PDA

View Full Version : Roger Goodell: Football's Future


Butterscotch Stallion
04-26-2011, 06:48 PM
Football's Future If the Players Win
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?m od=rss_most_emailed_week&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_7253+%28W SJ.com%3A+Most+Emailed+Week%29
"There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams.

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.

Small-market teams like the Buffalo Bills 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.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-26-2011, 06:56 PM
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2011/04/football%E2%80%99s-terrible-future-if-the-players-win.html

THE WHOLE WORLD'S GONNA END!!!!!!!!

Boobs McGee
04-26-2011, 07:34 PM
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2011/04/football%E2%80%99s-terrible-future-if-the-players-win.html

THE WHOLE WORLD'S GONNA END!!!!!!!!

that is freaking AWESOME!

oubronco
04-26-2011, 07:36 PM
That sounds absolutely terrible! But I doubt the owners would pay contracts through the roof like they make it sound in that article. Ultimately the owners would still be who payed the players and with no union they could all get together and lowball the players couldn't they?

gyldenlove
04-26-2011, 08:03 PM
That sounds absolutely terrible! But I doubt the owners would pay contracts through the roof like they make it sound in that article. Ultimately the owners would still be who payed the players and with no union they could all get together and lowball the players couldn't they?

Considering that the owners think they are paying too much already, they probably won't pay even more if the salary cap disappears entirely.

Hamrob
04-26-2011, 08:29 PM
Interesting. If the Owners made more money...then, I think they would be fine with paying more money. But, when you only play 16 games...it's hard to match NBA, MLB salaries!

It's the greatest sport...but, it takes more out of players and doesn't draw as much revenue.

Chris
04-26-2011, 08:41 PM
Message to both sides - don't ruin the best sport on the planet. Basketball - hopeless. European Soccer - hopeless. Baseball - beyond hopeless.

Houshyamama
04-26-2011, 08:48 PM
Considering that the owners think they are paying too much already, they probably won't pay even more if the salary cap disappears entirely.

http://www.davidduke.com/images/Dan-Snyder.jpg

extralife
04-26-2011, 09:19 PM
It's the greatest sport...but, it takes more out of players and doesn't draw as much revenue.

perhaps you have heard of things called "the TV" and "advertising"

Broncojef
04-26-2011, 09:44 PM
That sounds absolutely terrible! But I doubt the owners would pay contracts through the roof like they make it sound in that article. Ultimately the owners would still be who payed the players and with no union they could all get together and lowball the players couldn't they?

It would end just like baseball. teams like the Yankees and RedSox spending huge $$$ while small market teams would continually suck. Jerry Jones and Snyder would have some obnoxious teams and talent we would always cheer against but in the end television contracts and all play-offs would involve the Giants, the Cowboys and the Redskins. Sorry I'm with the owners on this I like what we've had and hate the baseball construct.

FireFly
04-27-2011, 05:03 AM
That sounds absolutely terrible! But I doubt the owners would pay contracts through the roof like they make it sound in that article. Ultimately the owners would still be who payed the players and with no union they could all get together and lowball the players couldn't they?

I think in the end, if this the players win our league will look like European Soccer but on a smaller scale. In each league there are a few big teams that win... and then there are all the other teams that never will.

ol#7
04-27-2011, 05:22 AM
It would end just like baseball. teams like the Yankees and RedSox spending huge $$$ while small market teams would continually suck. Jerry Jones and Snyder would have some obnoxious teams and talent we would always cheer against but in the end television contracts and all play-offs would involve the Giants, the Cowboys and the Redskins. Sorry I'm with the owners on this I like what we've had and hate the baseball construct.

This^^^^

This paradigm already exists in other sports and it makes many markets irrelevant, or at best only able to compete occassionally while losing their best homegrown talent as soon as they get good.

Of course the players are for it. Who wouldnt want to make as much as the market will bare and also choose where they want to live/work? If they get what they want, then the sport will in fact change. Im not interested in seeing the best sport on the planet killed off in such a way.

DrFate
04-27-2011, 05:27 AM
That sounds absolutely terrible! But I doubt the owners would pay contracts through the roof like they make it sound in that article. Ultimately the owners would still be who payed the players and with no union they could all get together and lowball the players couldn't they?

