Jump to content

  •  

Welcome to JetNation.com


Sign In  Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Create Account
Welcome to JetNation.com, your home for New York Jets talk. We are an independent site, which means we aren't affiliated with the NY Jets or SNY. The opinions here are never censored. We want you to join in on the conversation, but don't worry this is a simple and FREE process. Be apart of JetNation.com by signing in or creating an account. When you create an account, you can also opt to use your existing Facebook or Twitter login.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
Also be sure to check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

8th District court rules in owners favor


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#26 dbatesman

dbatesman

    Failgoat 2.0

  • Members
  • 8,845 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 10:07 PM

But is the money Doty can possibly give (around 700 million to the entire players association which is a ton of players right now rather than the original award of around 7 million) that much of a help to the players? You are talking about 500K per player max. That might keep the low scale guys on board a bit longer but is going to do nothing for the midwage earners that make over the minimum and have not been careful with their money. Plus by the time the NFL appeals that decision and a final verdict comes down its going to be quite some time before the players see any money at all.


Point taken RE: the appeal. It obviously wouldn't be enough to keep them out indefinitely, but I'd worry that some guys would it'd create fissures within the union, though I suppose that's bound to happen anyway. Part of the reason I think the injunction is best for the fans is that it doesn't even give the players a chance to drag things out with a bunch of internal dissension.
  • 0

This is like having a cat with leukemia.


#27 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,975 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 16 May 2011 - 10:54 PM

The problem is the players cant hold out like that. This is very different than the original suits where players had real gripes about freedom, pay, treatment, etc...Those players were actually fighting for something. Now you are asking players in a league with big salaries and very short lifespans to possibly miss their last earning year because they feel they deserve a few more dollars that most of these players would never see anyway? Look at a guy like Jamaal Westerman. He is set to make 480K in the last year of his contract. This is probably his last chance to make an impression and earn a contract that goes beyond 2011. Every day that disappears is a day where his window grows smaller and smaller. Essentially the players are asking him to give up $480K so a player like him can earn an extra 10K-50K (depending on what stories about the minimum salaries are true) a year while the big money goes to the stars in the future when he is out of a job in the NFL. That is asking an awful lot when his alternative is likely a 9-5 job paying 30K a year to start so Peyton Manning can earn 23 million per year instead of 20 million per year. There are a ton of guys like him in the NFL and if I was one of them Id be desperate to get back to work and protect my best chance for maximizing my personal earnings.


Yup, right about now I bet old DeMaurices I - Phone is lit up like a Christmas tree with players freaking out.

Hes painted them into a corner and thrown away the key.
  • 0

#28 kelticwizard

kelticwizard

    2nd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 3,447 posts
  • LocationSoutheastern Connecticut

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:36 AM

Are the players getting paid now?

Because if they are, I don't see where a stay of appeal for perhaps 3 weeks amounts to Game Over, despite all the braggadocio I'm seeing from the owners' supporters.
  • 0

#29 BroadwayJ667

BroadwayJ667

    JetNation Spokesman

  • Members
  • 3,318 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:42 AM

It would appear there will be another two weeks of waiting, because there is supposed to be another ruling on June 3.

I just don't care about this stuff right now. This stupid collective bargaining cost me a job with the Jets. They were bringing me in for an interview and then when the league shut down, so did the job with it.

Owners are greedy and want more money back, players are greedy and want to keep what they negotiated for with Tagliabue, and I don't have an interest in either side because I don't care what they do with the money. It's all evil and it makes people act stupid and irrational.

fu** em all
  • 0
Posted Image
NYJ 2012 season will be rebuilt like, Now more appropriate with Tebow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kse0MG5n9wI&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL716A68B046C6E750

#30 Bugg

Bugg

    Of counsel whack job

  • Members
  • 14,891 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:50 AM

the networks money, our money is chump change.this is good for fans because it will lead to a quicker resolution. one side has a big hammer, the other side is a nail. the worst case scenario would have been a stalemate, that could have gone well into october in my opinion. as fans, we also want to keep the draft, the cap, and moderate player movement restrictions. the players did reference in one of thier filings the legality of the draft. that may have been a chip they would have conceded later on, or they may have tried to get rid of it.

update

judge doty will more or less decide how this goes. pray he decides in the owners favor. if he gives the players a war chest, I don't think we see football in 2011

link to story

If that is so, why are Buffalo, Carolina and Cinncinati pushing this, while the big market teams would love to cut the crap and settle tomorrow?

