Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Clonamery]

......................






My mistake.

Don't fret there are others.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

......................




You're right cmass, no-one has suggested i'm a "dictator" or a "commie" just that I would make a great dictator who supports communist ideology.

My mistake.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

 

[townes]

Don't fret there are others.

No doubt, however that wasn't one of them, which is why you can't actually post the text of what was said because it backs me up.



Feel free to make the argument that I wasn't called a dictator who supports commie ideology, should be comical, as well as totally dishonest.

 

[townes]

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

Thanks, once again you make my argument for me.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Thanks, once again you make my argument for me.

Glad to help the helpless!

 

[Clonamery]

No doubt, however that wasn't one of them, which is why you can't actually post the text of what was said because it backs me up.



Feel free to make the argument that I wasn't called a dictator who supports commie ideology, should be comical, as well as totally dishonest.

This all just silly and the "ideological" argument in support of an association that is basically a (temporary) millionaires club just furthers the absurdity of it all.

 

[townes]

This all just silly and the "ideological" argument in support of an association that is basically a (temporary) millionaires club just furthers the absurdity of it all.

lmao-you guys are calling me a "commie" while supporting a communist model, it doesn't get more absurd than that.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

......................




You're right cmass, no-one has suggested i'm a "dictator" or a "commie" just that I would make a great dictator who supports communist ideology.

My mistake.

Idealogy = idea, I said the idea was a communist idealogy, just that one thing. Your worse than my wife
I havent read every post to you so if someone else did dont tie my post in with theirs.

Cant wait til Apr 6 so this topic can move along, hopefully they're back at the table negotiating.

 

[lamafist]

Your idea that the government should take the teams away from the owners and run the NFL was called a communist idea.

And yet the right of the United States government to take private property over for public use so long as it provides the former owner with just compensation is established in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

Were the founding fathers communists, or is the line between a founding principle of American democracy and Communism as fine as the difference between taking over utility companies, privately owned land to be sold to developers for such variety of uses as rail roads and highways to shopping malls and Walmarts, or taking over said rail roads when labor disputes threatened to hinder transportation?

Again, as I've said in every point on this topic, I don't believe the government ever would take over the NFL, and though I believe that doing so would almost certainly benefit the players, fans, and NFL communities, I don't believe the government should do it. But not only does the government's right to do it originates in the Bill of Rights, but as the very act of providing compensation for the league to its owners presumes the existence of private property, it is, per se, anti-Communist.

 

[lamafist]

LOL Who is being the stubborn ones, of course.

Florio's take on fairness is the same simple common sense issue that tipped the balance for me out of the gate.

The problem with Florio's objection to the players trying to "have it both ways" is that he fails to take into account that the NFL's very existence is predicated on its ability to function as both a single entity and 32 separate, competing, businesses simultaneously.

At least the players are only asking to "have it both ways" one after the other, choosing to declaim their union only after it failed to reach a deal for them.

This is ultimately why Florio is being his usual conflict-mongering self when he talks as if any ruling that the NFLPA's decertification is a sham would ever hold up on appeal. Especially in this moment of fractious relationships between government and organized later, the courts are less likely than ever to set a precedent that limits the till now absolute right of employers to NOT form a union.

It's going back the other way that would prove problematic for the NFLPA if the NFL chose to challenge it -- i.e. not that the union has decertified, any attempt to reorganize by the players would be easily challenged and prevented by the NFL, if it chose. Of course, since there's no way the salary cap and draft could ultimately exist without a CBA, the NFL would certainly choose to recognize a reformed NFLPA if the settlement of the lawsuit resulted in a CBA they liked.

 

[Ring 6]

And yet the right of the United States government to take private property over for public use so long as it provides the former owner with just compensation is established in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

Your understandig of the 5th Amendment is dubious at best.
The 5th Amendment does not establish the right of the Government to take private property, it had that right to begin with. The 5th Amendment forbids them from taking property without just compensation.
You are using a protection added for the people (which did not exist in most if not al countries at the time) and trying to call it the government declaring its right to take property.
Your argument is akin to saying that the legal concept that you may not commit murder, except in self-defense establishes the right to commit murder.