They call that collusion...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2011, 05:45 AM
And we all once again forget that it was the OWNERS who wanted to lock the players out, not the other way around, and the OWNERS who want $1 Billion (with a ****ing B) off the top before anything goes to the players. The players who make the league successful in the first place.

ol#7
04-27-2011, 05:58 AM
And we all once again forget that it was the OWNERS who wanted to lock the players out, not the other way around, and the OWNERS who want $1 Billion (with a ****ing B) off the top before anything goes to the players. The players who make the league successful in the first place.

Then you should be all in favor of unfettered free agency and an open market.

IMO, the expectation of ever increasing TV deals cannot be guaranteed and with more and more teams unable to sell out, stadium revenue is taking a hit as well. The NFL may be king in the US but it hardly makes a blip worldwide and has relatively few dates to maximize return on investment. If you think that is a model that leaves alot of room for the greedy owners then fine, but I dont think that owning an NFL team is the cash cow that many believe it to be. That 1 billion (or 30+ mil per team), was bargained down to less than a 1/3rd of that figure before talks broke off.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2011, 06:04 AM
And we all once again forget that it was the OWNERS who wanted to lock the players out, not the other way around, and the OWNERS who want $1 Billion (with a ****ing B) off the top before anything goes to the players. The players who make the league successful in the first place.

Disagree - and here's why. Places like Denver sold out every game in a replacement player season. The players are replaceable and the league can move on successfully without them making all the money. Without the owners, the league literally cannot survive much less thrive. This really isn't even debatable.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2011, 06:05 AM
Then you should be all in favor of unfettered free agency and an open market.

IMO, the expectation of ever increasing TV deals cannot be guaranteed and with more and more teams unable to sell out, stadium revenue is taking a hit as well. The NFL may be king in the US but it hardly makes a blip worldwide and has relatively few dates to maximize return on investment. If you think that is a model that leaves alot of room for the greedy owners then fine, but I dont think that owning an NFL team is the cash cow that many believe it to be. That 1 billion (or 30+ mil per team), was bargained down to less than a 1/3rd of that figure before talks broke off.

I don't believe it's an all or nothing system. "Either the owners are greedy pricks and get $30 million per team before a dime goes to the players, OR there's going to be unfettered free agency and it's going to be just like baseball and OHMYGOD THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END."

There are certain places that can't have a team. This is a fact of life. Buffalo is a dying ****ing city. It is dying. Most of it is already dead. And because of Buffalo, we're supposed to change the entire revenue model?

What a load of ****.

You do realize you're defending the BILLIONAIRE owners who hold towns hostage for multi-million dollar stadiums, then take their teams elsewhere if they don't get a sweetheart deal from the taxpayer, correct?

Yet somehow they're doing all this in the best interests of the league? :rofl:

Come on.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2011, 06:08 AM
Disagree - and here's why. Places like Denver sold out every game in a replacement player season. The players are replaceable and the league can move on successfully without them making all the money. Without the owners, the league literally cannot survive much less thrive. This really isn't even debatable.

"Replacement players" played for, what, all of 5 games?

Give me a break. You think they're going to sell out a stadium for more than a handful of games, where fans will be watching second tier college players, guys they've never ever heard of? You're delusional.

The owners and the players need each other. I don't believe for one second that sad-sack story of how the owners are so ****ing put upon because the players want healthcare after they've bashed their brains out for 3-5 seasons. Give me a ****ing break.

The Joker
04-27-2011, 06:11 AM
That sounds disgusting, can only hope that it never comes to that.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2011, 06:12 AM
"Replacement players" played for, what, all of 5 games?

Give me a break. You think they're going to sell out a stadium for more than a handful of games, where fans will be watching second tier college players, guys they've never ever heard of? You're delusional.

The league would survive. The CFL and UFL are out there and surviving.

Show me a professional league that can survive without owners. Show me an example. Some proof. Something. I've provided it to support my claims. All I ask is the same in return.

The owners and the players need each other.

