If lockout is lifted, can the Packers now trade...

[Patler]

If the lockout is lifted through tomorrow (and the next few days, maybe) can the Packers make draft-related trades using Barnett or Flynn? What about Jackson, Jones, Colledge and Spitz(?) who are tendered RFAs under the 2010 rules? I doubt anything could be done with the later group since they are not signed, but Barnett and Flynn are under contract.

[Gunakor]

I would assume it could. As I understand it, if the lockout is lifted then all business would resume as normal. Free agency would begin immediately, and agents have already begun making calls to teams in anticipation of the lockout being lifted, so I don't see how a trade related to a draft that was going to happen regardless of the lockout would be out of the question.

[Patler]

Yup, that's the way I see it; and for that reason I hope nothing changes through tomorrow. I want TT to have the option of packaging Barnett in a draft related trade if possible, and even Flynn if it makes sense to him.

[RashanGary]

The owners have the appeal in. They want to wait until the appeal is heard before they open shop, but I'm not sure if that's going to legally hold. So far they've been able to avoid opening shop, so maybe they can.

[Lurker64]

The answer is really "nobody's got any idea" expect either Nelson or the 8th Circuit to jump in and add clarity to the situation in the next day or so... all we really got from Nelson is "the lockout is enjoined".

In theory, that would mean that either the league sets work rules and goes forward or we just roll the 2010 work rules over to 2011. Nothing stopping the league from saying "You can't sign free agents or trade players until May 7"... I'm pretty sure that the argument "that's an antitrust violation" is a pretty weak one.

[RashanGary]

The NFL is playing the game, "if you want to oversee this, then we're going to force you to make every decision" game. I'm not so sure game playing with the judges is a good thing. They have enough money to push most people around, but not federal judges.

I don't see this going well for the owners. They're too arrogant to get out of their own way. Just jump in the boat and go wtih the flow. The more you fight, the worse it is.

[Lurker64]

The thing is though, it's a reasonable position to expect slightly more oversight from the presiding judge than "the Lockout is enjoined." I think the league was fully expecting that if she did end the lockout she would have spelled out how the NFL should go about opening up shop, or at least how they should start. The fact that she didn't do that, I feel, is somewhat negligent.

[Patler]

The NFL is playing the game, "if you want to oversee this, then we're going to force you to make every decision" game. I'm not so sure game playing with the judges is a good thing. They have enough money to push most people around, but not federal judges.

I don't see this going well for the owners. They're too arrogant to get out of their own way. Just jump in the boat and go wtih the flow. The more you fight, the worse it is.

How you can come to that conclusion from what is going on now is totally beyond me. The owners aren't pushing anyone around anymore than the players are. Its just the way the game is played. The owners have a court decision they don't agree with, and are appealing it. It's nothing more than that. Nothing wrong with it either.

[Tarlam!]

JH, it case you hadn't noticed, it was the players who walked away from the table. It was the players that clearly have not been negotiating in good faith. Just as clearly, the class act serves the minutest class in the league - the elite players and ignores the JAGs.

Why do you claim the owners are more arrogant than the players? This is obviously a testosterone contest, but this is an extension of the attitude both sides have to any contest they undertake: They wanna win! Why is that arrogant?

Despite all the evidence you've been given, you still side the players? If they win I doubt you or I win, JH.

[RashanGary]

The owners are walking away now. They can go back to the table, with the new decertification in the players hand. Call it a hunch, but I don't think you'll see the players walking away from the table for the rest of this ordeal. They have their ace. Now it's time to play cards.

If the owners don't play, together, they kill the golden goose. Congrats to all.

I'll just follow college ball. Greed will get what it deserves, on both sides. Hopefully levelheadedness prevails and the owners give up the public wining and futile court fight to go back to the table.

The fact that rog is reduced to public mumbo jumbo shows he has no action plan. Demaurice is going to hand them their asses, if they're not too proud to play at the other guys game, that is.

In this whole thing Rog has been a man of words, Smith a man of action.

