fast he would dive on it.

But for the most part I see the players wanting more and more garanteed. More signing bonuses, more garanteed money, more of everything. But they won't garantee anything. Less and less incentive ladden contracts.

The Problem with Owners, is they don't stick together , they often pay up on a player because if they don't there is always someone else who will. But on this issue they need to stick to their guns, becuase when there is only so much money to go around, everything else will fall into place.

I've been away and just catching up but whoever posted the draft-is-illegal-without-consent analogy to doctors/lawyers etc was spot on (and phinfan's analogy to movie actors). in a free market you simply cannot tell someone where he can and can't work without their consent. the only way sports leagues get away with it is because they have an agreement with the players to do so, and general exemption from antitrust scrutiny as a result. all that said, these leagues would not survive----and would be so much less interesting---without the draft so the sooner they come to a resolution about this and drop this damn lawsuut, the better (obviously).

And just as a general concept, those who say that another league cannot step in are both right and wrong.

They are wrong from the standpoint that practically speaking, you would not only have to have 32 other billionaires appear out of nowhere but they would have to have stadiums in which to play and I'm pretty sure the existing NFL teams have those stadiums locked up under contract (this'll teach the stadiums to put a non-performance clause in those contracts. If the owners lose nothing else from this dispute, it'll be that the stadiums will be so scared sh_tless from this that they will put that type of clause in the contracts. Of course that's where the teams don't own the stadiums.)

However, where the other side is wrong is in smuggly noting the failure of the WFL and the USFL.

Even the AFL forcing the merger is not a good analogy.

Far worse for the owners than even the AFL analogy is the fact that with the WFL, USFL, and the AFL, you had a league attempting to compete with another league that was already playing.

If this drastic scenario played out, you would have an empty shell called the NFL, with no players, competing without any teams against another league fully stocked with former NFL players. That is a horse of an entirely different color.

But like I said, the absence of any place for these new teams to play would work against that.

Chyren-
It works against them because if the players and this dispute is about money, a new start up league and a career avg of 3 years, means zero chance for the players to even make half of what they want. Even if they got 75 percent of 2 billion, which would be a slamdunk homerun for a start up league, the players make signifigantly less. Besides the fact, what is the likelyhood of them getting greater then 50 percent from a new group of "greedy billionaires" Or in this scenario, the players find the non greedy billionaires ...lol... And if that is what they were advise to do, their advisor would be fools.. I promise you the agents wouldnt back it.. Because if anyone could be greedier then the Billionaires it would the agents..

Berk-
All i said was that it would be possible or plausible for the owners to attempt to negotiate with a group of college athletes, or canadian, arena, or break off NFL players, It isnt unheard off. Just like when they had replacement players... Wild things happen in labor disputes, and anything is possible if the proper criteria and rules are followed. I am not saying it is likely, but possible or plausible and not illegal. It wasnt even brought up as possibility, until, people were claiming how easy it would be for the players to go to a new start up league and then how it would be illegal for the owners to conduct a new draft with college athletes. Of course it is illegal to conduct a draft unless the people in that draft, agree to participate in it and the rules by which it and they are governed.... But De SMith only have control under people that agree to be under his control, same situation. If another group came together, they could surely negotiate with the NFL for an agreement... And players could split from the NFLPA, or players who are currently not in the NFLPA, could also join it and attempt to get a collective employment contract for their services..
Alot of it highly unlikely, but plausible. The most plausibe is that both sides agree to a new CBA at some point. If not, you will see a mix of all these ideas at some point...unfortunately........ A new league and new group having a contract with the NFL... That is the doomsday scenarion, after missing a season..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2011 02:52PM by Crowder52.

I agree Phinfans it is possible. Just like all of the other scenarios. The one factor that we both leave out and of course it is the deciding factor in both scenarios, is that short term at least neither side would make half of what they currently make... Well unless, those TV contracts pay the NFL for longer then the avg nfl players career. SO the big money would be in the TV contract, along with reduced salaries, the owners probably make more money short term, as the cards are dealt out and hands played but severly damage the brand in the process. It would be horrible for both sides.... The NFL doesnt want to take the PR hit, constant lawsuits, and just overall mess that the scenario entails, and the players obviously.dont want to take the hit in the pocket book. I promise you, the XFL players had a worse deal then the NFL players, it was Vince Mcmahon...or the UFC and Dana White, talk about a group I agree are being exploited, wrestlers and UFC fighters get crushed by managment, and I am against it. I think those guys exploit their employees horribly, or sorry, sub contractors...
NFL owners are the ones being exploited in the last labor agreement due to the changing liabilities involved in being an owner of an NFL team



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2011 03:23PM by Crowder52.

