PDA

View Full Version : Union seeks to decertify, Saints players vote 59-0 in favor



BroncoWave
09-11-2010, 12:47 PM
I'm posting this here because this concerns the entire league including the Broncos. Very interesting scenario.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/66916


Union seeks authority to decertify

NFLPA handing out voting cards to players; move could prevent lockout by owners
Print This Story
By Liz Mullen
Staff writer
Published September 13, 2010 : Page 01
The NFL Players Association has begun handing out voting cards that would allow players to authorize the decertification of the union, a move that could prevent the NFL from locking players out when the collective-bargaining agreement expires in March.

The NFLPA plans to ask the players on all 32 clubs to vote to authorize decertification when NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith visits each club on his annual fall tour of locker rooms, sources said. New Orleans Saints players have already voted to authorize decertification at their union meeting last week, a source said.

“We have started to hand out voting cards to players authorizing us pursuant to the CBA to take action with respect to the NFLPA’s bargaining status prior to the CBA’s expiration on March 3, 2011,” states a letter sent to players and obtained by SportsBusiness Journal. “The cards will allow us to maximize the protection of your interests and rights when the CBA expires.”

If the NFLPA were to decertify, it would, in effect, operate as a trade organization but cease to be a union. If the league then tried to lock out players, the NFLPA could sue the NFL under U.S. antitrust laws and contend the league was conducting a group boycott, which is illegal. It could not sue the NFL if it remained a union with collective-bargaining authority for its members, under the labor exemption to antitrust laws.

The NFLPA’s letter reveals that union leadership continues to believe the league is poised to lock players out as soon as the CBA expires in March, and wants the option to act.

The letter says decertification “does two things for us: First, it gives a very firm deadline to the NFL to reach a new CBA with us before the current one expires, and before we end our status as a union. Second, it allows us to file an antitrust challenge against the lockout they are likely to impose the day after expiration.”

The letter does not present decertification as a fait accompli, but rather as giving the union the option to use that leverage if the need arises.

It also indicates that the union wants the option to decertify before the CBA expires. The letter states that if the NFLPA were to wait until after the CBA expires to decertify, it could not sue the NFL for six months.

If the union were to try to decertify, the league would likely sue the NFLPA, challenging the decertification as a “sham” and saying the NFLPA was still acting as a union but only filing to gain access to the antitrust laws. A source close to the league has told SportsBusiness Journal in the past that the NFL would have a strong case, because the NFLPA decertified in 1989, only to become a union again in 1993, after it won a jury trial in the Reggie White v. NFL case.

But the union has long contended that it has the right to decertify under the White settlement. That settlement was the basis for the current CBA, which was first agreed to in 1993 and has been extended several times.

NFLPA officials could not be reached for comment for this story.

Because the union has decertified before, the move cannot be considered a surprise. But Smith, although he has indicated publicly in the past that decertification was an option, has not leveled the strategy as a threat. That stands in contrast to his predecessor, the late Gene Upshaw, who, before he died in August 2008, said loudly and repeatedly that if the NFL were to try to lock players out, “We won’t be here.”

Decertification would also allow the union to legally challenge any NFL plan to unilaterally implement a new labor system. If the union won in court, the NFL could be forced to pay treble damages to the union.

Although there are advantages to the union decertifying, namely allowing it to gain access to the antitrust laws, there are disadvantages as well. Not only would the NFLPA not be able to collectively bargain for its members, it could not bring grievances for them and could not compel them to pay dues or control their marketing rights. When the union decertified in 1989, the league and the NFLPA, acting as a trade association, competed with each other for players’ marketing and licensing rights.

BroncoWave
09-11-2010, 12:49 PM
Here's the tweet from Mort mentioning the vote #:

"Filed to ESPN: Saints voted 59-0 to authorize union to decertify. More to come"

www.twitter.com/mortreport

Denver Native (Carol)
09-11-2010, 12:52 PM
Interesting - the article states that the union has decertified before. Obviously, I am not understanding this, but if they have done this before, why did it not remain that way, and what happened to take away the decertification?