At this point, a pox on both their houses. If there is no season I'm dumping the tickets, and suspect I and many others are going to try to get out of the PSL. The agreement is very one-sded, but no 2011 season and the jets haven't kept their part of the bargain.
  • 0
Objective-Glendale, Arizona

Super Bowl 49-February, 2015

#31 jason423

jason423

    Rookie Free Agent

  • Members
  • 1,927 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:03 AM

Are the players getting paid now?

Because if they are, I don't see where a stay of appeal for perhaps 3 weeks amounts to Game Over, despite all the braggadocio I'm seeing from the owners' supporters.


The only players getting paid now are those who had signing bonus payments scheduled throughout this year (signing bonus money is usually not paid in a lump sum upon signing a contract its just accounted for that way) and those with deferred salaries from last season. All the money tied into 2011 (roster bonuses, workout bonuses, option bonuses, supersede bonuses, etc...) are being withheld. For example Brady is making millions throughout the lockout making his part in the lawsuit pretty ridiculous.

The reason why the stay is a big deal is because of the language used by the court. Basically it says that two judges who are going to hear the appeal see almost no legal merit to the decision made by the lower court. It makes the case itself just seem like a formality.
  • 0

#32 T0mShane

T0mShane

    When it's over, that's the time I fall in love againlolo

  • Members
  • 28,105 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:05 AM

Hes painted them into a corner and thrown away the key.



D Smith didn't lock them out, and it's the owners painting themselves into a corner totally and completely. Best case scenario for fans is that the players are in camp, working and getting paid/placated while Smith and Goodell hammer out a deal. As is, what you're going to have is a Mexican standoff wherein the owners are basically going to try and starve the players out of the castle.

If you're the players, your next big chip is to hold out as long as you can so you start costing the NFL regular season games, which is when the owners start to cry poverty for real. I suspect that's what will happen, for as long as the players can hold ranks. If Doty gives them their $700 mil and it's rationed properly, the players could probably take this into November-December.

Prepare for a bunch of dark, expensive stadiums this Fall.

Edited by Sperm Edwards, 17 May 2011 - 07:18 AM.

  • 0
Well, that's the internet, man: 9 billion tough guys who secretly want to touch your pee-pee.

#33 Scott Dierking

Scott Dierking

    Jerk

  • Members
  • 13,445 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:08 AM

for as long as the players can hold ranks.


Therein lies your problem.

This ain't baseball, and Smith certainly is no Marvin Miller.

Players are going to fold up, once this starts getting serious.
  • 0
Originally Posted by Blackout™
LOL ignorance is bless.

#34 T0mShane

T0mShane

    When it's over, that's the time I fall in love againlolo

  • Members
  • 28,105 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:16 AM

If that is so, why are Buffalo, Carolina and Cinncinati pushing this, while the big market teams would love to cut the crap and settle tomorrow?



Buffalo, Cincy, etc., need to lessen the money that goes to players in anticipation of their financial apocalypse, where Jerry Jones eventually takes away the profit-sharing welfare program that has made it possible for low-end teams to win Super Bowls without actually building billion dollar stadiums to gouge fans in. Imagine how sad it must make ol' Jerry and lil' Danny Snyder and ol' Woody to have sodomized all those taxpayers for big, new sh*tboxes only to have to watch (gasp!) Pittsburgh play (gasp!) Green Bay in the Super Bowl!
  • 0
Well, that's the internet, man: 9 billion tough guys who secretly want to touch your pee-pee.

#35 T0mShane

T0mShane

    When it's over, that's the time I fall in love againlolo

  • Members
  • 28,105 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:19 AM

Therein lies your problem.

This ain't baseball, and Smith certainly is no Marvin Miller.

Players are going to fold up, once this starts getting serious.


They haven't yet and they're likely to get their war chest fattened by $700 mil in a few weeks. That should be enough to keep Cromartie's children in Rolexes for a few months, at least.
  • 1
Well, that's the internet, man: 9 billion tough guys who secretly want to touch your pee-pee.

#36 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,975 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:22 AM

D Smith didn't lock them out, and it's the owners painting themselves into a corner totally and completely. Best case scenario for fans is that the players are in camp, working and getting paid/placated while Smith and Goodell hammer out a deal. As is, the owners went and found some of W's good ol' boys in the 8th circuit that like to break unions and now what you're going to have is a Mexican standoff wherein the owners are basically going to try and starve the players out of the castle.

If you're the players, your next big chip is to hold out as long as you can so you start costing the NFL regular season games, which is when the owners start to cry poverty for real. I suspect that's what will happen, for as long as the players can hold ranks. If Doty gives them their $700 mil and it's rationed properly, the players could probably take this into November-December.