Were the founding fathers communists, or is the line between a founding principle of American democracy and Communism as fine as the difference between taking over utility companies, privately owned land to be sold to developers for such variety of uses as rail roads and highways to shopping malls and Walmarts, or taking over said rail roads when labor disputes threatened to hinder transportation?

You miss the mark here by even a wider margin.
Establishing COMPENSATION for the necessity of taking private property FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD is the opposite of Communism, which simply takes it as it wishes.
The Government does not take property to build Walmarts. The case you are referring to was a heavily debated Supreme Court ruling where the court ruled that BECAUSE THE TOWN PROVED THAT IT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP THAT LAND which happened to include a Walmart, that they were in their right. The other uses are War Time necessity and public safety. Eminent Domian is not the whim you want to pretend it is, it is done out of necessity.

Again, as I've said in every point on this topic, I don't believe the government ever would take over the NFL, and though I believe that doing so would almost certainly benefit the players, fans, and NFL communities, I don't believe the government should do it.

They can't do it.
Even if they could, you are out of your mind if you think players, fans and community would be better served by a Government run league.
Do you seriously expect Congress to approve a budget including Tom Bradys signing bonus as a Government employee?
And the charade that they would 'turn it over' to the fans or community or something like that is not part of Eminent Domain. The Federal Government does not have Robin Hood Laws.

But not only does the government's right to do it originates in the Bill of Rights, /quote]
No. There right to do so originates from the formation of the government. The 5th Amendment TAKES AWAY that right unless they duly compensate the owner. It has also never been established that 'property' involves anything other than land, so you fail on that count too.

but as the very act of providing compensation for the league to its owners presumes the existence of private property, it is, per se, anti-Communist.

No one is even suggesting that Eminent Domain is a Communist concept. We are detailing however, that your misguided opinion of it, would represent a Communist philosophy.

 

[Ring 6]

My mistake, it's "unfair" because the owners say so.

Well, the owners have risked an awful lot to get out of the deal, so it would seem obvious they find it unfair. What basis are you using to determine it is fair?

 

[Ring 6]

I blame the owners because this is what they wanted all along. The owners never made any effort to put together a new agreement and waited until the last second to negotiate at all, and then left the player's a matter of minutes to decide whether they should use the only leverage they had or fold. The owners went way out of their way to set up deals that would guarantee them money for no product and are right now forcing season ticket holders to pony up big money for tickets or lose them despite the FACT that there is no promise of a product. Had the players behaved in the same way and gone on strike i would be saying the same things about them, ironically so would all those currently supporting the owners. Go figure?

I think if you take a step back you would realize that the players actions also seemed to lack much urgency to get a deal done.
They asked for financials, were given them, and refused to accept them without even looking at them. They rejected an offer of independently audited financials. Many feel there plan from Day 1 has been to litigate.
Agree or disagree, but both sides are to blame for the ridiculously poor effort to negotiate.
You seem to be basing your entire opinion on who forced who's hand.
Did the owners force the players hand by preparing for a lockout? Did the players force the owners hand by filing suit? Did the owners force the players hand by opting out? Did the players force the owners hand by refusing to accept any deal except one that the owners were so hesitant to sign that they needed an opt out in one year?
Neither of us can pretend to know enough about the behind the scenes workings to know that.
That is my primar objection with your stance. You appear to have decided the facts you couldn't possibly know, determined guilt, and are fitting everything else into it.

 

[Ring 6]

Like I said, your argument is that the deal was "unfair" simply because the owners say so, and that isn't based in fact but rather in bias.