The hearing is this Friday, with a ruling expected in a week or two. It's not looking good but the best possible scenario for this thing to end soon would be to have this lockout lifted ASAP, I honestly think that would force both sides into an agreement sooner. (Sorry Crowder)

No worries Dolphaholic- I understand your position, you believe if the players gain some leverage, the owners are likely to crumble faster. And I believe once the players realize that legal football isnt working out for them with the most conservative court in the land providing oversight. The owners will gain leverage and the players are likely to want to settle.
WHo is right , who is wrong? I think, whichever way the ruling goes down, getting past these points are important towards progress being made collectively and from either one of our positions...

Phinfans-
You are assuming that all 1600 of the best players wouldnt walk out on the NFLPA. If history tells us anything, is all the owner would have to do is get couple players to cross, the line and the cookie crumbles. Do you remeber the strike, and replacement players, and do you remember what started to happen? Players crossed the line and began joining the replacement players. I believe if the owners went with replacement players, several players in the NFLPA would already cross the line. Just look up the player who already have spoken out against the Tactics of the Union.
if the NFLPA doesnt agree to a CBA, I dont think it leaves the owenrs with much of a choice.. So it is in the NFLPA hands, if they want to get a deal done, they will, if they just want to fight and attack the owners... Anything is possible, from a creative, well funded group of billionaires who are being insulted by a fool like De SMith... Never put your trust into a guy that had no part of building the success and but can be the almighty source to destroy it. De Smith has proved to me, he cant build anything, only destroy. I imagine the next thing he will destroy, is the unity in the NFLPA, it is just his way and personality...

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No worries Dolphaholic- I understand your
> position, you believe if the players gain some
> leverage, the owners are likely to crumble faster.
> And I believe once the players realize that legal
> football isnt working out for them with the most
> conservative court in the land providing
> oversight. The owners will gain leverage and the
> players are likely to want to settle.
> WHo is right , who is wrong? I think, whichever
> way the ruling goes down, getting past these
> points are important towards progress being made
> collectively and from either one of our
> positions...


It's hard to figure out who would feel like they had the upper hand after this next ruling so you could be 100% correct Crowder, my only thoughts on it are; if the players lose this appeal, the only thing they are really losing is the lifting of the lockout, they would still be emboldened by the pending lawsuit of Brady vs NFL, which would mean an extended work stoppage. As opposed to the judges lifting the lockout, we would immediately have FA and mini-camps etc. under 2010 rules (which didn't favor the players all that much), maybe that nudges both sides to the table and concessions a little more. But like I said, who knows how either side will act after the next ruling, hopefully the meeting yesterday that you reported about is a good sign.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phinfans-
> You are assuming that all 1600 of the best
> players wouldnt walk out on the NFLPA. If history
> tells us anything, is all the owner would have to
> do is get couple players to cross, the line and
> the cookie crumbles. Do you remeber the strike,
> and replacement players, and do you remember what
> started to happen? Players crossed the line and
> began joining the replacement players. I believe
> if the owners went with replacement players,
> several players in the NFLPA would already cross
> the line. Just look up the player who already have
> spoken out against the Tactics of the Union.
> if the NFLPA doesnt agree to a CBA, I dont think
> it leaves the owenrs with much of a choice.. So it
> is in the NFLPA hands, if they want to get a deal
> done, they will, if they just want to fight and
> attack the owners... Anything is possible, from a
> creative, well funded group of billionaires who
> are being insulted by a fool like De SMith...
> Never put your trust into a guy that had no part
> of building the success and but can be the
> almighty source to destroy it. De Smith has proved
> to me, he cant build anything, only destroy. I
> imagine the next thing he will destroy, is the
> unity in the NFLPA, it is just his way and
> personality...

That would still leave them needing to get a group to agree as a whole to some kind of CBA, that is if they want to keep the bulk of the old rules ie; Draft, free agency, salary cap/floor etc.

PF2-
I can tell after reading your bump post that we surely did not leave a stone unturned in this ongoing CBA discussion...lol