Injunction Junction

[bobblehead]

I keep hearing the word collusion. Isn't collusion a coordinated set of secret practices that undermine the spirit of a contractual agreement?

How can owners be accused of collusion if they openly agree to quit operating with employees that are not part of a union and have no contract with the owners?

The owners cannot prevent the players from starting their own league or participating in an arena league. If I were the owners I'd keep playing chicken with these malcontents. The next set of employees will work for less.

Here is the great fallacy swede. The "anti trust exemption" basically says that if the owners can keep other teams from competing in "their" league, and operate with only their teams in the league then the cost of that is....whatever some judge decides it is. here we have a judge saying the cost is that they must all agree to get in bidding wars over the players or else lose the anti trust exemption. Basically this judge is saying that TT can't decide to field all scrubs at 50k a year or else the NFL loses its exemption. I have contended all along that the flaw here is viewing each team as separate organs of the same body. The NFL is ONE business and the franchises are simply the different divisions of the business that create the whole product. Anyone can start a football league, no anti trust exemption there, but not anyone can start a team in the NFL. The entire idea is flawed from the start. Its akin to telling the Arbys in one part of the city that it must compete for labor with the Arbys across town. They must pay top dollar, and in turn no more Arbys can be built ever....but someone can open a BK next door.

[bobblehead]

Yeah, that would be really good for the league, to get rid of all the best players. I'm sure Detroit and Jacksonville, Minny and Cinci would all love that when their stadiums aren't full. And what about jersey sales? And then Rodgers and Brady would be in the UFL, you don't think that would pull some money from the NFL? The UFL would double on the spot, maybe quadruple. Even then, they'll have to get a group of players to sign a CBA and even then, those guys would get a union and eventually pull the same stunt if they're not getting paid enough. They can do that every 5 or 6 years just to show what hard asses they are.

Nah, that's not happening. They'll bend over and take it. It's just a matter of how much they'll whine before they give in.

You are young JH, you never saw the USFL. They signed guys like steve young, Herschel walker, reggie white....and they folded because they could not compete with the NFL. In turn Reggie cried foul and sued the NFL to get a judge who made a bad ruling. It benefited the players immensely as the next agreement involved FA, and most everything we see today. Hint...the players do NOT make the NFL great. They will be gone and replaced, but the dragon will live on. The owners broke the union once by paying SCABS to play. Guys who couldn't even make a team before. People kept watching and cheering for their teams. Got to know the names of the scabs and barely missed a beat. After 8 weeks of that the players realized the league could do without them better than they could without it.

[bobblehead]

I think what it comes down to is this is 9.3 BILLION dollars every year in PROFIT and these guys are going to fight tooth and nail, till the fat lady sings, over this prize.

-If we do this, what are the chances the court supports us?
-If we do that, what are the chances the players cave?

on and on. . . These guys are taking the path to the money and it's going to be a fight.

ummm....9.3 billion in REVENUE, not profit....HUGE difference, and the main issue in this dispute. The players want their cut of revenue, while owners wish to pay the bills FIRST.

[bobblehead]

My grandpa was a farmer turned machinist (both his own businesses.) He worked his ass off, but that doesn't mean he should be able to skirt anti-trust laws or get whatever he wanted if he had a court battle.

I think conservatives ignore the horrible labor practices that went on before these silly laws were enacted and enforced. The owners don't need protection. They're rich and powerful. Without laws the rich would control the world. The laws are there to protect the workers. If that makes it a good time to be in progressive America, I guess I'm glad I'm here. You guys can leave if it's so bad for you. I really don't know why you're still here. There are plenty of great conservative republics where you all could earn the fortunes you deserve. Go there. See how you fare.

That is very rich. Many of the people you despise are doing just that, and you in turn howl that the evil bastards are exporting jobs. You do see the irony in your post do you not?

[bobblehead]

In a truly free market the players could go to whatever team would pay them most...and switch uniforms at half-time if the price was right.

In a truly free market the owner could make them sign a 15 year contract, or seek employment elsewhere.

[SkinBasket]

Demaurice Smith talked to ESPN a bit. He seemed calm but firm. He had a personable but professional exterior. He never seemed phased by any questions and when he asserted himself it came off more matter of fact than angry. I got a pretty good impression of him. He seems very strong.

When asked about the WJS article, about the players essentially destroying the game, he said something to the effect of, "well, an article like that, it's hard to take seriously when he didn't even mention the owner imposed lockout." The reporter followed up, "Was it mostly spin?" and Smith said, "that reminded me of the Y2K articles a few years ago." The reporter said, "Y2K ended up not being anything" and Smith said, "Yeah, now you know. Now you know." And with that, the conversation was over. Smith obviously can't come out and say, "we have no intention of forcing the antitrust laws that we're filing for", so instead he hinted at it by calling their whining a scare tactic. It's not a bad play for the owners to make it look like the players want to ruin the game. The players can't say otherwise, or it would expose their act as a sham. The reality though, it's all a ploy to get the owners to the negotiation table on their terms.

Goodell on the other hand had a bit of a sick look on his face. Stressed almost. His calm appeared forced and his smile disingenuous. When he was asked questions about why they haven't lifted the lockout per the judges ruling, he said it took time to get everything in order. He said they were getting the league in order for opening up business.

I like cheese. My opinion is probably more informed than yours.

[Tarlam!]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

[retailguy]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

wow

[Lurker64]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

Not the least bit surprising. The NFL's strategy was always to win in the 8th Circuit. They don't think they can win, ever, in Minneapolis court but they like their odds in the 8th Circuit.

[sharpe1027]

Here is the great fallacy swede. The "anti trust exemption" basically says that if the owners can keep other teams from competing in "their" league, and operate with only their teams in the league then the cost of that is....whatever some judge decides it is. here we have a judge saying the cost is that they must all agree to get in bidding wars over the players or else lose the anti trust exemption. Basically this judge is saying that TT can't decide to field all scrubs at 50k a year or else the NFL loses its exemption. I have contended all along that the flaw here is viewing each team as separate organs of the same body. The NFL is ONE business and the franchises are simply the different divisions of the business that create the whole product. Anyone can start a football league, no anti trust exemption there, but not anyone can start a team in the NFL. The entire idea is flawed from the start. Its akin to telling the Arbys in one part of the city that it must compete for labor with the Arbys across town. They must pay top dollar, and in turn no more Arbys can be built ever....but someone can open a BK next door.

What makes you think that the issue is about prohibiting new teams from entering the NFL? I've never seen that before. In fact, I haven't seen a lot of the assertions you are making. Where is this coming from?

[SkinBasket]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

One small victory for anti-douchebaggery.

[Guiness]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

Holy mother-skin @#$!

I just read this morning that the teams had opened their doors, players were talking to coaches, etc.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15004985/players-returning-to-work-as-teams-open-doors

[Lurker64]

Holy mother-skin @#$!

I just read this morning that the teams had opened their doors, players were talking to coaches, etc.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...ams-open-doors

And now they will close the doors again.

[Guiness]

And now they will close the doors again.

Yup. PFT reporting they'll be locked this afternoon - so, by now.

Y'know, I'm getting to the point where I'm enjoying this. Everybody likes a train wreck. ESPN must be loving it too, it's NFL coverage they don't have to pay billions to air!

[imscott72]

All this is such a fucking joke. Just keep pissing on the fans people. I know they'll keep coming, but there will be a good number that will say "eff you" to the NFL and never look back..