Prepare for a bunch of dark, expensive stadiums this Fall.


Smith has to go back to the bargaining table or get caught in another one of his lies. Doing whats best for the players and getting back to the business of football for the fans means a new CBA. Not more of his lawsuits.
  • 0

#37 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,975 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:24 AM

They haven't yet and they're likely to get their war chest fattened by $700 mil in a few weeks. That should be enough to keep Cromartie's children in Rolexes for a few months, at least.


Im pretty sure that ruling can be appealed too.
  • 0

#38 Scott Dierking

Scott Dierking

    Jerk

  • Members
  • 13,445 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:24 AM

Who would have guessed that decertifying as a union and then minutes later acting exactly as a union would not be noticed?
  • 0
Originally Posted by Blackout™
LOL ignorance is bless.

#39 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,975 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:25 AM

Therein lies your problem.

This ain't baseball, and Smith certainly is no Marvin Miller.

Players are going to fold up, once this starts getting serious.


Yup, its a matter of time.
  • 0

#40 T0mShane

T0mShane

    When it's over, that's the time I fall in love againlolo

  • Members
  • 28,105 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:27 AM

Smith has to go back to the bargaining table or get caught in another one of his lies. Doing whats best for the players and getting back to the business of football for the fans means a new CBA. Not more of his lawsuits.



I would just so love to hire you to work for my company. You'd be the perfect employee.
  • 1
Well, that's the internet, man: 9 billion tough guys who secretly want to touch your pee-pee.

#41 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,975 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:43 AM

D Smith didn't lock them out, and it's the owners painting themselves into a corner totally and completely. Best case scenario for fans is that the players are in camp, working and getting paid/placated while Smith and Goodell hammer out a deal. As is, what you're going to have is a Mexican standoff wherein the owners are basically going to try and starve the players out of the castle.

If you're the players, your next big chip is to hold out as long as you can so you start costing the NFL regular season games, which is when the owners start to cry poverty for real. I suspect that's what will happen, for as long as the players can hold ranks. If Doty gives them their $700 mil and it's rationed properly, the players could probably take this into November-December.

Prepare for a bunch of dark, expensive stadiums this Fall.


No, D Smith had the NFLPA quit being a union, so he and Kessler could sue the owners when they didnt get their way. Black mail, nice. The whole thing has back fired in his face. D Smith will win in Minnesota court and then lose on appeal in the St Louis court who have the final say. This will go on for months and you cant blame the owners for appealing when Smith is suing them. He wanted to go there.
  • 0

#42 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,975 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:44 AM

I would just so love to hire you to work for my company. You'd be the perfect employee.


If you dont let me work for you, I will see you in court.

Damn rich employers are all alike.
  • 0

#43 T0mShane

T0mShane

    When it's over, that's the time I fall in love againlolo

  • Members
  • 28,105 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:02 AM

If you dont let me work for you, I will see you in court.

Damn rich employers are all alike.


:lol:


Point is, this isn't getting settled in the courts. The entire function of these lawsuits and Kessler is to simply serve as a reminder that the NFL operates outside of the law and that the owners have only implicit freedom to manipulate a CBA. The courts are just a leveraging device for the players, and not the major determinant in these negotiations. The courts aren't going to hand them a CBA.
  • 1
Well, that's the internet, man: 9 billion tough guys who secretly want to touch your pee-pee.

#44 New York Mick

New York Mick

    Still Censored

  • Members
  • 9,005 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:07 AM

The owners of businesses make more money then the people that work for them in every business so players shut the **** up get your over paid checks and get back to ******* work. Most of you greedy cunts came from sh*t and wouldn't be making sh*t if it wasn't for the NFL owners who put up their money to buy a business and hire your dumbasses.

Stop being greedy stupid cunts and get back to work
  • 0

#45 FloridaJetsFan

FloridaJetsFan

    Hail Caesar

  • Members
  • 2,514 posts
  • LocationNavarre, FL

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:43 AM

The owners of businesses make more money then the people that work for them in every business so players shut the **** up get your over paid checks and get back to ******* work. Most of you greedy cunts came from sh*t and wouldn't be making sh*t if it wasn't for the NFL owners who put up their money to buy a business and hire your dumbasses.

Stop being greedy stupid cunts and get back to work


I was under the impression that the owners want to take $1 Billion dollars away from the players and split it among themselves as profit to the owners? Didn't the players offer to extend the current CBA in order to prevent the busting up of the union? :confused0082:

Edited by FloridaJetsFan, 17 May 2011 - 08:43 AM.

  • 0

#46 flgreen

flgreen

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 17,183 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:10 AM

This is only part of the story. I believe it was in 2005 (not sure) the owners extended the CBA in an attempt to avoid a work stoppage. They excepted a CBA they weren’t comfortable with in the hopes that they could agree with the players on a long term CBA. They were smart enough to leave an opt out clause in the contract in the event that the NFLPA wouldn’t negotiate in good faith.

People seldom willing surrender something they already have, and wouldn’t come to the table to cut a long standing CBA. The owners exercised their opt-out clause.

The union decertified in order to settle it by litigation, rather then negotiation.

Here we are, and I don’t think it is going to get much better for some time.

That’s my understanding of it at least.
  • 0

#47 Scott Dierking

Scott Dierking

    Jerk

  • Members
  • 13,445 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:14 AM

I was under the impression that the owners want to take $1 Billion dollars away from the players and split it among themselves as profit to the owners? Didn't the players offer to extend the current CBA in order to prevent the busting up of the union? :confused0082:


The owners claim they they get bent over by an overzealous Tagliabue who only wanted usher a deal, and not have to deal with a work struggle. The former deal does not account for all of the revenue streams, does not adequately address revenue sharing and does not account for all the outlays the owners have,

Extending a deal only continues to allow discontent to fester, and doesn't solve the problems. They need to work this out.
  • 1
Originally Posted by Blackout™
LOL ignorance is bless.

#48 JetNation

JetNation

    Transition Player

  • Members
  • 5,953 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:50 AM

Posted Image

If you are a fan of the NFL lockout, the news just got better.  For everyone else, the news is not good.

According to The Red Zone.org:

The 8th circuit Court of Appeals has granted the NFL’s motion for a stay on the appeal  which means until at least the first week of June and possibly much longer according to the Associated Press.

The 2-1 decision similar to the decision last month from the same judges, including a lengthy dissent from the same judge.

The appellate court said it believed the NFL has proven it “likely will suffer some degree of irreparable harm without a stay.” It also cast doubt on the conclusions of U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who ruled April 25 that the lockout should be lifted — only to have the 8th Circuit panel put her decision on hold four days later.

“In sum, we have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the league’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the league has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” the majority wrote.

Football fans are past tired of this lockout and are discussing in the NFL forum on JetNation.

http://feedads.g.dou...OMf4/0/di</img>http://feedads.g.dou...OMf4/1/di</img>

http://feeds.feedbur.../~4/6wWgQTk0YdM

View the full article
  • 0

#49 jason423

jason423

    Rookie Free Agent

  • Members
  • 1,927 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:10 AM

This is only part of the story. I believe it was in 2005 (not sure) the owners extended the CBA in an attempt to avoid a work stoppage. They excepted a CBA they weren’t comfortable with in the hopes that they could agree with the players on a long term CBA. They were smart enough to leave an opt out clause in the contract in the event that the NFLPA wouldn’t negotiate in good faith.

People seldom willing surrender something they already have, and wouldn’t come to the table to cut a long standing CBA. The owners exercised their opt-out clause.

The union decertified in order to settle it by litigation, rather then negotiation.

Here we are, and I don’t think it is going to get much better for some time.

That’s my understanding of it at least.


Thats more or less what happened. JMO, but I think the league was caught totally off guard when the NFLPA elected D. Smith to head the union. All along the NFL had assumed that what was going to happen was that Troy Vincent was going to naturally assume Upshaws role once Upshaw stepped down. Vincent had worked with the NFL during the last labor deal and the assumption was he would be business as usual and there would be a smooth transaction once he got elected. It never happened as the new NFLPA leadership, probably headed by Kevin Mawae at the time, pushed for a new type of head- one with a legal background rather than a former player with a relationship with the NFL heads. It totally threw the NFL off. I also dont think they ever expected the union leader to go on the TV and radio and be so vocal and in the spotlight with the rhetoric. That is probably where alot of the bad feelings on the owners side come from and they have been unjustifiably nasty at times to certain players.
  • 1

#50 FloridaJetsFan

FloridaJetsFan

    Hail Caesar

  • Members
  • 2,514 posts
  • LocationNavarre, FL

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:13 AM

The owners claim they they get bent over by an overzealous Tagliabue who only wanted usher a deal, and not have to deal with a work struggle. The former deal does not account for all of the revenue streams, does not adequately address revenue sharing and does not account for all the outlays the owners have,

Extending a deal only continues to allow discontent to fester, and doesn't solve the problems. They need to work this out.


Thanks for the insight!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users