This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I never said anything about the players or owners being the ones not cancelling a game - frankly it would probably take both - I'm saying somehow, someway a game would not be cancelled.We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm fine with that, I'm pretty sure you are too.Now how about that soccer discussion?
Plaxico Burress disagrees.Ah, see all the pro-player guys here would say that since it wasn't loaded, you didn't intend to use it.Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.'Bird said:
None of what Brees says has made or will make any difference. But, yes. It's pretty evident he is incapable of turning the autoloop feature off his rhetoric playlist.
He's been a bit of a #### on this the whole time, compared to Brady and Manning, if you follow him on twitter. Sort of the Jerry Richardson of the players, if you will. Nothing that will hurt long term, but comments that look foolish and divisive when they don't need to be. Of course my opinion way back on the Richardson comments was that he was designated as the owner's bad guy because he was mid-market, older and just had heart surgery and most importantly, is the only former player (IIRC). Maybe Brees was designated as the player's bad guy?
He is the absolute worst. He's still spewing "the owner's are trying to take back a billion dollars from us".
If the july 4th deadline is met, when do we think an "in principle" deal is done? Meeting like they have been (2-3 times a week) makes me think the week of june 20th would be the week they have to have all the major points worked out. This gives the lawyers a week to iron out the details, draw up the paperwork and announce the deal by the 4th.If, as David said, the deal could be done sooner, maybe the crazy reporter in new england isnt so crazy? Maybe the major details are done?One could only hope!
Speculation from Cowherd is that a deal announced next Thu/Fri after the NBA Finals--YMMV
Sure, is Barca coming stateside this offseason? Sure would love to see them in person since none of the good Gold Cup matches are in the NYC area.Now how about that soccer discussion?
There seems to be a Cone of Silence and a drastic reduction in acting like 13 year-old girls from both sides is a good sign that progress is being made.
Ah, haven't heard too much from him.
Been hearing a lot of the same David. Don't hear dates but optimism sounds like the word of the day.
I'm not sure. I'm only familiar with the teams my barber plays and frankly there's a lot of foreign language being bandied about so I have no idea who I'm watching.Haircut is tight though.Sure, is Barca coming stateside this offseason? Sure would love to see them in person since none of the good Gold Cup matches are in the NYC area.Now how about that soccer discussion?
Quality stuff here.Actually it's better than posting those wrong financial numbers like you've done several times in this topic.
This is a good thing.
This brings up another question. There is no way the court issues a.ruling if the sides are close, do they? I mean, if boylan passes on to the judges (if not directly, through a grapevine designed specifically for the judges to know how talks are going) that the sidea are making progress, I gotta think they hold their tounges as long as possible. They dont WANT to rule on this. not to mention they probably all want to make sure there their fantasy football leagues have a full season!
In my opinion the bolded has been clear since the appeal started. These three judges have done EVERYTHING they could to say 'hey, wingnuts, we don't want to rule and we shouldn't have to - figure it out'.I feel like they've been dragging their feet in the hopes the two sides get their act together, as they (allegedly) have now...
Its unlikely the judges would withhold their opinion. They tend to do things on their own time no matter what.
I agree that they do it in their time. But like I said, their time seems to be whatever encourages the two sides to figure it out. I dont think they make a ruling that could hinder or change talks if they are truely making progress
one side has been judged by a usa court to have acted in bad faith. it wasnt the players.
show your workLockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.
If you think that either side has operated with good faith then there is something wrong with you.
http://m.nbcsports.com/s/3108/proFootballTalkDetails?itemUriVal=6f27ef3e689dad1a933da986385bda7c%2F13491029061214134156291050&view=hdl&itemTitle=Mediator%20has%20different,%20but%20likely%20critical,%20role%20in%20not-so-secret%20talks Breer and pft seem to think that the judges will withhold their ruling if progress is being made...
You're off the mark on this one.The court will wait if the two sides are making progress. They don't want to issue a ruling if they can avoid it.
Yes and no. I think the word that there might be a settlement needs to come from both parties. Frequently in any civil matter, if the parties are nearing an accord, the court will give them extra time for that to occur. They always favor a solution that both sides have agreed to. So if both sides indicate that they think they are nearing a settlement, the court will hold off. If only one side thinks that way and/or the court is just 'hearing' of progress, but not hearing it from the parties themselves, they will proceed on as per normal and issue their ruling on their schedule.
