there will be games missed...

[ausbacker]

So, are there any Pat players getting together to work out on there own.

I heard Drew Brees is putting on a mini camp type of deal and that over ,,, I thought it was 30 Saints showed up and are participating.

I would think that would help a team out quite a bit.

I heard a rumor the Pats players pissed off over to Pandora and are sitting under the Tree of Souls letting Awa do her ****.. you know what I'm saying.. man?

 

[Gunnails]

i heard a rumor the pats players pissed off over to pandora and are sitting under the tree of souls letting awa do her ****.. You know what i'm saying.. Man?

==============================


lol.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Unless the stay is not granted, but if it is.. there will be games missed.. the hearing for the appeal is june 3rd... then the greedy owners will put in another appeal, after a month of hearings and so on and so on... bottom line , the owners are at fault here.. .they could operate under last years rules get the leauge year started and let it fight out in the courts.. but with all of the legal mumbo jumbo, it looks like this could go into sept...

Are you surprised that the owners, who opted out of the current contract, don't want to continue the current contract?

You could have just asked me about this scenario a couple of years ago; I would have helped clear this up for you.

 

[patfanken]

I disagree with this assessment. Both sides are greedy. Neither side wants to come to the table. The difference is the players want to protect a system that is clearly in their favor and the owners want to change that system so it is in their favor. If the roles were reversed, the players would be striking and the owners would be fighting for business as usual.

This is clearly a case of millionaires vs. billionaires. Even the lower level players feel the player representatives are looking out for the top tier players and not the people down the line. That is why they are trying to sue to get a seat at the table. This is all about greed on both sides.

And there are the retired players who are on the owners' side. Why?!? Because the owners are stepping up to the plate and helping them out where the NFLPA has long history of ignoring them. Now the owners may be buying their love and loyalty, but that is still far more than the NFLPA has done who have decided to treat the retired players' union as the enemy. The owners' intention may or may not be truly pure in this case, but they did see that the NFLPA doesn't really care about the players once they retire (or at least not nearly enough) and took advantage of the situation.

Actually I think the issue can be broken down to this.

The owners want to get back to the table and settle on a new CBA

The players want to get back to the table and settle their law suit.

Both sides claim to be willing and sit down any time any where, but they can't agree on what they will talk about when they get there.

IMHO The what needs to be settled is a new CBA, NOT a law suit. The 2 interested parties new to be forced to sit down and work out an agreement. WITHOUT all the lawyers who are billing by the hour and have their own agendas. The court isn't the place to have this settled. abd using the courts is an abuse of the system. It was not designed to protect over paid athletes

Until that happens, I'm afraid Sean is right about missing games, but dead wrong in his characterization of the owners

 

[Rob0729]

I don't think either salary means that either side is greedy. They're just reflective of the moneys involved in the game.

It is just further examples of both sides are greedy. If you can't see that the NFLPA has a long history of screwing the retired players, then there isn't much to discuss. Even in the current CBA negotiations, the only money they are fighting for the retired players is out of the owner's cut of the revenue pie. No matter their intentions, it is the owners who go out of their way to help the retired players, not the NFLPA. Gene Upshaw used to publically state he doesn't work for the retired players and DeMaurice Smith although paying lipservice to the retired players treats them like the enemy except for a select few recently retired players who are on the same page as him.

It is funny you didn't address the lawsuit in which the retired players won against the NFLPA where the courts believed the NFLPA were cheating the retired players out of licensing money and awarded them $28 million in damages. That is clear case of greed by the NFLPA.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is just further examples of both sides are greedy. If you can't see that the NFLPA has a long history of screwing the retired players, then there isn't much to discuss. Even in the current CBA negotiations, the only money they are fighting for the retired players is out of the owner's cut of the revenue pie. No matter their intentions, it is the owners who go out of their way to help the retired players, not the NFLPA. Gene Upshaw used to publically state he doesn't work for the retired players and DeMaurice Smith although paying lipservice to the retired players treats them like the enemy except for a select few recently retired players who are on the same page as him.

It is funny you didn't address the lawsuit in which the retired players won against the NFLPA where the courts believed the NFLPA were cheating the retired players out of licensing money and awarded them $28 million in damages. That is clear case of greed by the NFLPA.