[Guiness]

Patler's the master of asking questions he knows the answer to in order to provoke discussion 8-)

The answer, of course, is that the Pack should well be able to proceed with any business they want to...except it seems the league is telling everyone not to. It seems like the league wants to continue to 'not operate' in hopes the lockout will be reinstated. Why else would they tell coaches and other personal not to talk to players? Doesn't seem like there should be any reason no to.

[Tarlam!]

You're a piece of work on this, JH.

[RashanGary]

Isn't it funny though, now that the players have decertification backed by the judge, the owners are the ones not going back to the table now. The good guys were in a big damn hurry to get taht deal worked out when they had the cards. Now the court process is about over, let's see how anxiously they get back to the tables now. Nobody is stopping them. I thought they just wanted a deal? I thought it was urgent?

Now they're dragging it back to court. Just weird. Who's the side of litigation and procrastination now?

[Guiness]

The owners are walking away now. They can go back to the table, with the new decertification in the players hand. Call it a hunch, but I don't think you'll see the players walking away from the table for the rest of this ordeal. They have their ace. Now it's time to play cards.

If the owners don't play, together, they kill the golden goose. Congrats to all.

I'll just follow college ball. Greed will get what it deserves, on both sides. Hopefully levelheadedness prevails and the owners give up the public wining and futile court fight to go back to the table.

The fact that rog is reduced to public mumbo jumbo shows he has no action plan. Demaurice is going to hand them their asses, if they're not too proud to play at the other guys game, that is.

I like college ball as well...and wish I could pretend the NCAA was a benevolent organization, but their treatment of the athlete students like 'meat' is probably worse. There's money to be divided up there too, so the same problems exist.

To get away from it, you probably have to follow a team like this one:
http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/index


They play in the NEFC,
http://www.d3football.com/landing/index

[retailguy]

Isn't it funny though, now that the players have decertification backed by the judge, the owners are the ones not going back to the table now. The good guys were in a big damn hurry to get taht deal worked out when they had the cards. Now the court process is about over, let's see how anxiously they get back to the tables now. Nobody is stopping them. I thought they just wanted a deal? I thought it was urgent?

Now they're dragging it back to court. Just weird. Who's the side of litigation and procrastination now?

You talk about this judge like you think she was "fair and unbiased". These Minnesota courts have been "pro player" since they've had jurisdiction. No giant surprise with this ruling. I mean really, don't you think there should be a big banner out front of the courthouse that says "We support the players."?

Justin, if you believed you'd been wronged, you would appeal also.

This decision was expected, not surprising and politically motivated. What else is new?

[RashanGary]

It makes perfect sense, I get it, but when the players didn't get what they wanted at the start of the negotiation and they chose to go to court to strengthen their hand, everyone talked about how the owners were such solid guys, wanting to be reasonable and the players just wanted to have litigation and were unreasonable (not to mention stupid).

Well now that they got what they wanted, they're back at the table. The owners are now choosing to walk away for litigation. Why is it different? I don't think it is, but it seems many others do.

[Bossman641]

It makes perfect sense, I get it, but when the players didn't get what they wanted at the start of the negotiation and they chose to go to court to strengthen their hand, everyone talked about how the owners were such solid guys, wanting to be reasonable and the players just wanted to have litigation and were unreasonable (not to mention stupid).

Well now that they got what they wanted, they're back at the table. The owners are now choosing to walk away for litigation. Why is it different? I don't think it is, but it seems many others do.

Why in the world would the owners just give in when they have every legal right to appeal? Why didn't the players just give in when this whole thing started? Your answer to every problem in this situation is "the owners should just do what the players want."

[Patler]

Isn't it funny though, now that the players have decertification backed by the judge, the owners are the ones not going back to the table now. The good guys were in a big damn hurry to get taht deal worked out when they had the cards. Now the court process is about over, let's see how anxiously they get back to the tables now. Nobody is stopping them. I thought they just wanted a deal? I thought it was urgent?

Now they're dragging it back to court. Just weird. Who's the side of litigation and procrastination now?

What table is it that you expect the owners to go back to? If the decertification is legitimate, there is no union. Just who is it that you want the owners to negotiate with, and what conditions are they to negotiate?

"The court process is about over.." Are you kidding???? What the players started is likely to drag on for years. Football might be played in the mean time, but the litigation could go on for a long, long time.

