Welcome to PatsFans.com

Memo to the NFL owners....

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Sean Pa Patriot, Apr 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sean Pa Patriot

    Sean Pa Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,226
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    YOU R NOT GOING TO WIN... Give up.... stop exhausting all avenues... sit down bite the bullet and come to a deal before you look worse than u already do... The stay has offically been denied... Now lets get back to playing football, well lets just begin the new year...
  2. Gwedd

    Gwedd PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,977
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +115 / 0 / -1

    #61 Jersey

    Same could be said for the players. It takes two to tango. :cool:
  3. Tyler.Durden

    Tyler.Durden Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Yea i'm kind of on the side of the owners on this one. I mean home many players actually deserve 10+ million a season?

    I'm all for medical cover for ex players.
    rookie wage scale
    16 game season
    Keep the draft
    Keep franchise tag and RFA etc.
  4. Sean Pa Patriot

    Sean Pa Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,226
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey


    the players are not the ones , stonewalling negotioations... they wanted to negotiate but the owners felt they had the upper had , and well there getting there but kicked in court ... the owners decided to stop mediating till may 16th.. really??? the players i believe took the best course of action...
  5. Batman

    Batman Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Add in a salary cap that is reasonable relation to the income of the teams team. Then I would be happy.
  6. Clonamery

    Clonamery PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -1

    The players decertified and stopped negotiating the first time. Just admit it, both sides suck.
  7. supafly

    supafly PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    14,172
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +499 / 3 / -7

    #24 Jersey

    I am certainly in agreement with you in wanting the new league yr to start, and trying to work something out--I think we all are, of course.

    The problem with your thinking about the owners not going to win etc, is that they very well may win. Just b/c they may have lost the 1st round battle, does not mean that they won't win the war. In most of these situations, they usually have the upper hand b/c they are the ones who issue the paychecks. I guarantee you that they want and expect a change to the whole business model, and feel as though they are entitled to more money than they are currently receiving.

    It's hard to take one side or the other, b/c the owners feel as though they have earned the right to NOT see a decrease in profits. The players admittedly got one heck of a deal back in 2006, and the owners are not going to stand for it any longer. If you had a billion or so dollars, you may very well think that you are 'entitled' to being able to see more significant profits. If indeed, their profits have been taking anything close to the hit that they are projecting in the past 5 yrs, then they are going to play hardball until there's absolutely NO options left. Unfortunately for us (the fans), and the players, there are indeed options left for the owners.

    On the 8th appellate circuit, 13 of the 16 ruling judges are republican, meaning they will obviously favor the pro-business side, rather than the players side. When you factor that into account, the owners obviously feel as though they have a very good shot at winning still. Like I said, it's the entire war they want to win, and if that means losing a couple of battles along the way, so be it.
  8. supafly

    supafly PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    14,172
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +499 / 3 / -7

    #24 Jersey

    Yeah, this statement is what I personally agree with.

    I thought all along that the NFL's idea of an 18 game season to raise more revenue was simply posturing. That proposal (which they obviously KNEW the players did not want) made it extremely easy for the owners to say "Okay, then let's come up with a different solution to split the revenue more equally then."

    The problem is, the players do not want to split the revenue more equally, not to mention guys like DeMaurice Smith and Jeffrey Kessler are pretty much being total rigid a$%holes.

    Just like any other situation where 2 sides do not agree, they need to keep negotiating and listening to each others' points of view. Hopefully, when one side has significant less bargaining position we can finally get somewhere. Until that happens by laws, rulings, petitions, and courts, we will be stuck in limbo. These rulings are of the upmost importance to the whole thing, b/c it will give one side or the other a strong upper hand.
  9. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,291
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +95 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    The players bascially went to the 9th circuit of District Court Judges and won, and now the case moves on to adults. The law states that the courts can not issue injunctions in disputes that arise out of labor negotiations, I find it hard to believe that anyone aside from a liberal dingbat, would dispute that this is a labor negotiation.

