I have to admit, I'm really freaking anxious about both the stay request and the appeal. It looks like the owners' dam has sprung a leak, and any moment now it could all come crashing down.
The deadline for her decision is Wednesday morning, so any moment now... I can hardly get any work done...
The stay was denied. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6439599 The owners are basically down to their last bullet in the chamber, the 8th court... and if they lose there, they're completely ****ed.... especially if they don't operate "business as usual" until then.
No one has a problem that these negotiations are being settled by force? If you and I cannot agree can't agree on a price for services rendered in the future, you're ok with a judge using force to compel the transaction? People here seem to think it's the role of the state to compel exchange. But in a free society, exchange should only happen when both parties are willing. All transactions should be win-win, or they should not occur. Of course Goodell is full of it. But he and the owners are entitled to their bargaining position, just as the players are entitled to theirs. What if the judge had told the players they must agree to the owners' demands?
Look who is back, venting radioactive fumes of stupid on a global scale, in search of the ultimate reduction of idiocy unto his person. Your position is, as it was before, is that Tom Brady can sign a legally enforceable, 4 year, $72 million contract extension, that Tom Brady can fulfill the terms of that contract, but that the Patriots can refuse to pay him -> but that he has no right to seek resolution in the courts, because it's just unfair to use that kind of "force". You have taken your ensalade d'idiot and are now tossing it in a white whine vinagrette. Mean old Tom Brady & the players resorting to lawyers to determine their legal rights, against a bunch of defenseless billionaires! This would never happen in a place were the state didn't compel, like Mogadishu. Stop embarrassing yourself. Or continue down "the giddyup hole".
I'm hoping that once the draft is over, the floodgates will open in terms of business dealings... hell, if we're lucky, business might actually happen DURING the draft (can we trade Amobi for the #2 pick, plz?)... that will pretty much put the tombstone on the lockout... once you start the league year and transactions and contracts start flying around, you can't stop it... the 8th court would never overturn Nelson's decision in that instance.
Jason LaCanfora: League notifies teams as of 8AM Fri: Players permitted to use club facilities for physical examinations, rehab, medical treatment ... Also, NFL tells teams: Clubs will be permitted to distribute playbooks, game film and other similar materials to players ... Coaches may meet with players to discuss this, as well as OTAs, offseason schedules and workouts. OTAs and mini camps may begin and ... NFL expects to give all teams guidelines for the 2011 League Year Friday which would include info on when the League Year would start. Again, many general managers and agents are preparing for the League Year starting next week, perhaps by Monday, and under 2010 rules
Just saw a poll that asked "Who do you support in the NFL labor negotiations?" with 25000+ respondents Players: 22% Owners: 42% Neither: 35% Seriously...? People are blaming the players for this problem more? Are you kidding me? People do realize this is a lockout and NOT a strike, right?
The other side of this is that this is a labor negotiation. In the last agreement, the players gave the owners the the right to opt out of the deal and they chose to use that. That's settled and agreed to by both sides. So going forward, there is no labor agreement. Should the NFL operate a business with no labor rules? I think most people would agree that they shouldn't - and thus shutting down (lock out) until an agreement is negotiated makes a lot of sense. In the NBA and MLB, I generally support the owners because both of those businesses have very strong players' unions and the end result has been some serious problems on the business end of things. The NFL is a bit more difficult because everyone is coming out golden with the way they've set things up. Both sides are being idiots there to throw away what they have. There are some real problems (like rookie salaries, long-term health care & pensions for players, etc) that need to be addressed, but they should be able to come to agreement. Without knowing what's really going on behind the scenes, it's hard to say whether the owners or players are taking a harder line, etc. But regardless, the worst long-term result for fans (and possibly the owners & players) is the courts forcing the NFL to go back to business in a free-for-all where there are no rules. No one should make money until both sides can sort out an agreement.
Most people like the stuff the owners want. Competitive games between any two teams, more games in a season, lower salaries so your favorite team can have more good players. They don't agree with the players that 18 games is too many or that the players don't make enough money. For the public, it isn't about whether it is a lockout or a strike, it is about spoiled athletes crying because they only get to make 4 million per year (or however much) and have to play two more games. The average fan would love to take the deal the league is offering, so they think the players should take it too. I am guessing the neither crowd just wants them all to shut up and play some football. I would guess the people who support the players are some mix of those who care more about individual players than teams and those who generally support labor against management. Those are just my reads on the situation though.
LOL, SM - please explain how this one works. Are the lower salaries only extended to your favorite team, and nobody else's? For playing the "hey I'm just a plain man on the street randian" character, that's a pretty big fail. Step it up kid.
If the salary cap remains the same, lower salaries mean that more good (read: high priced) players can fit under the cap. Then it is up to the GM of the team to acquire said good players through draft, trade, and free agency. First round picks would take up less salary cap space, so they would not be traded away as often. Veteran players would get cut less often to get under the cap.
SO what you're saying is that higher salaries depress the overall supply of "good" players in the NFL? Even if it did (it doesn't), why would it matter as it doesn't make it more likely that your "favorite" team, on average, would me more likely to take a disproportionate share of such "good players" Please explain! This is all rather counterintuitive, doncha think! (Incidentally - let me say I look forward to many posts from you on this dumbassery. As you well know and have realized, a lowering of salaries overall across the board doesn't make it any more likely that an average team will be able to get more "good players" than any other team - given that the same finite supply of players exists regardless, and the same salary rules apply to all teams. But let's not let that get in the way of you smearing yourself with dookie for a few more hours).
You know how much I like to smear myself with dookie Sam. Whether or not it would result in anyone's particular favorite team getting more good players, I think the fans can certainly see a connection between lower salaries for rookies and better chances of their team getting more good players. The question was after all on the reason why people support the owners over the players, not on which side is right.
Why? I certainly can't see it, that's why I want you to explain how lower salaries 1) magically increase the supply of good players, and 2) mean that "your" team will get these surplus good players to the exclusion of all other teams.
SM, just give it up man, we see what point you were trying to make, but it is rendered moot by the fact that all teams play under the same salary restrictions... it provides no advantage to any particular team to get better relative to their competition, and if everyone else gets "better" because of the same rule, there is essentially no difference. Just let it go.
This is such a ridiculous portrayal of the position of the players. The idea that the players are saying "pay us more money" is crazy. They were fine to make no changes.