Before castigating the owners response to the trial court ruling, ask yourself this question: If the judge had ruled that decertification was a shame and the lockout legitimate, do you thing the players would have capitulated, or would they have appealed? Cases of this magnitude are never "decided" by a judge or jury at the trial level, they are decided by appellate court panels. The trial level only establishes the framework for the inevitable appeal.

[Guiness]

"The court process is about over.." Are you kidding???? What the players started is likely to drag on for years. Football might be played in the mean time, but the litigation could go on for a long, long time.



Quite true.

After the '87 strike, they got back to work but the issues dragged through the court systems for years afterwords. Reggie White winning his FA case (in 93?) was still part of that process.

[RashanGary]

Why in the world would the owners just give in when they have every legal right to appeal? Why didn't the players just give in when this whole thing started? Your answer to every problem in this situation is "the owners should just do what the players want."

That's more an exaggeration because all this time teh players were bad guys because they didn't just do what the owners wanted a few months ago.

Right from teh start, if litigation would have strengthened the owners hand they would have done it. When the players did it, they cried foul to the public. Well, now is time for them do what they whined the players wouldn't do. Go back to the table (and in this case, the only way to open it is to give the financial info.) That's all they're asking for and all they've ever asked for to start bargaining.

They obviously don't want to bargain. They want to drag through litigation too.

[Patler]

That's more an exaggeration because all this time teh players were bad guys because they didn't just do what the owners wanted a few months ago.

Right from teh start, if litigation would have strengthened the owners hand they would have done it. When the players did it, they cried foul to the public. Well, now is time for them do what they whined the players wouldn't do. Go back to the table (and in this case, the only way to open it is to give the financial info.) That's all they're asking for and all they've ever asked for to start bargaining.

Why do you insist on framing this as a "good guys" "bad guys" controversy? Personally, I think the players never intended to settle, they ignored everything the owners did present on financial matters, intended always to initiate litigation and will do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them bad guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.

I also think the owners wanted to settle without litigation, but only by providing a level of financial info that they were comfortable with, intended to play public opinion cards whenever possible, and to do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them good guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.

Don't be surprised if they owners pursue the appeal, and if they lose at the appeal, begin to treat the players exactly as the players claim they now are; independent contractors individually deciding whether or not to be members of a loosely organized trade association. I have a sneaking suspicion that some owners will be more than happy to operate in that manner. Other will not be so happy.

Remember that in the scenario requested by the players, the trade association could be considered as a group of "Sellers" of football services for which the teams are the "Buyers". As such, the players trade association can be guilty of collusion, price fixing and any number of things. Whereas the owners could be subjected to various anti-trust restrictions, so too could the players association. Ideally, a free market works both vertically and horizontally in both directions. That is part of the reason the owners need clarification, and why this might not be the panacea you think it is for the players.

The players are asking that the owners be treated as employers of a non-unionized work force, while the owners treat the players as a union. The owners next step is to treat the players as a non-unionized workforce and to demand that the players act as a non-unionized workforce.

[Tarlam!]

JH, you should stick to your strength, which is football commentary. You're looking really foolish in this discussion.

[Smidgeon]

I still think it's relatively ridiculous that the players are one step up on successfully blocking a lockout (a legal method to be used by owners) when the owners didn't have a similar way to block a strike (a legal method to be used by players).

After all, if the players striked, the owners couldn't force them to play the games, but the players are trying to force the owners to play them when they wanted to lockout.

It's something that Lurker (I believe) pointed out a while back, and it still strikes (no pun intended) me as ridiculous.

[Lurker64]

This is a long, long way from over. Judge Nelson crafted her decision with the intention of having it not being able to be overturned on appeal, citing numerous precedents where the 8th circuit deferred to lower courts in various facets. The thing is? The Appeals Court can just ignore all of that, they're not supposed to, but "not supposed to" doesn't stop judges. The Appeals court will consider the potentially monumental precedent set as a reason to look at the whole thing from the beginning. Why do they consider the precedent so monumental? Because the NBA will be in this exact same position come autumn. If Nelson's ruling holds up, what she's essentially saying is that a private business can be forced, by the government, to operate even though it doesn't want to. In the NBA situation, the meaningful difference is that the NBA is losing a lot of money operating under its current system. So Nelson's contention is that essentially the government can force a business to run itself out of business. The notoriously business-friendly 8th Circuit Court is going to take exception to basically endorsing a script that every single sports union can follow any time the owners threaten to lock them out as a bargaining tactic. In essence, Nelson is making lockouts illegal.

