Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

No NFL 2011/2012


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 OFFLINE   djlong

djlong

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,188 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire
Joined: Jul 08, 2002

Posted 15 March 2011 - 05:05 AM

It's a less-violent version of union 'thugs' going on strike and physically preventing 'scabs' from coming and taking their jobs by setting up their picket line outside the parking lot of the factory.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#62 OFFLINE   DawgLink

DawgLink

    Woof Woof Woof

  • Registered
  • 1,543 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC
Joined: Nov 05, 2006

Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:57 PM

The fact that the players thought the NFL draft idea would be remotely a good idea shows how absolutely clueless those people are that control the players union.

#63 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,249 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 21 March 2011 - 09:31 PM

I swear it seems like the players and owners are trying to compete to LOSE the public opinion support...

The players non-union has asked kids up for the NFL draft to not show up to shake hands and be on TV when they are drafted.

Besides the fact that these kids aren't yet in the NFL (until they sign)... this is asking kids to give up a dream of being a high draft pick and making that walk to the stage all over stuff that they currently have no voice in...

I was on the players' side more in the beginning... and the NFL hasn't helped its cause... but today's news of this request made on not-yet-players... has me scratching my head.


One thing to remember is the "get invited to NY, walk across the stage on TV, shake hands, etc." is a new thing.

And the players association is not telling them to not go--they are educating them and letting them make up their own minds.

With a suitable alternative, this could work. Though almost anything that is broadcast will likely still enhance the NFL, so it's all moot.

On the other hand, the players need to also do the best for themselves. They are building their own brand. They need to control their own publicity.

Cheers,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#64 OFFLINE   DawgLink

DawgLink

    Woof Woof Woof

  • Registered
  • 1,543 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC
Joined: Nov 05, 2006

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:20 PM

And the players association is not telling them to not go--they are educating them and letting them make up their own minds.


Of course they are telling them not to go

I mean, I am not sure how anyone can take "Do not go....ok, well, we will have an event of our own" as them actually giving a choice to the players

Trent Dilfer and Tedy Bruschi both on ESPN Sportscenter the other night agreed that players NOT going to the players event would be behind the 8-ball with teammates and the Union.

If that isn't clear enough of a push, I am not sure what is

#65 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,505 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:39 PM

Of course they are telling them not to go

I mean, I am not sure how anyone can take "Do not go....ok, well, we will have an event of our own" as them actually giving a choice to the players

Trent Dilfer and Tedy Bruschi both on ESPN Sportscenter the other night agreed that players NOT going to the players event would be behind the 8-ball with teammates and the Union.

If that isn't clear enough of a push, I am not sure what is


Exactly... There are multiple problems in play here with the "request":

1. The soon-to-be NFL players are not yet players in the NFL... and as such, are not currently part of the labor dispute. Asking or encouraging them to do anything is in poor taste. Couldn't the owners just as well "encourage" agents not to take on new clients for similar reasons?

2. There is an implied "threat" that players who attend the draft will be ostracized by the current players once the dispute is over and a new contract in place. You can be sure that kids who attend the NFL draft will be noted and remembered and NFL players will treat them differently later.

3. IF we are to believe the union has disbanded... then there is no players' union... which means there is no union to request that not-yet-players do anything at all... You can't have it both ways... disband the union and you can't claim the future players.

4. These soon-to-be players will have ZERO say in the current negotiations. Even the ones who choose to comply and not go to the draft will not be in the union (union doesn't exist supposedly AND even if it did, the players are not in the union until they sign a contract with a team... and that can't happen until the new contract is in place!)... so there is no reason to place burden on players that you aren't going to allow to have a voice in the negotiations.

There are a lot more reasons that I'm not even remembering right now.

It's just poor form for the NFL players to try and involve people who aren't part of the current negotiations.

I would say the same thing IF the NFL began encouraging the new players not to sign with the Players' "Association" and encouraged them to start their own union. In fact... with the union supposedly disbanded... why couldn't the NFL start petitioning ALL players who disagree with the current leaders to form a new union of players and then enter a new NFL contract with that union!

How would them apples taste?

-- I like to go fast (not really)


#66 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,249 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 22 March 2011 - 09:16 AM

Exactly... There are multiple problems in play here with the "request":

1. The soon-to-be NFL players are not yet players in the NFL... and as such, are not currently part of the labor dispute. Asking or encouraging them to do anything is in poor taste. Couldn't the owners just as well "encourage" agents not to take on new clients for similar reasons?