Its actually very fact based. They chose to opt out of it. They risk significant losses because of that. Part of the defense in the TV deal was that franchsies and the league have loans that will be considered in default if they do not have the TV revenue.
There is way to much at risk for the owners to conclude it was just a game and that the deal truly was not a bad one for them.
What are you basing your opinion that is was a fair deal on?
Remember it was so 'fair' that the owners wouldn't agree to it without the ability to opt out which they did a year later. So 'they agreed to it' isnt really a valid reason to consider it fair.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually it is the NFL that isn't a "capitalist methodology." The NFL is a communist methodology operating a government sanctioned monopoly with anti-trust status in a capitalist system, and I'd love to see the argument that it isn't.

Monopolies are not Communist.
They have an AntiTrust exemption because a competitive sports league really cannot exist without one.
There is not a conspiracy in their exemption, the exemption is there because the law was not intended to be applied to entities such as professional sports leagues.
I don't get why you think they are evil because they are exempt from a law that was written for circumstances that do not include professional sports leagues.
You do know what Communism is right? And that corporations who could become Monopolies wouldnt even exist in a Communist state?

 

[Ring 6]

Are you seriously suggesting you aren't on the owners side?

5,0000 posts and 100,000 words in favor of them would disgree.

Arguing against the radical pro-player position does not make me pro-owner.
What have I said that was pro-owner?
Pro-owner COMPARED TO 'the owners are greedy filthy pigs' is actually the middle of the road.

 

[Ring 6]

I actually like, respect, and I'm grateful to the Kraft's for essentially saving the Patriots for their fans I just disgaree with their stance on this 1000% and believe that they have taken a stand because their hand was forced by the ownership club.

That is bs.
You rip the owners, but don't blame Kraft by pretending he is on your side and was forced to go along with the crowd. Come on.

The Kraft's were the ones who structured and argued for the deal that was opted out of, and I believe the reason Bob and Jon Kraft weren't at the bargaining table was because the owners knew they would be too reasonable and too willing to make a new deal fair to all, and that was never the owners goal.

So Kraft was banned from negotiations?

As for me there is a great deal of truth to what you are suggesting, as i do believe that people operating businesses are benefitting from the communities around them and have a social responsibility. An unpopular view in what has become Ayn Rand's AmeriKa but my view nonetheless. Communities and government investment in infrastructure absolutely play a role in the success of most businesses and I believe their is a reciprocal responsibility from all of us benefitting from that, whether that be as individuals or business entities. If that makes me a "commie dictator" as wicked pissah and some others suggest then so be it, i'm fine with that, as are my people, who even gave me the day off when I said i was taking it off.

You make it sound like businesses come in to a community are bleed it dry.
Businesses exist because people want their product. The community benefits from the business being there by it providing jobs, paying taxes, and providing a product or service that the community wants.
The price the company can charge is based upon the market.
You seem to be suggesting that the community suffers by the business being there so the business must give back some of the money it sells its product for. I dont understand that.

What do you 'give back' to your community for the benefits you gain as part of it? Is that something that the owners of the business do not?
If I own a business and you are an employee of my competitor, you do your job the best you can, as do I. Your company will have a good employee, who in your model will serve his community in some way. I will have a profitable business. If I serve my community in the same way you do, why would my business have to have a greater social responsiblity?

You seem to have this view that business=evil and it seems to severely cloud your perspective.

 

[BPF]

So Kraft was banned from negotiations?

If he was there the deal would be done. Kraft is very good at bringing people together and closing deals quickly because he understands that most issues in business are fundamentally simple eventhough they appear complicated.

Kraft is also comfortable with the idea that he may miss being the "big winner" because he doesn't want to be the "big loser" he understands over time that trading away a big payoff for a certain payoff always wins. Guys like Jerry Jones and Steven Ross don't quite understand this principle. I'm sure Kraft wants to lower the players number but he could also make things work under the current deal because he'll create new revenue streams where guys like Mike Brown would rather sit around waiting for Kraft to do all the work while they benefit.