OrangeHoof
09-11-2010, 01:23 PM
The difference between a lockout and a strike is which side is calling for the work stoppage.

Strike - union says "we have no contract, we're not working".
Lockout - employer(s) says "we have no contract, I'm closing shop until you agree to contract".

By decertifying, the union is saying "you can't lock us out because we aren't an organized labor shop". It removes a weapon from the league however, I suppose, the union forfeits their dues for as long as they are decertified so it is not a move without risk.

The other risk is that once a union decertifies, there's no guarantee the workers will choose to unionize again however I don't see that as a problem with the NFL. Plus, some states are "right to work" states where people do not have to join a union in order to work. Other states, largely the "blue" states, have laws that say a person *must* join a union in order to work certain jobs. Since the NFL is played in both types of states, I would presume NFL players are required to join a union in order to play a game in a state like New York or Michigan or Illinois.

I live in Texas and my job was unionized when I first joined but being in a right-to-work state I could work without being a union member. When the union chose to strike, I chose to keep working (I was a new hire with a lot of debts so I felt I could not afford the luxury of striking) and the union decertified. When the strike was settled, the union tried to reorganize our company's workers and (in a secret ballot) the union was rejected.

As an aside, the unions are trying to get legislation passed in Congress that would remove the secret ballot in union elections. They cloak this as "open elections" but what they really want is to be able to intimidate workers into voting to unionize by being able to witness which people vote against them.

Nomad
09-11-2010, 01:29 PM
Keep the politics off the field, that's all I ask! The display of solidarity the other night was unwarranted and the players need to keep that amongst them because the average fan could care less! It's pretty much a wash with me because I could care less about the players or the owners, just put the product on the field!! And I am an IBEW member so I know a thing or two about unions!

Ravage!!!
09-11-2010, 01:43 PM
I didn't have a single problem with their sign the other night. It wasn't overt, it wasn't in your face, and it wasn't rude. Much less "in your face" than putting a sticker on your helmet for some cause/person.

This is interesting. I think we'll see pretty much a unanimous vote for the players to decertify the union

Denver Native (Carol)
09-11-2010, 01:53 PM
Keep the politics off the field, that's all I ask! The display of solidarity the other night was unwarranted and the players need to keep that amongst them because the average fan could care less! It's pretty much a wash with me because I could care less about the players or the owners, just put the product on the field!! And I am an IBEW member so I know a thing or two about unions!

Mark Schlereth said the same thing the other night on NFL Live. He stated when the players are on the field, they are there for the fans, keep what is going on between them and the owners "off the field". I agree with this.

Nomad
09-11-2010, 01:57 PM
Mark Schlereth said the same thing the other night on NFL Live. He stated when the players are on the field, they are there for the fans, keep what is going on between them and the owners "off the field". I agree with this.


Yeah, same for labor, on the jobsite in front of the customer, you don't play the solidarity game (unless on strike or have a sick out, which is illegal) in front of them because they could care less. They want the job done. There has been a number of former players who said they need to keep that in check if they want the fans to stay on their side!! But billionaires and millionaires in this situation is hard for the average fan to sympathize with!!

Ravage!!!
09-11-2010, 02:15 PM
I see that point. But its not like they did it during a play, in between plays, or on the field. They did it before the game actually started. Holding up a single finger, to me, didn't make me think a single thing about them or take any kind of negative perception of that action. I guess I'm just not sensitive to those kind of things. It was pretty mild and inconsequential, to me.

bcbronc
09-11-2010, 02:15 PM
honestly, with the size of this pie if the two sides can't figure out a way to split it, **** them both.