If the players win, and the lockout is well and truly ended, and the players decide to play out the rest of their hand, this will take roughly 4-5 years to work out in the courts. The players' strategy once the lockout is ended is to challenge literally everything that the NFL does as an antitrust violation, and those cases will take multiple years.

Remember, if the lockout is well and truly over we still don't have a collective bargaining agreement. The next step is for the league to adopt some sort of work rules (or just neglect to do so). But the first time a player without a current contract (be he a draft pick, an exclusive rights free agent, a restricted free agent, or a tagged player) is told he cannot sign exactly where he wants to then the NFLPA* will sue the NFL telling them that whatever they're trying to do is a violation of antitrust law. There will be many of these fights.

What we have to hope is that neither side actually wants to carry through with this, that both sides are just jockeying for leverage, and honestly the quickest way to return to the pre-decertification situation is for a court to rule that the union decertified improperly, and for both sides to be returned to collective bargaining and knowing where the leverage points are they hammer out something this summer. Since if, in the eyes of the court if the decertified union is actually not a union and they end the lockout, this is going to take a long, long, long time to resolve.

[get louder at lambeau]

Right from teh start, if litigation would have strengthened the owners hand they would have done it. When the players did it, they cried foul to the public. Well, now is time for them do what they whined the players wouldn't do. Go back to the table (and in this case, the only way to open it is to give the financial info.) That's all they're asking for and all they've ever asked for to start bargaining.

They obviously don't want to bargain. They want to drag through litigation too.

The equivalent to what the players did would be for the NFL to pretend to cease to exist as a collective of companies and let all teams go it on their own with their own employment rules, while the NFL would only exist to employ referees and make a schedule. There would be no draft, and it would instantly make the Cowboys and Redskins into powerhouses that can buy any player they want, while small market teams become uncompetitive and go bankrupt.

You think they would do that if it strengthened their hand in this one negotiation, huh? You think they would have thrown away all that they've built and become like Major League Baseball or worse over this one fight over a CBA? I don't.

[Patler]

The equivalent to what the players did would be for the NFL to pretend to cease to exist as a collective of companies and let all teams go it on their own with their own employment rules, while the NFL would only exist to employ referees and make a schedule. There would be no draft, and it would instantly make the Cowboys and Redskins into powerhouses that can buy any player they want, while small market teams become uncompetitive and go bankrupt.

You think they would do that if it strengthened their hand in this one negotiation, huh? You think they would have thrown away all that they've built and become like Major League Baseball or worse over this one fight over a CBA? I don't.

That's where antitrust, union/nonunion, etc. issues get somewhat complicated for the NFL. Generally, owners in any sport have long term interests in the forefront of their plans. However, in a league where careers are extremely short, like the NFL, at any one time a group of players may seek their own personal best interests and not be concerned about the long term health of the league. They won't be around for the inevitable downside that results from some actions they can take to maximize their current gain. MLB is different, where a player who finally makes it can reasonably expect to stay there for a long time.

[Packgator]

I like college ball as well...and wish I could pretend the NCAA was a benevolent organization, but their treatment of the athlete students like 'meat' is probably worse. There's money to be divided up there too, so the same problems exist.

To get away from it, you probably have to follow a team like this one:
http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/index


They play in the NEFC,
http://www.d3football.com/landing/index

What makes you think that? My first-hand experience as a "athlete student" (at a BCS conference school) was great in every way. Whatever the opposite of being treated like meat would be a far better description.

[RashanGary]

Patler, when the players didn't get the info they asked for, they decided to take it to court. Some people believe you should take the owners word for it, others don't. The players didn't. That's their choice and it's looking better every day.