 

[lamafist]

Your understandig of the 5th Amendment is dubious at best.
The 5th Amendment does not establish the right of the Government to take private property, it had that right to begin with. The 5th Amendment forbids them from taking property without just compensation.
You are using a protection added for the people (which did not exist in most if not al countries at the time) and trying to call it the government declaring its right to take property.
Your argument is akin to saying that the legal concept that you may not commit murder, except in self-defense establishes the right to commit murder.

Oh Em Effing Gee, dude, why do you always make me teach the remedial class in whatever we end up talking about in this thread? Talk aboute tiresome.

Yes, the 5th Amendment is where the congressional authority for eminent domain originates in the constitution. The establishment of that particular limitation on congress' use of eminent domain entails the existence of the power in the first place. Such negatively inferred powers are a staple of constitutional law at its most basic.

You miss the mark here by even a wider margin.
Establishing COMPENSATION for the necessity of taking private property FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD is the opposite of Communism, which simply takes it as it wishes.

Oh my god, no. No it does not. In Communism, the goverment does not "take as it wishes" because it cannot take what it already controls -- Communism does not recognize the principle of private property. Everything is owned collectively by the people.

Oh, and also, you miss the point entirely -- I am not arguing that the founders are, in fact, communist, but that the principle of eminent domain, in its recognition of the existence of private property, is not communist at all.

The Government does not take property to build Walmarts. The case you are referring to was a heavily debated Supreme Court ruling where the court ruled that BECAUSE THE TOWN PROVED THAT IT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP THAT LAND which happened to include a Walmart, that they were in their right. The other uses are War Time necessity and public safety. Eminent Domian is not the whim you want to pretend it is, it is done out of necessity.

Sigh. Again, totally wrong. The "town" did not "prove" anything; that it was in the interest of the community to develop the land was not established in court, but municipality's legislature voting to positively assert this. What the Supreme Court case determined was not that it was, in fact, in this particular town's best interest, but that the town's government was the sole determiner of the towns' interests, and that their use of eminent domain could not be overturned via the court.

Also, please, show me where I made any indication that eminent domain was a "whim." Please show me where I made any claim of the government's power to exercise eminent domain that wasn't a direct reference to an incidence of its exercise from U.S. history.

You can't, because I didn't.

They can't do it.
Even if they could, you are out of your mind if you think players, fans and community would be better served by a Government run league.
Do you seriously expect Congress to approve a budget including Tom Bradys signing bonus as a Government employee?
And the charade that they would 'turn it over' to the fans or community or something like that is not part of Eminent Domain. The Federal Government does not have Robin Hood Laws.

Uh, actually, the very Surpreme Court decision on the New London case you mentioned above establishes that yes, if congress so chose, it could decide that taking over the NFL was in the nation's best interest. I can't imagine a scenario in which congress would feel that it were necessary or prudent to, as I've made clear over and over again.

And nobody said anything about congress running the NFL. This whole conversation is about the government assuming control and buying out the owners by forcing them to make the franchises public and sell at least 70% percent of the shares, and operate as the Packers do. You do realize that when people talk about the Packers being "publicly owned," that doesn't mean that the town council of Green Bay, WI runs the team, right? (Actually, considering some of the other wacky crap you believe...)

No. There right to do so originates from the formation of the government. The 5th Amendment TAKES AWAY that right unless they duly compensate the owner. It has also never been established that 'property' involves anything other than land, so you fail on that count too.

You really should have taken the five minutes necessary to, you know, make sure what you claim five times in one post is actually right, for a change. I mean, you're posting on an online message board, so you clearly have an internet connection, so there's really no excuse to be so wrong so emphatically so often. If I were you, I'd have long ago slunk away in embarrassment.

No one is even suggesting that Eminent Domain is a Communist concept. We are detailing however, that your misguided opinion of it, would represent a Communist philosophy.

Oy. Once more, and maybe this time it might sink in -- there isn't a single opinion on the use of eminent domain that could, in fact, "represent a Communist philosophy" seeing as how it entails the recognition of private property in the first place.