2. There is an implied "threat" that players who attend the draft will be ostracized by the current players once the dispute is over and a new contract in place. You can be sure that kids who attend the NFL draft will be noted and remembered and NFL players will treat them differently later.

3. IF we are to believe the union has disbanded... then there is no players' union... which means there is no union to request that not-yet-players do anything at all... You can't have it both ways... disband the union and you can't claim the future players.

4. These soon-to-be players will have ZERO say in the current negotiations. Even the ones who choose to comply and not go to the draft will not be in the union (union doesn't exist supposedly AND even if it did, the players are not in the union until they sign a contract with a team... and that can't happen until the new contract is in place!)... so there is no reason to place burden on players that you aren't going to allow to have a voice in the negotiations.

There are a lot more reasons that I'm not even remembering right now.

It's just poor form for the NFL players to try and involve people who aren't part of the current negotiations.

I would say the same thing IF the NFL began encouraging the new players not to sign with the Players' "Association" and encouraged them to start their own union. In fact... with the union supposedly disbanded... why couldn't the NFL start petitioning ALL players who disagree with the current leaders to form a new union of players and then enter a new NFL contract with that union!

How would them apples taste?


Um... the draftees have PLENTY of involvement and say in this fight. With the lockout they can't sign, they can't negotiate, they are the ones who will have a rookie scale (in fact most of these will have the most impacted rookie scale since they are the most likely to be drafted in round 1 and with the first 16 picks), they might be free agents if the anti-trust is upheld, they can't workout, QBs can't go to QB school, etc.

Employers can't start a union. Kinda defeats the purpose... :) I suppose they could suggest players start another union--but that tells the judge that even the NFL thinks the NFLPA has disbanded as a union. A road the NFL won't go down until the NLRB rules about the union status.

Players don't have to be in the union to affect one each others decisions. :)

Cheers,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#67 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,505 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:28 PM

Um... the draftees have PLENTY of involvement and say in this fight. With the lockout they can't sign, they can't negotiate, they are the ones who will have a rookie scale (in fact most of these will have the most impacted rookie scale since they are the most likely to be drafted in round 1 and with the first 16 picks), they might be free agents if the anti-trust is upheld, they can't workout, QBs can't go to QB school, etc.


Read what I said again...

I never said the draftees weren't affected... I said they don't get a vote!

When are the draftees invited to the union meetings to vote? Are the draftees invited to join the anti-trust suit now that the union has disbanded?

The fact is... while a LOT of the negotiations will ultimately affect the draftees once they sign with the NFL... until they sign with the NFL, the draftees have no part in the negotiations. I am just as much a participant in the labor negotiations as the draftees at this point!

That was one of my points... the players "union" is suggesting and asking draftees to sacrifice something when they may never even get drafted anyway! Or may not get a contract... or may get a rookie scale that cuts their salary... and the draftees get ZERO input on any of these negotiations.

Employers can't start a union. Kinda defeats the purpose... :) I suppose they could suggest players start another union--but that tells the judge that even the NFL thinks the NFLPA has disbanded as a union. A road the NFL won't go down until the NLRB rules about the union status.


True... The NFL wants to first content the anti-trust suit on the basis that the union "disbanding" is fiction.

IF, however, the NFL loses that... then given the players' actions to suggest participation of non-NFL employees/players (the draftees)... IF things get nasty, I would not put it past the NFL to suggest to draftees and current players that do not like all the moves of the "union"... the NFL could suggest that they would be interested in negotiating with anyone, and IF a new union with different leadership was formed, perhaps they would negotiate with them first.

The point being... this "disbanding" can backfire IF all the players are not on the same page. It is a dangerous thing to disband your union unless you know all your players are on the same page. I'm not clear on whether they are or not.

Players don't have to be in the union to affect one each others decisions. :)


True... but it does become more difficult to present a unified front.

Consider, for example, the anti-trust suit... Most of the named players you hear on TV are the big players like Manning or Brees or Brady... so... what if someone nudged all those players who are making "scale" by saying... hey, aren't you an NFL player too? Why isn't your name on that suit? Did anyone ask you what you wanted from the negotiations? Now that the union has disbanded, who is making decisions for your future?

It could get nasty if the fires are stoked.

-- I like to go fast (not really)


#68 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,249 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 23 March 2011 - 04:27 PM

Read what I said again...

I never said the draftees weren't affected... I said they don't get a vote!

When are the draftees invited to the union meetings to vote? Are the draftees invited to join the anti-trust suit now that the union has disbanded?