As far as Judge Nelson setting a dangerous precedent, I'm not so sure setting the precedent that owners can financially bully their employees away from rightful anti-trust lawsuits is any better. When illegal practices are happening in the workplace, should the employer have the right to just fire them so they can't afford their lawsuit? That's a tough question. Do you only enforce laws for people who can afford to pursue them, or do you enforce laws for everyone? How do you ensure everyone can be protected by the laws, where do you draw the line?

[RashanGary]

JH, you should stick to your strength, which is football commentary. You're looking really foolish in this discussion.

Thanks, I'm doing fine.

[Tarlam!]

Thanks, I'm doing fine.

No, you're not. You only think you are. You haven't succeeded convincing anybody on any single point you've brought up. Other than being absent of utter logic, your views are insidiously subjective and condascending. You've taken a position that the players have won the leverage. You also have it as a forgone conclusion that the NFL will be forced to bend over and take it by the courts. All this despite reputable, qualified posters pointing out objective facts in a very friendly manner.

Indeed, you look very foolish in this discussion.

[Smidgeon]

Patler, when the players didn't get the info they asked for, they decided to take it to court. Some people believe you should take the owners word for it, others don't. The players didn't. That's their choice and it's looking better every day.

As far as Judge Nelson setting a dangerous precedent, I'm not so sure setting the precedent that owners can financially bully their employees away from rightful anti-trust lawsuits is any better. When illegal practices are happening in the workplace, should the employer have the right to just fire them so they can't afford their lawsuit? That's a tough question. Do you only enforce laws for people who can afford to pursue them, or do you enforce laws for everyone? How do you ensure everyone can be protected by the laws, where do you draw the line?

A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest.

However, the players took it a step further by attempting to block the lockout. In effect, they're trying to take away a legal method for the owners to create leverage. I don't fault them for trying, but it's a one sided sword. That's why it's a dangerous precedent.

[get louder at lambeau]

As far as Judge Nelson setting a dangerous precedent, I'm not so sure setting the precedent that owners can financially bully their employees away from rightful anti-trust lawsuits is any better.

Please explain how the anti-trust lawsuit keeps getting the adjective "rightful" in your posts. They temporarily decertified the NFLPA as a legal ploy to exploit a loophole that would enable them to attack the NFL as if they were not a union. Is "rightful" the best word to describe that?


When illegal practices are happening in the workplace, should the employer have the right to just fire them so they can't afford their lawsuit? That's a tough question. Do you only enforce laws for people who can afford to pursue them, or do you enforce laws for everyone? How do you ensure everyone can be protected by the laws, where do you draw the line?

Huh? What illegal practices were happening in their workplace? Who got fired?

[RashanGary]

A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest.

However, the players took it a step further by attempting to block the lockout. In effect, they're trying to take away a legal method for the owners to create leverage. I don't fault them for trying, but it's a one sided sword. That's why it's a dangerous precedent.

But isn't it suspicious how they did it shortly after the anti-trust suit was filed? Should they be able to bully them off of their attempt to protect their rights? Can the court connect that dot? I think that's a question here and a very strong possible reason for the courts protecting the players rights here.

[RashanGary]

Please explain how the anti-trust lawsuit keeps getting the adjective "rightful" in your posts. They temporarily decertified the NFLPA as a legal ploy to exploit a loophole that would enable them to attack the NFL as if they were not a union. Is "rightful" the best word to describe that?



Huh? What illegal practices were happening in their workplace? Who got fired?

They're ceasing to pay them in a time when they're filing an antitrust lawsuit. Maybe the court sees that as bullying empoyees who are seeking the protection of the law. Maybe. I'm not in their head, just saying maybe.

[Lurker64]

But isn't it suspicious how they did it shortly after the anti-trust suit was filed? Should they be able to bully them off of their attempt to protect their rights? Can the court connect that dot? I think that's a question here and a very strong possible reason for the courts protecting the players rights here.

The NFL's choices after the union decertified were as follows:
1) Lock the players out.
2) Institute work rules and be sued under antitrust law.
3) Proceed with absolutely no rules for the 2011 season.