Nice. One post and I've already gotten you to cave from your players make the league and don't need the owners to "they need each other".

alkemical
04-27-2011, 06:14 AM
It would end just like baseball. teams like the Yankees and RedSox spending huge $$$ while small market teams would continually suck. Jerry Jones and Snyder would have some obnoxious teams and talent we would always cheer against but in the end television contracts and all play-offs would involve the Giants, the Cowboys and the Redskins. Sorry I'm with the owners on this I like what we've had and hate the baseball construct.

...and if you listen to the TV people, that's exactly what they want. They don't like parity.

ol#7
04-27-2011, 06:18 AM
The NFL is the only sporting league that you can make a legitimate argument every team has a shot year in, year out. They have accomplished this by keeping the major owners like snyder and Jerry Jones in check. Competitive balance is great for the fans. All 32 teams are relatively healthy.

Im not defending the owners, I am defending a system that is good for the fans.

If the system is that unfair to the players, I expect they will start their own rival league so they can enjoy all the fruits of their labors while benefiting from having taken the financial risk. That wont happen though because they are happy to let someone else assume all the risk while they collect their meager millions.

You can whine about the owners getting taxpayer funded stadiums all you want, but the reality is, as long as other towns are willing to offer such a deal to steal a team away, that is the reality your competing against.

ol#7
04-27-2011, 06:21 AM
"Replacement players" played for, what, all of 5 games?

Give me a break. You think they're going to sell out a stadium for more than a handful of games, where fans will be watching second tier college players, guys they've never ever heard of? You're delusional.

The owners and the players need each other. I don't believe for one second that sad-sack story of how the owners are so ****ing put upon because the players want healthcare after they've bashed their brains out for 3-5 seasons. Give me a ****ing break.

Yeah, and I have to constantly fight for my healthcare benefits and meager retirement for having made a career out of the military. I would have gladly traded places for that kind of opportunity and earning potential. Nobody was trying to sign me though...well accept the reenlistment officer.

oubronco
04-27-2011, 06:27 AM
I still believe that the players greed is going to end up screwing themselves in the end

alkemical
04-27-2011, 06:27 AM
I still believe that the players greed is going to end up screwing themselves in the end

Greed has a funny way of making you step on your own dick.

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 06:36 AM
I still believe that the players greed is going to end up screwing themselves in the end

i agree, a very large percent of the players right now will get screwed if they get waht they want. if they want a true free market, they will get it. good luck finding a long snapper who makes more than 100k a year.

Rabb
04-27-2011, 06:40 AM
i agree, a very large percent of the players right now will get screwed if they get waht they want. if they want a true free market, they will get it. good luck finding a long snapper who makes more than 100k a year.

not counting St Louis of course, but they only need one

jhns
04-27-2011, 06:50 AM
The NFL wouldn't make nearly as much money to pay players if this stuff happened.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2011, 06:52 AM
The league would survive. The CFL and UFL are out there and surviving.

Show me a professional league that can survive without owners. Show me an example. Some proof. Something. I've provided it to support my claims. All I ask is the same in return.



Nice. One post and I've already gotten you to cave from your players make the league and don't need the owners to "they need each other".

I said the players don't need the owners? Care to point out where I said that?

I believe what I said was that the players make the league. Which is true.

Sure, the league could "survive" just like the cfl and ufl. Neat. Im sure the owners would be thrilled with survival alongside two mediocre leagues that no one cares about. And I will totally shell out 8 bucks a beer to watch a bunch of guys I've never heard of play football that looks like a collection of retards humping a doorknob. And so will you.

And those poor, rich owners will have exactly what they're looking for: a substandard product.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2011, 06:54 AM
I still believe that the owners greed is going to end up screwing themselves in the end

Fify.

(Stupid auto correct.)

oubronco
04-27-2011, 06:54 AM
College football sure would benefit from that

oubronco
04-27-2011, 06:54 AM
Fifi.

?

jhns
04-27-2011, 06:57 AM
I said the players don't need the owners? Care to point out where I said that?

I believe what I said was that the players make the league. Which is true.

Sure, the league could "survive" just like the cfl and ufl. Neat. Im sure the owners would be thrilled with survival alongside two mediocre leagues that no one cares about. And I will totally shell out 8 bucks a beer to watch a bunch of guys I've never heard of play football that looks like a collection of retards humping a doorknob. And so will you.

And those poor, rich owners will have exactly what they're looking for: a substandard product.