The fact is... while a LOT of the negotiations will ultimately affect the draftees once they sign with the NFL... until they sign with the NFL, the draftees have no part in the negotiations. I am just as much a participant in the labor negotiations as the draftees at this point!

That was one of my points... the players "union" is suggesting and asking draftees to sacrifice something when they may never even get drafted anyway! Or may not get a contract... or may get a rookie scale that cuts their salary... and the draftees get ZERO input on any of these negotiations.



True... The NFL wants to first content the anti-trust suit on the basis that the union "disbanding" is fiction.

IF, however, the NFL loses that... then given the players' actions to suggest participation of non-NFL employees/players (the draftees)... IF things get nasty, I would not put it past the NFL to suggest to draftees and current players that do not like all the moves of the "union"... the NFL could suggest that they would be interested in negotiating with anyone, and IF a new union with different leadership was formed, perhaps they would negotiate with them first.

The point being... this "disbanding" can backfire IF all the players are not on the same page. It is a dangerous thing to disband your union unless you know all your players are on the same page. I'm not clear on whether they are or not.



True... but it does become more difficult to present a unified front.

Consider, for example, the anti-trust suit... Most of the named players you hear on TV are the big players like Manning or Brees or Brady... so... what if someone nudged all those players who are making "scale" by saying... hey, aren't you an NFL player too? Why isn't your name on that suit? Did anyone ask you what you wanted from the negotiations? Now that the union has disbanded, who is making decisions for your future?

It could get nasty if the fires are stoked.


There is no union, so the draftees have the same say as any other player. "You want me, then pay me... But wait, you've locked me out."

And you put it they wouldn't be in the union until they sign, which is technically true but the contract they sign is very much affected by the union. They don't have to sign until the contract is right. They have say, after all they are the product just as much as any player.

As for decertifying, they had to now. If they waited until after the CBA was done, they had to wait 6 months to pull that trigger. That is their key leverage. (And by doing this now, there is a chance this will get settled before the season would start. If they had to wait 6 months, there is very little chance it gets settled.

See I think the owners don't have a clue: (all in my opinion)
1) They did not expect three very big names on the lawsuits.
2) They did not expect they would actually decertify.
3) They thought this would be quicker and easier.
4) They completely underestimated how D. Smith's transparency would work for the players. The players are much better prepared than anyone expected. (Even the agents were caught off guard at how well the players understand the whole situation.)
5) They thought they could get the players to break apart now. But see players don't get any money now anyway. They are already prepared for a few months of no pay. They have no need to break yet. (Yeah, some big players might get a bonus--but they don't need the money immediately. and the little guys don't get anything so they are prepared too.)

So the owners keep acting like they can control things and bamboozle the players. But the players have hired some very, very good help. An investment bank, good lawyers, etc.

One last point. Class action lawsuits (which is part of what's going on) does not start immediately with all 1500 members of the class. The first 5 or more members file the lawsuit, then the judge certifies that this is a class lawsuit rather than individual lawsuits. So having 3 big names plus 6 other key names it all the players need right now. Then the rest join in. So don't be fooled that the players ain't in it on paper right now. :)

Cheers,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#69 OFFLINE   lwilli201

lwilli201

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,988 posts
Joined: Dec 22, 2006

Posted 24 March 2011 - 10:06 AM

I have to laugh when I hear owner greed when the top players, usually quarterbacks, are getting a very large chunk of a teams salary cap and wanting more. That is money that can be used to pay the other players a higher wage. Will Brees, Manning or Brady give up some of their money to help out, not a chance. They want more and more. How about a cap on the top players?
1-HR21-100, 2-HR21-700, 1 w/eSATA, all networked, unsupported MRV. AT9 Dish(110 & 119 disabled) and SWM8.

#70 OFFLINE   Dave

Dave

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 864 posts
Joined: Jan 28, 2003

Posted 25 March 2011 - 11:18 AM

On the flip side we see a millionaire fan in Cleveland suing the Browns and players for the lock out because he can't buy his tickets. Also you may want to keep an eye on the rule changes being made. Kick-off moved back up to the 35 yard line. This will probably mean less touch-down returns and more touchbacks.

#71 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,375 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 25 April 2011 - 04:57 PM

From the LA Times:

Judge Susan Nelson of the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis granted the request of the players for an injunction that forces NFL teams to continue football operations.

...Nelson could have granted the injunction but issued a stay to keep the lockout in place until the appeal. However, she decided not to stay the decision, meaning the league must lift the lockout immediately and cannot put it in place while it waits for an appellate court's decision.


"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian





spam firewall