    That being said, both sides are to blame for this situation. The owners opted out of the CBA because they flet that they needed a better deal and that they were not making enough money. The Players didn't want to negotiate out of a position of weakness so they file the anti-trust lawsuit. The bargaining up to this point (on both sides) has been a sham, neither side will sit down with any intentions of making a deal prior to a resolution of this anti-trust lawsuit. The players think they can get the upper hand, and the owners can either wait it out and then if they lose, make a new system under whatever court rules are put down, or the owners can wait out the court case and see if they prevail, in which case, again they will have the upper hand in the negotiations.

    If I was an NFL owner, I would give the union* what they have won, I would stop paying into the pension fund, cut most of my veteran minimum salaried players, pay the superstars, and cut payroll everywhere else.

    If the union wins, the NFL will soon look like MLB, the Pats will be fine, but you can kiss the Jags, Dolphins, Colts, Tampa, Panthers, Bills, and the Chargers good-bye. Most of these teams will not survive without revenue sharing and salary caps and the draft. The league will be the Pats versus the Jets and the Steelers will quickly resemble the Pirates, no chance of ever winning.
  10. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,027
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 4 / -3

    I'm not impressed by your politics. It's like this thing can't be discussed without politics. Ridiculous.
  11. patfanken

    patfanken On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,693
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +369 / 13 / -8

    #91 Jersey

    er

    This post is so full of factual errors that I have to wonder if Sean is fronting for D Smith. ;)

    The Players NEVER wanted to negotiate a deal. Why would they when they already knew they had the advantage if the game was shifted from the NLRB to the courts. They are...or were a union run a litigator and litigators think that all conflicts should be solved by the courts.

    The owners DID NOT stop the mediation, the judge (mediator) stopped it due to conflicts in his schedule. How did you come to that conclusion BTW. Its pretty common knowledge. Sounds like you are getting your information directly from D's tweets.

    "...the players, I believe took the best course of action". Now this is the ONLY part of your quote that is even remotely factual. The sham disbanding of the "union" and going the to the courts had been their best chance to WIN vs the owners. AND don't think this was EVER about coming to a mutually agreed to agreement. This was ALWAYS about just WINNING. The people leading the players have zero regard for the fans or the game. Its all about winning. And if that is how want to measure this conflict, they are doing a kick ass job.

    BTW- for the record the owners are not without some blame in all this. Remember they too are being led by the nose by "lawyers", again these are all guys who think they can "win" any problem by going to court.

    Its almost classic. The old "my dad can kick your dad's ass, has been replaced by "my
    lawyers can kick your lawyer's ass. :rolleyes:

    Followed immediately by: "I don't care if you won in YOUR court. I'm going to win in MY court.

    If it sounds so childish, sadly it is. The REALLY sad part is that the real losers are US. Enjoy the draft everyone. :sad:
  12. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,717
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +50 / 0 / -0

    The players have been winning this whole time, though. Judge Doty on the lockout insurance, and now Judge Nelson's ruling. If the 8th court has the same decision, then it's pretty much a knockout against the owner's.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011
  13. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,766
    Likes Received:
    233
    Ratings:
    +510 / 5 / -1

    Have you been a fly in the wall of the negotiations. The players may want to negotiate now that they have won in front of judge Nelson and have gained the upper hand, but they didn't want to negotiate without this ruling either.

    The owners decided to stop mediation to May 16th?!? Which team does Judge Arthur Boylan own? And why was he acting as mediator if he had such a clear conflict of interest? It was Judge Boylan who ended negotiations until May 16th because of HIS scheduling conflicts, not either party. The mediations were court ordered and neither side had the ability to delay or halt negotiations.