Nomad
09-11-2010, 02:21 PM
I see that point. But its not like they did it during a play, in between plays, or on the field. They did it before the game actually started. Holding up a single finger, to me, didn't make me think a single thing about them or take any kind of negative perception of that action. I guess I'm just not sensitive to those kind of things. It was pretty mild and inconsequential, to me.

Has nothing to do with sensitivity! It's just something you don't do in that situation.

atwater27
09-11-2010, 02:46 PM
Yeah, millionaires vs billionaires... the only ones who get hurt are the fans. With high ticket/concession/cable prices and such. Gotta include the agents too in the mess. The guys take a normally good natured and even headed young man and turn him into a greedy diva from the get go.

camdisco24
09-11-2010, 02:54 PM
Yeah, millionaires vs billionaires... the only ones who get hurt are the fans. With high ticket/concession/cable prices and such. Gotta include the agents too in the mess. The guys take a normally good natured and even headed young man and turn him into a greedy diva from the get go.

You know the whole millionaire vs. Billionaire vs. fan point is a very good one. Honestly, we're the reason why the NFL is at an all time high popularity. We're the boss. Without us, the millionaires and billionaires arent millionaires and billionaires.

Easier said than done, but, if fans were to just abandon the sport for a few weeks, both sides would be reminded who the boss really is. No ticket sales, no TV ratings, no $10 beers being purchased, ect... Now I know its totally unrealistic to expect millions of fans to just quit watching/attending but just imagine the message that would send.... I bet a deal would get done pretty dang quick.

Then again, Divas aren't easy to persuade...

UnderArmour
09-11-2010, 02:57 PM
Keep the politics off the field, that's all I ask! The display of solidarity the other night was unwarranted and the players need to keep that amongst them because the average fan could care less! It's pretty much a wash with me because I could care less about the players or the owners, just put the product on the field!! And I am an IBEW member so I know a thing or two about unions!

Bullshit. I'm worried there isn't going to be football next year and the owners need to be reminded that a deal needs to be done. The players have EVERY right to do this and they should be doing this. I hope they do this at every game this season, maybe then something will get done.

Ravage!!!
09-11-2010, 03:02 PM
Almost everyone is greedy. Most of us are just "greedy" at a different level. You want to be sure to get paid overtime when you work past your 40 hours. YOu want your raise, you want your paycheck on time, you want to be sure to get what is coming to you.

When it comes to bigger paychecks, that doesn't change. Instead of talking thousands, they talk millions. But the talk is the same. Unions represent millions of workers across the nation, and the union fights for them or whatevers.. and the union may be fighting for an extra 50 cents an hour. But as a worker under that Union, you might be willing to stop for that extra 50 cents because you feel its owed to you.


Trump didn't make billions because he's not greedy. Sam Walton... great guy.... greedy. He was greedy in his thoughts, and he didn't simply make the concept of Wal-mart purely to give it away to the public. He did it to make a bunch of money.

ITs not a matter of them asking you to feel "sorry" for anyone. But don't have some kind of negative feelings towards a guy and his paycheck, simply because his paycheck is worth more than ours.

Ravage!!!
09-11-2010, 03:04 PM
Has nothing to do with sensitivity! It's just something you don't do in that situation.

I disagree. I don't know what situation you think they should do it in, considering they make their living on the field, on tv, and before the fans. But, again, I just didn't hardly even notice it because it didn't bother me in the least. I was actually shocked to find out that anyone would even notice it, not to mention remotely bothered by it.

Nomad
09-11-2010, 03:07 PM
Bullshit. I'm worried there isn't going to be football next year and the owners need to be reminded that a deal needs to be done. The players have EVERY right to do this and they should be doing this. I hope they do this at every game this season, maybe then something will get done.

I would definitely trust former players viewpoints over yours! And I will not cry in my soup if the NFL doesn't play because there is always college! Keep your solidarity but keep it off the fields! Just play football, do your jobs because majority of the fans could care less about the players financial woes!!

atwater27
09-11-2010, 03:08 PM
Bullshit. I'm worried there isn't going to be football next year and the owners need to be reminded that a deal needs to be done. The players have EVERY right to do this and they should be doing this. I hope they do this at every game this season, maybe then something will get done.