There were no other options open to the league. The lockout was the one that allowed the league to play defense against only one lawsuit, but wouldn't affect competitive balance like a rule-less league would. It was the rational decision. It wasn't a mean or cruel one, it was simply the rational response.

[RashanGary]

It's not about mean or cruel, it's about using their power as employer to protect the laws they will be breaking if they try to keep the league as it is. It's about making the anti-trust suit harder to follow through on.

We'll see how it goes. At this point it's wait and see how the appeal goes and then from there it's a wait game to see who flinches.

What a stupid ass situation. I think the players are more dug in than the owners. For the first time I think maybe this will go into the season. The owners are just cocky and are used to bullying any party into their wishes so they'll last a long time. Plus, they're livid that the players had the odasity to challenge their demands. The players side is hot shot lawyers who will never give in (and have a lot of pride on top of that.) It's going to get fuglier before it gets better.

[Lurker64]

It's not about mean or cruel, it's about using their power as employer to protect the laws they will be breaking if they try to keep the league as it is. It's about making the anti-trust suit harder to follow through on.

No, it's ultimately about keeping the court fight in one courtroom so they can keep the players all in one place. By locking the players out, even if the lockout is lifted and antitrust suits are filed, those suits will be rolled into Brady et. al. vs. NFL. So the NFL can maintain one team of lawyers, and they don't have to travel from place to place.

Don't think for a minute that the players wouldn't try to file 100 different suits (one for each RFA say) in 100 different courtrooms just to spread the NFL thin if they were able to do so. And the NFL's opening argument in each of those cases would be to claim that the decertification is a sham... it probably better to just hash that argument out in one court, rather than many.

[RashanGary]

What a friggin mess. I always said "9 billion dolllars says this thing gets fixed", but like you said in another thread, there is way too much ego on both sides for this thing to go smooth. I'm worried this thing gets bad. Do you have any feel for which way it might go?

1987-1991 last time. YIKES.

[Bretsky]

Why do you insist on framing this as a "good guys" "bad guys" controversy? Personally, I think the players never intended to settle, they ignored everything the owners did present on financial matters, intended always to initiate litigation and will do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them bad guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.I also think the owners wanted to settle without litigation, but only by providing a level of financial info that they were comfortable with, intended to play public opinion cards whenever possible, and to do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them good guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.

.

BINGOOOOOO

[ND72]

A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest.
.

Not according to Scott Walker

[ND72]

I really do compare the NFL to Wisconsin....the players came to the table with the owners and conceded to about 90% of everything the owners wanted, but it still wasn't good enough for the owners.

[Bretsky]

agree...what a bloody mess. Something tells me if Gene and Paul were still running both shows we'd already have an agreement.

Roger seeems a bit stubborn, and well, as I noted long long ago, the players elected this guy over other former well thought of players for a reason, and he's carrying that reason out well so far. My impression of him, besides not being likeable, is that he's five times as bullheaded at Rog. Just my impressions.

I like to leave it to you guys to fight about all the specifics

[Lurker64]

Not according to Scott Walker

Well, to be fair there have always been restrictions on whether or not public employees are allowed to strike, since certain public employees have always been considered essential. It's not really a good thing when the police and fire departments are refusing to work, after all. Public employees are, after all, protected by a great number of civil service laws that do not extend to private employees.

In private labor-management disputes, like this one Smidgeon's comment: "A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest." is entirely correct.

[Bretsky]

I really do compare the NFL to Wisconsin....the players came to the table with the owners and conceded to about 90% of everything the owners wanted, but it still wasn't good enough for the owners.


Don't see it that way at all but I certainly respect all views

[ND72]

Well, to be fair there have always been restrictions on whether or not public employees are allowed to strike, since certain public employees have always been considered essential. It's not really a good thing when the police and fire departments are refusing to work, after all. Public employees are, after all, protected by a great number of civil service laws that do not extend to private employees.

In private labor-management disputes, like this one Smidgeon's comment: "A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest." is entirely correct.

Well there goes my laugh for the night...

[ND72]

Before anyone starts attacking me, I do not taking any of the labor stuff seriously, I think it's all a fucking joke, especially in the NFL and the 9billion industry. I am a teacher, FYI, making $35,000 year, not the $89,000 Ron Paul says we all make. I think walker is a joke, but that isn't of discussion I care to get into here. The NFL labor dispute I feel is just stupid on both sides.