 

[Ring 6]

Oh Em Effing Gee, dude, why do you always make me teach the remedial class in whatever we end up talking about in this thread? Talk aboute tiresome.

Yes, the 5th Amendment is where the congressional authority for eminent domain originates in the constitution. The establishment of that particular limitation on congress' use of eminent domain entails the existence of the power in the first place. Such negatively inferred powers are a staple of constitutional law at its most basic.

You are simply wrong. Acting as if you are an expert while being wrong does not change that. You are stating that the Bill of Rights created rights for the government rather than the people.

Oh my god, no. No it does not. In Communism, the goverment does not "take as it wishes" because it cannot take what it already controls -- Communism does not recognize the principle of private property. Everything is owned collectively by the people.

Semantics, however, you prove my point here.

Oh, and also, you miss the point entirely -- I am not arguing that the founders are, in fact, communist, but that the principle of eminent domain, in its recognition of the existence of private property, is not communist at all.

Taking away a business from its owner and putting it under control of the state would be consistent with Communist philosophy. We are talking about the principle, not saying that the act would make the government Communist, and further using that distinction to show how ridiculous your point of view is.

Sigh. Again, totally wrong. The "town" did not "prove" anything;

So they didnt make an argument in the controversial Supreme Court case?

that it was in the interest of the community to develop the land was not established in court,

Yes it was, that was actually the basis for the ruling.

but municipality's legislature voting to positively assert this. What the Supreme Court case determined was not that it was, in fact, in this particular town's best interest, but that the town's government was the sole determiner of the towns' interests, and that their use of eminent domain could not be overturned via the court.

That is not correct.

Also, please, show me where I made any indication that eminent domain was a "whim."

The very discussion of taking away the NFL teams from their owners because the fans are unhappy there is a labor dispute indicates that.

Please show me where I made any claim of the government's power to exercise eminent domain that wasn't a direct reference to an incidence of its exercise from U.S. history.

You are applying it to this case by using examples that are not comparable.

Uh, actually, the very Surpreme Court decision on the New London case you mentioned above establishes that yes, if congress so chose, it could decide that taking over the NFL was in the nation's best interest. I can't imagine a scenario in which congress would feel that it were necessary or prudent to, as I've made clear over and over again.

So you are arguing they could do it while arguing there is no basis. Wow.

And nobody said anything about congress running the NFL. This whole conversation is about the government assuming control and buying out the owners by forcing them to make the franchises public and sell at least 70% percent of the shares, and operate as the Packers do.

That is not part of eminent domain. Eminent domain does not allow the Government to take from one entity and give to another. Yet another flaw in your thinking here.

You do realize that when people talk about the Packers being "publicly owned," that doesn't mean that the town council of Green Bay, WI runs the team, right? (Actually, considering some of the other wacky crap you believe...)

Of course you must insult because you do not have an argument. It makes you look like a tool by the way.
Of course thiswhole statement is based upon your ignorance in the statement above.

You really should have taken the five minutes necessary to, you know, make sure what you claim five times in one post is actually right, for a change.

I'm not the one making errors in everything I say.
Please show me where you looked up that the Bills of Rights gave Rights to the Government and not the people.
Please show me where you looked up the Eminant Domain allows the Government to whimsically transfer ownership of companies.

I mean, you're posting on an online message board, so you clearly have an internet connection, so there's really no excuse to be so wrong so emphatically so often. If I were you, I'd have long ago slunk away in embarrassment./quote]
Well that is proven wrong because you have not, and your argument is horrendous.

Oy. Once more, and maybe this time it might sink in -- there isn't a single opinion on the use of eminent domain that could, in fact, "represent a Communist philosophy" seeing as how it entails the recognition of private property in the first place.

You finally got one right. The problem is YOUR definiton of Eminant Domain if it were correct would result in the creation of a Communist State.
You have proven yourself wrong once again by recognizing that Eminant Domain is not a Communist philosophy, however you wish to apply it in a manner that would occur in the emergence of a Communist State in America.
Thank God you know nothing about this.