Right. Artificially delaying the ruling helps whichever side is going to lose. The court shouldn't take it upon itself to help one side at the expense of the other. It's supposed to be neutral. If both sides ask it to hold off, that's different.
They are. How is this "spewing"? Can one spew a fact?
I'd say the sheer absolute rise in money contract wise is enough to argue that the players have been winning rather consistently. Don't forget that the Signing Bonus money is guaranteed so that is where these players are raking it in. Sure, teams can cut them but they are also dealing with Salary Caps themselves and as long as the players warrant the price, they'll get paid. If a player doesn't want to take a pay cut from $3.50 Million to $1.00 Million instead, that's on the player and not the owners. As for the Franchise Tags, remember that it's something like the average of the Top 5 players at the position. So it's not like they are signing a 1 year deal for the minimum salary. The lack of health care for former players I'd lay at the feet of the NFLPA.
They backed off of the billion long, long, ago, even before the players decertified. Mawae continues to talk about that instead of the most current offer.
However this unique situation has a judge sitting in the negotiations. with boylan there, I bet they take his advice as to if true progress is being made. This isn't a normal situation and thr judges have shown that they are willing to treat this as a unique situation.on a side note, they dont want to go.down in history as the court that ripped a cba from the brink of success and swung the pendulum into one sides favor and ruined the season.the court seems to be putting the public good in front of either the players.or the owners. Making sure the season is played is in the best interest of the public (for economic reasons, not entertainment)'Maurile Tremblay said:
I kind of agree with this, but I do disagree that word would necessarily need to come from both parties. If I'm not mistaken, a court representative - Judge Boylan - has been present for most of these latest rounds of talks and I would think word from him that progress is being made is enough for the courts to hold off. I think once word were to come from him that talks are no longer productive, that you'd then see a ruling come down.'Idiot Boxer said:
I find that unlikely. Boylan doesn't know how far each side is willing to bend. Progress is not a deal.
But progress leads to a deal, which is the goal. I would be shocked if a ruling comes out unless we hear that talks have broken down or stalled.
No, progress may lead to a deal. Or progess may lead to an impasse. For the court to withhold a ruling without a request from both sides would be unethical.
Wasn't the original request for a second billion off the top? If that is the case in reality it was only a request for an extra 580m to begin with, right? Because the owners would have already gotten 420m of the billion with the previous CBA. Sorry in advance if I'm butchering this data, admittedly I'm not overly familiar with this element of the negotiations.
I hardly think that letting the two sides work it.out on their own is unethical. if they were waiting an extra.month to make a ruling, sure thats a problem. But if boylan thinks their making progress, which a deal cannot be struck without, and they wait a week, I see no problem. A week doesnt really hurt anyone at the end of june/beginning of july. Also, this isnt just a couple judges guessing about whether the two sides are making progress. They have someone participating in the talks. For all we know, that is openly his roll in the talks right now. Finally, I doubt that the 8th circuit is going to say that they are waiting to rule to see if they work it out. They are just going to say they arent ready to rule yet. They have another.month to even get to the estimated timeframe for a decision.
no I think it was really an extra billion off the top (before any percentage splits) that over time has decreased to an extra $400 million off the top (in addition to the billion they already take.)
This is correct as far as I can remember. The problem was that the $400 million difference was only for year 1 of the new CBA, with the difference expected to grow greater each of the following years (since the owners didn't propose sharing any revenues that exceeded their projections for years 2 - 10).
So why haven't they made a ruling already? It's 'cause they're waiting.
It's only been 10 days - the ruling was expected to take, at a minimum, 2-3 weeks.IIRC the $400 billion number turned out to be reached only by counting player compensation differently than it had been in the past. But I'm foggy on the details now so could be wrong.'T J said:
Hopefully these are the type of things that will happen quietly, behind closed doors, by those that are "in the know" about when an agreement is actually near and is basically considered "done" by those with true knowledge of the situation. One or two more of these types of moves in the next few days could say a lot in terms of where things actually stand.'JbizzleMan said:
