Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Leonard Tose View Post
    That's why I dont understand why they didn't move him before the lockout hit.
    Because they couldn't. Once the trade deadline passes during the season, player trades are prohibited until the next league year. The next league year has not begun yet, so players still cannot be traded.

    If the stay is denied by the appeals court, then things may get interesting. The league may still have to work out details of how things will work, but maybe they will allow trades.

    There was supposition that the appeals court could rule as early as Thursday morning, which would make that a whopper of a day. But I see that Nelson is giving the players until tomorrow morning, so she may rule that day, but if she denies the stay (expected) it's unlikely the 8th circuit would decide in time for the draft. And it's unknown if the owners would allow trades until they could agree on ground rules after the CBA. So... 99% likelihood of still having Kolb after the draft. We would need to trade him for other players, or 2012 picks. That's just the way it has gone.

    Comment


    • #17
      It will be interesting to see how the PR machine of the NFL owners spins this!
      "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann



      Comment


      • #18
        AH-HA!!! It is the lawyers' fault (Knew that all along)!!! << Oh wait, it is only the UNION LAWYERS! >> The NFL remains committed to the principle of collective bargaining (as long as they get what they want out of it!).

        Litigation endangers NFL success

        By ROGER GOODELL

        Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.

        For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

        What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system - which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries - has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

        For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket - pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.

        For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.

        Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else - including the vast majority of players as well as the fans - would suffer.

        Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.

        In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

        Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue - on his own behalf or representing a class - to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.

        Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

        No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

        No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

        No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

        No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

        No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

        No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

        No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

        No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program - or not.

        Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.

        In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.

        Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players - those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars - play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

        Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

        Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance - close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests - are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

        These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

        Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.
        Last edited by stocknowledge; 04-26-2011, 04:02 PM.
        "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann



        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by FairOaks View Post
          Because they couldn't. Once the trade deadline passes during the season, player trades are prohibited until the next league year. The next league year has not begun yet, so players still cannot be traded.

          If the stay is denied by the appeals court, then things may get interesting. The league may still have to work out details of how things will work, but maybe they will allow trades.

          There was supposition that the appeals court could rule as early as Thursday morning, which would make that a whopper of a day. But I see that Nelson is giving the players until tomorrow morning, so she may rule that day, but if she denies the stay (expected) it's unlikely the 8th circuit would decide in time for the draft. And it's unknown if the owners would allow trades until they could agree on ground rules after the CBA. So... 99% likelihood of still having Kolb after the draft. We would need to trade him for other players, or 2012 picks. That's just the way it has gone.

          Thanks for the clarification, Fair Oaks.
          Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

          Comment


          • #20
            If I'm an owner of an NFL team my solution is a simple one - I buy back every NFL team so that the entire league is under the ownership of a single entity. Current owners would become board members and share holders of the corporation with equal voting stock but "special stock options" would make their financial investment equal to the current value of their team.

            Once all the players worked for a single company their ability to sue for antitrust problems goes away. Every team would be owned by the league and every player would work for the same corporation. The teams themselves would be managed by individual management groups who would have to balance the salary cap, draft players, sign "free agents" etc. How each group manages the team would be left up to them but the structure that they follow (i.e. the maximum and minimum salaries, number of players, etc.) would be under the company policies. Fuck off players! Don't like the system? Don't work for this company!!
            Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
            Bleedin' Green since birth!

            "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

            ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

            Comment


            • #21
              I'm sure the players challenged just about every aspect of the business... The more rulings in their favor the more leverage they have. Killing the draft would indeed be a disaster, as would lots of other existing practices.

              I found it rather interesting Goodell mentioned free agency though as I believe that was only something the players got in the first place by decertifying and filing an antitrust lawsuit. That did change the NFL dramatically but did not ruin things.

              Comment

              Working...
              X