OK here we go, but remember, you started it....

The owners have EVERY right to do what they are doing as well. I want there to be football next year too. But I also think the players are paid waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much already. Especially the unproven rookies.
The fans pay way too much as well, to pay for the effing ludicrous salaries. And if you say you are all for the players, why don't you talk to the retired players who built this league how they are being treated by the NFLPA, in regards to video games, cards and using their likenesses for profit without paying them.

Nomad
09-11-2010, 03:09 PM
I disagree. I don't know what situation you think they should do it in, considering they make their living on the field, on tv, and before the fans. But, again, I just didn't hardly even notice it because it didn't bother me in the least. I was actually shocked to find out that anyone would even notice it, not to mention remotely bothered by it.

We'll agree to disagree but I saw it on SportsCenter as some former players were talking about it and disagreed with the action from the beginning and like I have stated there are other former players disagreed as well, so I guess they are wrong too!! I didn't watch the game!

Ravage!!!
09-11-2010, 03:13 PM
OK here we go, but remember, you started it....

The owners have EVERY right to do what they are doing as well. I want there to be football next year too. But I also think the players are paid waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much already. Especially the unproven rookies.
The fans pay way too much as well, to pay for the effing ludicrous salaries. And if you say you are all for the players, why don't you talk to the retired players who built this league how they are being treated by the NFLPA, in regards to video games, cards and using their likenesses for profit without paying them.


If the players weren't making it.. the owners would just be making more. SO I'm sure the owners would agree with you.

Movie actors make more money than Football players do. WHy? Because the movies bring in so much money. Where do you suppose the union comes up with the number of money alloted to the players? Its a percentage of the profits....because the players are the ones that bring in the profits.

Example:

Lets say that you are born with a deformity, a gene, that enables your hands to move in some odd way. The gene is so rare, that only 1 out of 1 million people have it. Now, this deformity isn't good for anything.

However, one man came up with a way to manufacture a spoon.... a VERY good spoon. Your deformity enables you to make this spoon when no one else can.

Now everyone in the WORLD wants to own one of these spoons. The owner is making BILLIONS off selling these spoos world-wide. Do you think you should be paid the same factory wage that anyone would make in any other factory??? Would you be happy with making just 40k a year knowing that your rare skill is making the owner BILLIONS because of your special skill, or do you think it would be more fair that the owner pays you more money, a percentage of the HUGE profits that your skill provides that no one else can?

atwater27
09-11-2010, 03:36 PM
If the players weren't making it.. the owners would just be making more. SO I'm sure the owners would agree with you.screw the owners too. But those are their teams. Who are we to direct them what to do with THEIR teams.

Movie actors make more money than Football players do. WHy? Because the movies bring in so much money. Where do you suppose the union comes up with the number of money alloted to the players? Its a percentage of the profits....because the players are the ones that bring in the profits.

Example:

Lets say that you are born with a deformity, a gene, that enables your hands to move in some odd way. The gene is so rare, that only 1 out of 1 million people have it. Now, this deformity isn't good for anything.

However, one man came up with a way to manufacture a spoon.... a VERY good spoon. Your deformity enables you to make this spoon when no one else can.

Now everyone in the WORLD wants to own one of these spoons. The owner is making BILLIONS off selling these spoos world-wide. Do you think you should be paid the same factory wage that anyone would make in any other factory??? Would you be happy with making just 40k a year knowing that your rare skill is making the owner BILLIONS because of your special skill, or do you think it would be more fair that the owner pays you more money, a percentage of the HUGE profits that your skill provides that no one else can?