The poor little millionaire players, how will they feed their families?....

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 06:59 AM
I said the players don't need the owners? Care to point out where I said that?

I believe what I said was that the players make the league. Which is true.

Sure, the league could "survive" just like the cfl and ufl. Neat. Im sure the owners would be thrilled with survival alongside two mediocre leagues that no one cares about. And I will totally shell out 8 bucks a beer to watch a bunch of guys I've never heard of play football that looks like a collection of retards humping a doorknob. And so will you.

And those poor, rich owners will have exactly what they're looking for: a substandard product.

without the owners providing the atmosphere, rules, leadership etc that has turned the NFL into what it is, the players would be nothing. they play the game, thats it, nothing more. the owners BUILT the game, they OWN the teams that the players play for, and thus they not only have the right to go down a path they see as sustainable (ie doubled salaries in 10 years - not sustainable) but to make sure the league remains competitive. and 95% of the players agree with them, even though the players lawyers are going down a path that means no draft, no competitive maintenaince rules etc.

its almost like you will agree with the players regardless of circumstance, just because you want to. look at the entire argument.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2011, 07:00 AM
The poor little millionaire players, how will they feed their families?....

And here's jhns to show us how little he knows. Thanks for showing your ignorant ass, jizz!

All players are millionaires now in your world, eh son?

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2011, 07:03 AM
I said the players don't need the owners? Care to point out where I said that?

I believe what I said was that the players make the league.

Those two statements, taken literally, are one in the same.

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 07:08 AM
And here's jhns to show us how little he knows. Thanks for showing your ignorant ass, jizz!

All players are millionaires now in your world, eh son?

i honestly think you dont understand the argument being made by the players lawyers, and that is being presented by goodell in this article. if the players win, MORE money will be spent on LESS players, while the rest of the guys will have to fight for whatever they can get because there will be no minimum salary. you are just sticking with "players need more money because the owners need less" without looking at the total picture of what is being asked for.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-27-2011, 07:11 AM
Those two statements, taken literally, are one in the same.

Neat. Not what I said, or meant. Your assumption of the literal was wrong. Be a big boy and fess up.

jhns
04-27-2011, 07:12 AM
And here's jhns to show us how little he knows. Thanks for showing your ignorant ass, jizz!

All players are millionaires now in your world, eh son?

Oh, a few only make a few hundred thousand a year. I guess there are a few that aren't making over a million before they are done. Those players also didn't play for more than a year or two, and never saw starting lineups. How beat up can they be? How much do you think they should make for sitting on the bench during a game?

TSI is right though. You aren't even arguing in favor of getting these players more money. You are arguing to make the rich players more money. It doesn't surprise anyone that you don't understand though.

v2micca
04-27-2011, 07:13 AM
College football sure would benefit from that

Actually, College Football will absolutely suffer from a protracted NFL labor dispute. Right now, arguably some of the best athletes at the collegiate level play football. If the prize of a high draft slot and potential lucrative NFL contract is taken away or substantially reduced, I guarantee you that a lot of College's better athletes will suddenly become more invested in Baseball and Basketball.

DrFate
04-27-2011, 07:22 AM
Disagree - and here's why. Places like Denver sold out every game in a replacement player season. The players are replaceable and the league can move on successfully without them making all the money. Without the owners, the league literally cannot survive much less thrive. This really isn't even debatable.

I really don't understand why people like TheElusiveKyleOrton can't understand this simple fact. The FRANCHISE has the value. If Bowlen cut everyone on the 53 man active roster and held open tryouts, you'd have a line around the stadium with men willing to take a fraction of the current salaries. You can't see the tangible difference between that backup lineman and a CFL all star.

This franchise has gone from Elway to Bubby to Griese to Plummer to Cutler to Orton to Tebow - and the fans still come. The fans still buy jerseys and pay for Sunday Ticket. When a player like Cutler leaves town, he goes from being a hero to being a villian. Player support THE TEAM. The players are interchangeable.

There are 32 franchises and 53 players on each active roster (if I'm not mistaken). That's 1696 jobs. If the NFL union/trade association/whatever they are calling themselves today said 'we are done' and they all got on a rocket and left the planet - there are 3.5 BILLION men on this planet, many would happily take one of these jobs (and maybe a few women). And the NFL would make money. Most people couldn't tell the difference.

