PatsFaninAZ

Where did I say opting out was a breach? Clearly they can opt out. They did. Nobody is arguing about it.

The breach was undercharging for 2009 and 2010.

upstater1

He didn't say that the opt-out was a breach of contract. He said not optimizing revenue for players in prior years and THEN using the opt out was a breach of contract. The two taken together is a breach. Not just the opt out.

Look, it appears the NFL is such a viable property that the networks are willing to spend a lot of money on it. But if they had an inkling that the NFL was going to lock out the players, the networks themselves figured that scenario into their offers to the NFL. Any company with labor instability is going to have clients, vendors, customers, who prepare themselves financially for their partner's instability. Clearly, the "insurance money" is something those networks can afford, and they think it's a worthwhile investment because the NFL gives so much to them. In other words, if the NFL had a stable labor situation, they could have racked up a much bigger score from the networks 2 years ago. In even broaching the topic of insurance for owners, the NFL did not maximize revenues. Ipso facto.

The NFL lawyers practically admitted this by explaining that the court's decision was not at all unexpected.

So, one wonders what the NFL was trying to achieve because the NFL has now risked being perceived as greedy in the PR wars in order to... use the insurance as a cudgel to threaten the players? If the union hadn't taken this insurance deal to court so quickly, maybe the NFL could have lorded the money over the players during a lockout, and maybe that would have intimidated them... but I doubt it.

PatsFaninAZ

Yup. No brainer.

Nobody pays $4 billion for nothing. They agreed to pay it to pay less in 2009 and 2010. There's nobody that seriously believes that without the lockout insurance the nets wouldn't have paid more in 2009 and 2010. The NFL didn't even argue it.

Perhaps my favorite part of this thread are the folks pontificating on appellate procedure. We're told, for example, that Doty's opinion is not "law," because it's subject to appeal. With great respect, I submit y'all should stick to your day jobs.

E Belichick Unum

You know, I feel the exact opposite. The owners invest their money, pay for the players food, transportation and give these morons millions of dollars. And as gratitude the players demand more.

Let them all go do what they are best suited for, can you say paper or plastic, or maybe some of the really bright ones can get a job saying Welcome to Walmart.

Deus Irae

Most of them seem quite well suited for playing football at a high level, which is what they've gone and done.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

upstater1

If the owners are so intelligent, then why did they give the players the store a few years back? Why do they hire and then listen to lawyers that make basic errors that make the entire league look petty?

Do you realize that a good chunk of the owners have only made their money by staying invested in football for so long?

Some people literally fall into s%@$ and their bank accounts explode. All power to the Hunts, Wilsons, Browns, Irsays, Davis, Rooneys, etc., but about a third of the owners are football guys whose money comes from holding on to NFL franchises for so long. They are not world beaters themselves. Ralph Wilson, for instance, has had a 40,000 percent increase on his initial investment of $20k. Great for him, but otherwise he was a man who took over his father's insurance agency.

The number 1 reason I'm against the owners is because the business expansion mentality at play under Goodell, of constant expansion to keep up the premiums on all the price-to-earnings values, is going to ruin and corrupt the sport eventually. These owners have a go-go mentality because of the astounding increases they've seen in their investments. I suggest they adopt the Warren Buffet approach. Think of the NFL as a value company. Heavy on revenue, good profits on low margins. Think Coca-Cola, not Google. Coca-Cola does a few things very well, while at Google they are hatching plans that would blow your mind.

Miguel

The players did not opt of the contract because they wanted more. The owners opted out. The players are happy with the status quo. They have even offered to play the 2010 season capped under the 2006 CBA extending the deadline to reach a deal by a yeat. That offer was turned down by the owners.

Union's pitch for capped 2010 shot down - Extra Points - Boston.com

__________________
My youngest sister's best friend is on the board of directors of a food pantry in Malden, Massachusetts that distributed 285,000 meals and meal equivalents in 2005. I am asking that if you have found my salary cap pages useful that if you are able to do so, please make a donation to it. Please contact me for more information.

Clonamery

Very well said.

__________________
Paul Brown: A winner never whines.