I didn't address the lawsuit because I don't know enough of the facts in that case to make any sort of informed commentary.

As for the general notion, though (meaning outside of that lawsuit), it's the owners who are responsible for any screwing over of the former players, and not the current players. The current players didn't have anything to do with underpaying the retired players, or anything else that was going on during the tenure of those retired players.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Ocho tweeted yesterday he does not see FA or trading on the horizon for at least 2 months because it might take the courts that long to decide to let the players back in and FA opening which takes us to TC time....that is not a good sign.

 

[Rob0729]

I didn't address the lawsuit because I don't know enough of the facts in that case to make any sort of informed commentary.

As for the general notion, though (meaning outside of that lawsuit), it's the owners who are responsible for any screwing over of the former players, and not the current players. The current players didn't have anything to do with underpaying the retired players, or anything else that was going on during the tenure of those retired players.

So the former players sued the NFLPA because the owners were at fault? Sorry, both sides are responsible for former players not getting paid. It is the NFLPA or whoever is in charge of negotiations now to act on the retired players' behalf to get them the best deal. Even today, the representatives' attitude is we will fight for retire players as long as it doesn't take money out of the current player's pocket which is slightly better than Gene Upshaw's attitude of "I don't work for the retired players" so what they get is what they get.

Technically, a portion of the current players do not have any responsibility for screwing over the former players because they were not in the league at the time of the last CBA, but any player who was in the league then are absolutely partly responsible. Since the NFLPA is responsible for negotiating on the behalf of the former players, any current player who was around for the last CBA vote and voted for the CBA are more responsible for the former players getting screwed than the owners who are not representing the former players. The fact the owners since the last CBA have done more for the former players than the current players have, means the current players are even more greedy. The NFLPA could easily re-allocate their dues or increase their dues to help the former players. In fact, the NFLPA took part of the dues to get current players lockout pay, but not for former players. The former players had to go to the league for a no interest loan to cover their costs.

It is universally believed (at least the ones we hear from publically) by the old time former players that the owners are far more interested in making sure the old time former players get decent benefits than the NFLPA does. The NFLPA, in turn, believes that the old time players are just shills for the owner and block them from the process in favor of recently retired players who have no knowledge of the needs of the guys who played in the 50s and 60s and 70s before any player made decent money and the medicine of the time was archaic.

I know you want to portray the owners as greedy, evil fat pigs and the players in to a a group of Norma Raes. I'm sorry, but a lot of the players are just as greedy pigs (it isn't like they are all factory workers working for minimium wages. A lot of them are undereducated, pampered, and rich). One area where the players as a whole have been very greedy is towards former players. The NFLPA's responsibility was to make sure this group is taken care of and they never want to pay for them out of their share WHICH IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY not the owners. If the owners say that they will give 60% of the revenues to the players, a piece of that is for former players.

 

[Deus Irae]

So the former players sued the NFLPA because the owners were at fault? Sorry, both sides are responsible for former players not getting paid. It is the NFLPA or whoever is in charge of negotiations now to act on the retired players' behalf to get them the best deal. Even today, the representatives' attitude is we will fight for retire players as long as it doesn't take money out of the current player's pocket which is slightly better than Gene Upshaw's attitude of "I don't work for the retired players" so what they get is what they get.

Technically, a portion of the current players do not have any responsibility for screwing over the former players because they were not in the league at the time of the last CBA, but any player who was in the league then are absolutely partly responsible. Since the NFLPA is responsible for negotiating on the behalf of the former players, any current player who was around for the last CBA vote and voted for the CBA are more responsible for the former players getting screwed than the owners who are not representing the former players. The fact the owners since the last CBA have done more for the former players than the current players have, means the current players are even more greedy. The NFLPA could easily re-allocate their dues or increase their dues to help the former players. In fact, the NFLPA took part of the dues to get current players lockout pay, but not for former players. The former players had to go to the league for a no interest loan to cover their costs.

It is universally believed (at least the ones we hear from publically) by the old time former players that the owners are far more interested in making sure the old time former players get decent benefits than the NFLPA does. The NFLPA, in turn, believes that the old time players are just shills for the owner and block them from the process in favor of recently retired players who have no knowledge of the needs of the guys who played in the 50s and 60s and 70s before any player made decent money and the medicine of the time was archaic.

I know you want to portray the owners as greedy, evil fat pigs and the players in to a a group of Norma Raes. I'm sorry, but a lot of the players are just as greedy pigs (it isn't like they are all factory workers working for minimium wages. A lot of them are undereducated, pampered, and rich). One area where the players as a whole have been very greedy is towards former players. The NFLPA's responsibility was to make sure this group is taken care of and they never want to pay for them out of their share WHICH IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY not the owners. If the owners say that they will give 60% of the revenues to the players, a piece of that is for former players.

I don't "want" to portray anything. There's a basic reality here. The owners opted out of the deal and demanded a billion dollars a year be sent back their way without any legitimately defended justification for it. Now, you can keep tossing the "I know you want to portray" lines my way, but it's never going to change the basic reality.

And, no, sorry, but current players do not owe retired players a cut of their money just because the retired players got shafted by the owners for decades, and that's not what the lawsuit is about. The retired players are arguing something similar to what the current players argued about the owners' broadcasting deals, basing their claims upon the issue of royalties. If the courts find that the NFLPA breached a duty there, I'll be happy to pummel the NFLPA for doing so.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't "want" to portray anything. There's a basic reality here. The owners opted out of the deal and demanded a billion dollars a year be sent back their way without any legitimately defended justification for it. Now, you can keep tossing the "I know you want to portray" lines my way, but it's never going to change the basic reality.

And, no, sorry, but current players do not owe retired players a cut of their money just because the retired players got shafted by the owners for decades, and that's not what the lawsuit is about. The retired players are arguing something similar to what the current players argued about the owners' broadcasting deals, basing their claims upon the issue of royalties. If the courts find that the NFLPA breached a duty there, I'll be happy to pummel the NFLPA for doing so.

Of course the current players don't owe the former players anything. F-em! If the owners don't want to take care of them, why should the current players' care? It's not like the former players helped to build anything to help the current players make what they are making. If Peyton Manning is getting paid $25 million a year and members of the 70s Steelers team are living on the street or just penniless, it is their own fault for not negotiating a better deal.

The sad fact which you are unable to admit because if you ever admitted you were wrong in an argument, your head will explode (no worries about that happening soon) is both sides are responsible for taking care of the retired players and both sides don't do enough out of greed. The NFLPA is supposed to represent both current and retired players in the CBA negotions especially since I doubt any current player will never become a retired player at some point. Part of the package they are negotiating for the their side is the money for retired players which in part is retirement benefits for current players when their careers are over. It is part of the CBA. The owners do not do a separate negotiation for retired players except in special circumstances. So what the owners give the players is supposed to take care of retired players too. In fact, player's position in every CBA negotiation that happened is that part of the money the owners get back with a rookie cap goes to the retired players.

If you want to ignore the obvious truth like a lawsuit the players lost because they were getting licensing fees off of retired players names and not passing it along to those players and the fact that it is the NFLPA's responsibilty to negotiate on behalf of retired players, more power to you. It is just one of your little "tricks" to avoid ever admitting you might be wrong about an argument and maintain your elitist attitude towards the board.

As for the basic reality, the owners have opted out of the CBA as the NFLPA agreed they could in the 2006 deal that was lopsided in the player' favor. Yes, many of the owners' arguments are specious, but so are the players. The players only want to keep the status quo because it is a lopsided deal in their favor. If the tables were turned, they would have done the same exact thing. Besides, it looks like Jeffrey Kessler is using this opportunity to blow up the system all together and create a free market system which would hurt most of the players and handsomely reward a small percentage.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I don't "want" to portray anything. There's a basic reality here. The owners opted out of the deal and demanded a billion dollars a year be sent back their way without any legitimately defended justification for it. Now, you can keep tossing the "I know you want to portray" lines my way, but it's never going to change the basic reality.

And, no, sorry, but current players do not owe retired players a cut of their money just because the retired players got shafted by the owners for decades, and that's not what the lawsuit is about. The retired players are arguing something similar to what the current players argued about the owners' broadcasting deals, basing their claims upon the issue of royalties. If the courts find that the NFLPA breached a duty there, I'll be happy to pummel the NFLPA for doing so.

Stripping all the BS aside, the issue is as follows:

If you and I are negotiating for you to cut my lawn and I say I'll pay X and you say Y. If you don't eventually say I'll take X, and I don't agree to pay Y, the lawn won't be cut. Until I find someone else to cut it for X.

Now I may say eventually I'll pay X plus, or you'll say I'll take Y minus and we agree, the lawn won't be cut.

Now you can sue me and even win. But then I don't have X to pay you anymore, so the lawn won't be cut. Some of your former X money compensation will go to pay the lawyers. So be prepared to get X minus.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course the current players don't owe the former players anything. F-em! If the owners don't want to take care of them, why should the current players' care? It's not like the former players helped to build anything to help the current players make what they are making. If Peyton Manning is getting paid $25 million a year and members of the 70s Steelers team are living on the street or just penniless, it is their own fault for not negotiating a better deal.

The sad fact which you are unable to admit because if you ever admitted you were wrong in an argument, your head will explode (no worries about that happening soon) is both sides are responsible for taking care of the retired players and both sides don't do enough out of greed. The NFLPA is supposed to represent both current and retired players in the CBA negotions especially since I doubt any current player will never become a retired player at some point. Part of the package they are negotiating for the their side is the money for retired players which in part is retirement benefits for current players when their careers are over. It is part of the CBA. The owners do not do a separate negotiation for retired players except in special circumstances. So what the owners give the players is supposed to take care of retired players too. In fact, player's position in every CBA negotiation that happened is that part of the money the owners get back with a rookie cap goes to the retired players.

If you want to ignore the obvious truth like a lawsuit the players lost because they were getting licensing fees off of retired players names and not passing it along to those players and the fact that it is the NFLPA's responsibilty to negotiate on behalf of retired players, more power to you. It is just one of your little "tricks" to avoid ever admitting you might be wrong about an argument and maintain your elitist attitude towards the board.

As for the basic reality, the owners have opted out of the CBA as the NFLPA agreed they could in the 2006 deal that was lopsided in the player' favor. Yes, many of the owners' arguments are specious, but so are the players. The players only want to keep the status quo because it is a lopsided deal in their favor. If the tables were turned, they would have done the same exact thing. Besides, it looks like Jeffrey Kessler is using this opportunity to blow up the system all together and create a free market system which would hurt most of the players and handsomely reward a small percentage.

You talk all you want about what the former players built. It's irrelevant. All that's relevant is what's in the contracts, whether the terms are properly carried out, and whether those terms are fair and equitable enough to survive challenge. The NFLPA is being sued by the retired players. I don't have enough knowledge about the specifics of the case to discuss it. As I said, if the retired players win the suit, I'll bash the NFLPA. It wouldn't be the first time the NFLPA was found guilty of the sort of behavior being alleged.

Now, Rob, I'd prefer discussing the merits of the situation. However, if you want to continue firing off personal shots, I'll be glad to return the favor.

 

[Rob0729]

You talk all you want about what the former players built. It's irrelevant. All that's relevant is what's in the contracts, whether the terms are properly carried out, and whether those terms are fair and equitable enough to survive challenge. The NFLPA is being sued by the retired players. I don't have enough knowledge about the specifics of the case to discuss it. As I said, if the retired players win the suit, I'll bash the NFLPA. It wouldn't be the first time the NFLPA was found guilty of the sort of behavior being alleged.

Now, Rob, I'd prefer discussing the merits of the situation. However, if you want to continue firing off personal shots, I'll be glad to return the favor.

You'd prefer to discuss the merits of the situation? When have you ever done that? You only have one way of posting - shoving your opinion down everyone's throat and condescend anyone who doesn't.

I think it is hilarious that you prefer to wait for the court case where the NFLPA clearly are cheating the former players out of profits made off their name yet since day one you have passed judgement on the owners even before any judge issued a ruling. Hypocrize much.

Feel free to throw personal shots my way. I don't care. I am tired of your BS. You need to make yourself an intellectual elitist to make yourself feel better. Personally, I could care less what you have to say. A true discussion is an exchange of ideas. All you want to do is ram your ideas down everyone's throats and dismiss anyone's ideas who disagrees with you.