In 15 years 99.9% of the entire workforce will have turned over (assuming D. Smith doesn't entirely kill the league). And the NFL will still make money.

The popularity of college sports/high school sports/minor league sports/AFL/CFL/etc. proves you don't have to have this nonsensical 'highest level of play' to make money. People support the franchise.

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2011, 07:31 AM
Neat. Not what I said, or meant. Your assumption of the literal was wrong. Be a big boy and fess up.

You're right. I'll fess up. It wasn't what you said.

It's what you wrote.

DrFate
04-27-2011, 07:41 AM
Actually, College Football will absolutely suffer from a protracted NFL labor dispute. Right now, arguably some of the best athletes at the collegiate level play football. If the prize of a high draft slot and potential lucrative NFL contract is taken away or substantially reduced, I guarantee you that a lot of College's better athletes will suddenly become more invested in Baseball and Basketball.

You are right that some of those athletes might move to baseball/basketball (or soccer or swimming or lacrosse)

You are wrong that college football would suffer all that much (cause people don't generally watch baseball or soccer or swimming)

The 'one and done' rule hasn't seemed to hurt the popularity/value of the NCAA basketball tournament. So the number of 'best athletes' has certainly declined, as John Wall and Kyrie Irving and Co. leave for the NBA.

gunns
04-27-2011, 08:01 AM
It would end just like baseball. teams like the Yankees and RedSox spending huge $$$ while small market teams would continually suck. Jerry Jones and Snyder would have some obnoxious teams and talent we would always cheer against but in the end television contracts and all play-offs would involve the Giants, the Cowboys and the Redskins. Sorry I'm with the owners on this I like what we've had and hate the baseball construct.

I agree, I immediately thought of baseball. But the whole statement was what the players would suffer without the CBA, oh and supposedly us fans. The way I look at it, no matter what happens, it's the fans that are going to be the ones that suffer, one way or another.

If the owners are in such control then don't pay them exhorbitant salaries, still have a draft, etc. Sounds like it actually gives the owners more control. Of course, as stated above, the idiot owners, Jones, Snyder, would try to one up everyone, so the problems still seem to lie with the owners. However, I have enjoyed the way things have been since 92 with free agency. It's much more competitive.

I'm just sick of both sides. Wake me when it's over.

Meck77
04-27-2011, 08:21 AM
I'm just sick of both sides. Wake me when it's over.

Seriously. I'll throw in politics as well.

People get so worked up at debating who's right and who's wrong. It's all about greed. That's why I prefer working with livestock and vegetables. ;D

RocBronc
04-27-2011, 09:20 AM
My first thought when I heard about the ruling and what a huge victory it was for the players was that the players need to be careful. If they get too "greedy" (and I don't mean just monetarily) in pushing for a complete change in the way the game is run, (no draft, etc.) they will face some very upset and therefore determined owners who will use every means they have at their disposal to get back at the players and will result in a lot less popular and therefore monetarily lucrative league.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that I disagree with the ruling or that the owners would be right in whatever backlash they might undertake, I'm just saying that the players would be wise to take this ruling (if it is upheld) and make an offer to the owners that the owners may not like but they could live with, otherwise the long term (unintended) consequences of their actions could be detrimental to everyone.

To me, it's analogous to what the Allies did to Germany after WWI... They won the war so they put huge reparations in the armistice agreement which so crippled Germany ecomomically after the war that it made the situation in Germany ripe for Hitler to come to power.

Mountain Bronco
04-27-2011, 09:35 AM
That sounds absolutely terrible! But I doubt the owners would pay contracts through the roof like they make it sound in that article. Ultimately the owners would still be who payed the players and with no union they could all get together and lowball the players couldn't they?

Is called collusion and is illegal.

Inkana7
04-27-2011, 09:41 AM
I still believe that the players greed is going to end up screwing themselves in the end

What greed? It was the Owners who wanted a new deal, more money -- Not the players.

tsiguy96
04-27-2011, 10:01 AM
What greed? It was the Owners who wanted a new deal, more money -- Not the players.

do we honestly need to start this debate all over from the beginning again?
really?