    The fact of the matter is both sides wanted to litigate over negotiate at least until one of them got the upper hand with a court decision. To make it sound like it is one sided is factually wrong (as I pointed out).
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011
  14. townes

    townes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0



    You mean other than the fact that the owners created the situation and the players are winning.
  15. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,766
    Likes Received:
    233
    Ratings:
    +510 / 5 / -1

    Both sides created this situation. The players agreed to a clause in the CBA that allowed the owners to back out and both sides spent the last year throwing barbs at each other in the media rather than trying to negotiate until the very end of the year.
  16. townes

    townes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Given that the players were more than willing to continue the status quo it is safe to say the owners created this situation.
  17. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,766
    Likes Received:
    233
    Ratings:
    +510 / 5 / -1

    So eventhough many of the players admit that in the last CBA was heavily in favor of the players and they got a great deal, the reason why they wanted the status quo to continue makes them honorable. If your boss was paying you minimum wage and decided that he wanted to keep the "status quo" when you asked for a raise, you would commend him for his reasonableness?

    The players wanted the status quo because the status quo favored them. If the status quo favored the owners, it would be the owners who would wanted to keep the status quo and the players would be striking right now.

    Sorry, but the players wanted to keep a system that was lopsided in their favor doesn't make them reasonable or the victims in this.
  18. cmasspatsfan

    cmasspatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    They both SUCK!! What a friggin joke they cant come to agreement on a 9+ billion dollar pie. Theres winners and losers alright, the fans are the losers in all of this, the other two sides dont give a rats ass about us. It'll be a long time til anyone of these sides gets one of my hard earned dollars. Ill watch the games because I dont have to pay but no memorabilia.
  19. DW Toys

    DW Toys Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +11 / 1 / -2

    What?.......Sean I completely disagree. When the negotiations started there is evidence and proof the Li'Mo the Pimpster had made up his mind to not negotiate. What are you talking about?

    Many legal minds stated that the last deal on the table for the Players was pretty good. It was tweakable.

    The owners had the right to opt out of the CBA. What is everyone thinking that they will just say...."well, O.K. we'll go by last years CBA". That is crazy talk. The lats CBA deal for them was not a good one.

    What you fail to realize is that the only thing the players have won is the fact that a liberal judge has said the NFL must open the doors and have a 2011 season which was expected. She inadvertently left the door wide open for the Owners now with no CBA in place or Union to dictate the rules as they wish, to who now are completely independent contractors who are not eligible for any benefits or might have to pay for their own tickets on the Team plane.
    They have no agreement in place for a percentage of League profits.

    They have no voice protecting them and can no longer strike because they are not a Union.

    They have to file W9 forms and pay their own taxes.

    The League can change the schedule to 18 games as they so wish.

    The League can make up their own roster limits and CAP laws to prevent smaller market Teams from an unfair advantage over big spenders. This could cut rosters by 25% just to spite the NFPLA that is NOT in anti-trust. That alone is a fatal mistake to the NFLPA. It cost their members jobs. To fit the new CAP elite players will have to take the place of Special Teamers. How is that going to fly between the haves and havenots. Ouch!

    Now the NFLPA has just shut the door on hundreds of players by not negotiating and this was all set in motion by a numbskull judge who thought she was sticking it to the Owners? The NFL Lawyers knew this was going to happen and set a trap IMO.

    The only thing the Owners lost is they have to open the doors to the players and get ready for the 2011 season.....with no set rules. So the Owners lost a pawn to get a Queen? And they got her.
    DW Toys
  20. townes

    townes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0



    The players liked the deal and both sides were getting very rich off of it, and if you guys are going to continually make the argument that the owners needed relief then at some point you need to support it with something.


    Had the players gone on strike i would be blaming them for creating the situation, especially in the absence of any proof that they needed to go on strike.

    Both sides have been making huge money off their working agreements and while the "recession" argument works for most of the country it doesn't for the NFL, as they were getting record ratings, record TV deals, and making more money than ever before.



    This entire episode is a big game of chicken. The owners believed they could stall and get the players to come apart and dictate the terms of a new CBA, and spent 2 years preparing for just that. They never believed the players would decertify and the players decided to do just that when they realized that they had no other choices left to them.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>