- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I'm an NFL owner. You be the player.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:31 am to JG77056
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:31 am to JG77056
quote:
I thought that's why they de-certified, so the owners couldn't lock them out.
Players can individually file lawsuits against the NFL.
The judge is a pro union guy so the players will basically get whatever they want now.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:32 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
The union has decertified. Players can cross whenever they want.
So when the owners put a lock on the door they are just going to open it for a couple of players at a time?
Do you know why the union decertified? They aren't going to need to cross anytime soon if they win their case (and they have a solid shot at that)
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:33 am to JG77056
quote:
Oh well. I'm just telling you how fans see it. You'll never see it from our side, and we'll probably never see it from yours. We'll always see it as a bunch of guys complaining about getting an absurd amount of money to have the job we all wish we did.
And of course the owners are making money, but that's what business owners are supposed to do. They made a good investment and are paying more than fair wages. I always hear players talk about how it's just business when it comes time to sign a new contract, but when the owners treat the team as a business owner would, they're the bad guy?
Bingo.
Players holdout all the time when they want more money, yet owners aren't allowed to slash a player's salary if they underperform. They can cut them, however they are still stuck with the signing bonuses.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:34 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
The judge is a pro union guy so the players will basically get whatever they want now.
Which is what? Maintaining the status quo of making millions and owners making billions? HOW TERRIBLE!!!
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:36 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
The union has decertified. Players can cross whenever they want.
When I was driving home they said on espn radio that as of midnight tonight the NFL had locked out the players
quote:
The union decertified, and 10 players, including MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, sued the owners in federal court, putting the NFL on a path to its first work stoppage since 1987.
The NFL locked teams out starting at midnight Friday, league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.
...
Even though the NFL is early in its offseason -- and the regular season is six months away -- this is hardly a complete down time. Free agency usually begins in March, and there are hundreds of free agents now in limbo. Also this month, under a regular schedule, offseason workouts would start, and the owners meet to establish rules changes.
Plus, March and early April are when many sponsors and corporate partners renew their deals with the NFL, part of why the league says hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue are going to be lost now.
ESPN LINK
NFL.com LINK
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:37 am to The Easter Bunny
GCA is working his magic on the MSB again.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:37 am to lsu6294
quote:
The players are working to end the lockout quickly.
On Friday, they filed an antitrust suit against the NFL to request an injunction to stop the lockout. Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora is one of the lead plaintiffs in the suit, joining the Patriots' Tom Brady, the Colts' Peyton Manning, the Saints' Drew Brees, the Chargers' Vincent Jackson, the Vikings' Ben Leber, the Patriots' Logan Mankins, the Vikings' Brian Robison, the Chiefs' Mike Vrabel and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller.
The owners are contending the union's decertification is a "sham" to build leverage by preventing a lockout. Last month, they filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board stating the plan to decertify was “a ploy and an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process, there being no evidence whatsoever of any (let alone widespread) dissatisfaction with the union by its members.”
Federal judge David Doty, who has already ruled in favor of the players by saying the NFL failed to negotiate in good faith by securing payments from the TV networks during a lockout, could very well side with them once again to lift the lockout as soon as next week.
LINK
Basically, if the lockout is lifted and the owners don't negotiate with free agents, the players want to sue them for collusion.
This post was edited on 3/12/11 at 12:41 am
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:38 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
yet owners aren't allowed to slash a player's salary if they underperform.
In what business can a company refuse to pay the terms of a worker's contract because they feel they underperformed? Why even have contracts?
This post was edited on 3/12/11 at 12:41 am
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:40 am to lsu6294
quote:
Which is what? Maintaining the status quo of making millions and owners making billions? HOW TERRIBLE!!!
Oh I agree. Neither party has much to bitch about. They need to get over themselves and go back to doing what makes us give a damn anyways: The game on the field.
The union really is shitty though. They complain during the year about the crackdown during the season on violent hits and then fuss about health benefits for retired players. They complain about something that is designed to make their jobs and lives easier/safer.
Owners want 18 games because let's be honest, no one wants to pay full dollar for preseason games. The ratings are peanuts compared to regular season games. More regular season games = more money = more in these players' pensions and more money for health benefits for retired players. Then again. maybe they should just hire a few accountants/financial advisors for these players because they are making at least 5-6 times the average household (at the low end) and don't have the financial sense to save some money and put themselves on a budget. A lot of the problems with the league have quick and simple solutions but rather than sit down and talk them out like men they bitch and moan to the media.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:41 am to saintsfan22
In what business can I not be able to do my job but still get paid?
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:44 am to saintsfan22
quote:
In what business can a company refuse to pay the terms of a worker's contract because they feel they underperformed? Why even have contracts?
Should be a two way street. If players can hold out for more money because of exceeding expectations, then owners should be able to pay less when expectations aren't met.
For example, Chris Johnson got paid more money in 2010 than he did in 2009 because of his great performance in 2009. Since his numbers in 2010 went down, shouldn't he be paid less in 2011?
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:45 am to JG77056
quote:
In what business can I not be able to do my job but still get paid?
Playing the game on Sunday isn't the only requirement of the job.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:46 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
For example, Chris Johnson got paid more money in 2010 than he did in 2009 because of his great performance in 2009. Since his numbers in 2010 went down, shouldn't he be paid less in 2011?
The extra money is because he hit incentive clauses if he didn't hit those same incentives this year he will make less.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:46 am to saintsfan22
quote:
Playing the game on Sunday isn't the only requirement of the job.
True, but ultimately what you do on those gamedays is what you get paid for.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:48 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
Should be a two way street
It is a two way street except not really.
The owners can always just simply cut the guy. The players can't cut the owner.
If a player under contract thinks he's good enough to get more money elsewhere he doesn't have that right unless he is a FA (and that wouldn't exist without the help from unions/litigation)
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:49 am to saintsfan22
quote:
Playing the game on Sunday isn't the only requirement of the job.
Yeah it pretty much is. You have to keep yourself in good enough shape to play on Sunday and aside from that, that's all you have to do. And if you can't stay in shape (Albert Haynesworth) who really cares, because you're getting your $100 million anyway.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:50 am to lsu6294
quote:
If a player under contract thinks he's good enough to get more money elsewhere he doesn't have that right unless he is a FA (and that wouldn't exist without the help from unions/litigation)
He doesn't? So then you're against players when they hold out?
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:50 am to JG77056
A player who doesn't do shite in the offseason but is a stud on gamedays will always be worth more/make more than a guy who does everything in the offseason but is meh during the games.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:51 am to JG77056
quote:
Yeah it pretty much is. You have to keep yourself in good enough shape to play on Sunday and aside from that, that's all you have to do.
Practice, film room, team meetings is more than staying in shape.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:51 am to JG77056
quote:
And if you can't stay in shape (Albert Haynesworth) who really cares, because you're getting your $100 million anyway.
What a great example. Haynesworth was suspended without pay.
Popular
Back to top


1