[Lurker64]

I think we can all agree that both the league and the players are behaving like spoiled children and endangering the sport of football (both professional and amateur) as a result.

[get louder at lambeau]

But isn't it suspicious how they did it shortly after the anti-trust suit was filed? Should they be able to bully them off of their attempt to protect their rights? Can the court connect that dot? I think that's a question here and a very strong possible reason for the courts protecting the players rights here.

Suspicious? The NLFPA knew the lockout was coming, and the lawsuit is to try to stop the lockout that they knew was coming within hours.

What rights are you referring to that the players are supposed to be protecting?

[get louder at lambeau]

Before anyone starts attacking me, I do not taking any of the labor stuff seriously, I think it's all a fucking joke, especially in the NFL and the 9billion industry. I am a teacher, FYI, making $35,000 year, not the $89,000 Ron Paul says we all make. I think walker is a joke, but that isn't of discussion I care to get into here. The NFL labor dispute I feel is just stupid on both sides.

I really hope that, as a teacher, you understand that those numbers are referring to different things. $35,000 is your salary. $89,000 is average total compensation, including pension, healthcare, and all other benefits that the government provides per teacher, per year. It kinda scares me that you would even post that. It's either dishonest or ignorant to state it that way.

[ND72]

I really hope that, as a teacher, you understand that those numbers are referring to different things. $35,000 is your salary. $89,000 is average total compensation, including pension, healthcare, and all other benefits that the government provides per teacher, per year. It kinda scares me that you would even post that. It's either dishonest or ignorant to state it that way.

To be fair, according to Ron Paul, I make $89,000 a year plus all benefits, my salary is $35,000 and my healthcare which covers my entire family and pension is worth $100,000. There are no other compensations or benefits. And let's not go anywhere with this because there are a lot of mistruths that the public thinks the government provides which it truly does not, so let's just drop that now. And, the Ron paul thing is a direct quote from him, so let's not make that argument either.

[get louder at lambeau]

To be fair, according to Ron Paul, I make $89,000 a year plus all benefits, my salary is $35,000 and my healthcare which covers my entire family and pension is worth $100,000. There are no other compensations or benefits. And let's not go anywhere with this because there are a lot of mistruths that the public thinks the government provides which it truly does not, so let's just drop that now. And, the Ron paul thing is a direct quote from him, so let's not make that argument either.

I know nothing about what Ron Paul said. In Milwaukee Public Schools, the average teacher cost including benefits is just over $100,000, so I would assume any $89,000 number would be relatively close to the state average, and probably not someone lying about your compensation.

As far as "mistruths" about the $100,000 number, here is the Manager of Financial Planning for Milwaukee Public Schools saying it herself- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x2N4bDmzdc&feature=player_embedded#at=79

[ND72]

Don't compare Wisconsin to Milwaukee...they are the reason for many educational and financial issues in this state. Over paying of MANY there is a drastic issue.

[SkinBasket]

In private labor-management disputes, like this one Smidgeon's comment: "A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest." is entirely correct.

How awesome would it be to have a judge willing to force the players to work. You know? Like slaves.

But since it's the "evil" owners on the other side, it's okay for our government to strip them of their rights on a whim. Well, not really a whim, more like a progressive agenda, but I say tomato and you say помидор, comrade.

[swede]

Scott Walker IS a tool that caused labor unrest.

[Lurker64]

Well, Nelson denied the stay but said essentially that free agency doesn't have to start yet, so nothing has to happen until the 8th Circuit has the opportunity to rule. Probably the most teams would be on the hook for is "letting guys into the building" (they can probably keep the weight room locked still).

[Smidgeon]

Well, Nelson denied the stay but said essentially that free agency doesn't have to start yet, so nothing has to happen until the 8th Circuit has the opportunity to rule. Probably the most teams would be on the hook for is "letting guys into the building" (they can probably keep the weight room locked still).

And it sounds like she was opening up trades during the draft too...if I read Florio's piece correctly.