Bullshit. They are doing what they love. They should be happy to get paid anything for it. I could care less about the owners too. But I amnot going to shed tears for the poor, poor millionare players who, if not for a brilliant stroke of luck; (that being athletic ability), most would be flipping burgers or stocking shelves like the rest of us.

Ravage!!!
09-11-2010, 04:02 PM
Bullshit. They are doing what they love. They should be happy to get paid anything for it. I could care less about the owners too. But I amnot going to shed tears for the poor, poor millionare players who, if not for a brilliant stroke of luck; (that being athletic ability), most would be flipping burgers or stocking shelves like the rest of us.

YOu don't know what they would be doing if they didn't build their lives around athletics.

Also, BULLSHIT is right. Millions of people do what they love, but they enjoy doing it for money, and not willing to "do it for just anything." Thats a myth.

Sorry..but despite you believing that these guys just "love" to play sports.... most are doing it as their job. Its a career. Just like making money in the stock market or acting. They may enjoy doing it, but its about the money.

The fact is... they have a product that brings in billions. Just as actors and movie directors do.

I don't know why you think that because the player's union and the owners are having a squabble that its automatically all the players and you think that they are crying or asking for you to shed tears for them. Just because the owners are the owners doesn't give them the right to do anything as they see fit. Ask those that have apartment buildings in big cities and those that used child labor. The owners would love it if people just let them do anything they wanted because they are the owners... just as they would love it if the labor would work for what THEY wanted to pay.

Krugan
09-11-2010, 04:12 PM
I really hope the whole damn thing goes in the crapper. About freaking time top of the stadium seats drop back down to a cool 20 spot, not 50 friggin dollars.

Let the greed of all of the folks(owners/players/corp sponsors) bring a whirlwind of loss. Im sick of looking at a price tag for a piece of fabric with colors and a name at 70 dollars, when there isnt any more material in that shirt than a haines undershirt.

The whole industry is out of control. Lock out or walk out, let this hit all these people where it counts to them.

And hope we as the little guy get a bit of a reward for making these people rich, by giving back to us.

wishful thinking and craptastic rhetoric from me

frauschieze
09-11-2010, 04:34 PM
What sort of power does the NFLPA have if they are no longer a union? I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what the implications of decertifying are but would really like to know, especially in regards to this situation. Can anyone explain in a bit more detail what happens, besides no lockout?

Nomad
09-11-2010, 04:42 PM
What sort of power does the NFLPA have if they are no longer a union? I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what the implications of decertifying are but would really like to know, especially in regards to this situation. Can anyone explain in a bit more detail what happens, besides no lockout?

If they deceritfy themselves then it gets them out of the collective bargaining agreement with the owners and then the players themelves can sue because of anti trust laws! It's a chicken shit way of going about it on the players part because either you live by the union or die by the union, not get out, sue and join back in! I have never met one person in the labor unions who could do that because once you get out, it' hard to get back in.

frauschieze
09-11-2010, 04:49 PM
If they deceritfy themselves then it gets them out of the collective bargaining agreement with the owners and then the players themelves can sue because of anti trust laws! It's a chicken shit way of going about it on the players part because either you live by the union or die by the union, not get out, sue and join back in! I have never met one person in the labor unions who could do that because once you get out, it' hard to get back in.

But what I don't understand is what happens other than that. I'm sure, as a player, it sounds great to be able to sue the owners, but surely there are other implications of this kind of decision! Anything that sounds all good for one side, cannot be.

I was too young to pay much attention to the last go round.

broncophan
09-11-2010, 04:49 PM
the owners just need to say from this point forward every NFL player will be paid one half of what they get paid now....and every NFL ticket will now be one half of what they have been.

and then continue on.....not many nfl players will go elsewhere and make anything close to that.....and a guy could take his family to the ball games and not wonder how they are going to pay for it.

as much money as they all make.....it's rediculous...

atwater27
09-11-2010, 04:57 PM
YOu don't know what they would be doing if they didn't build their lives around athletics.

Also, BULLSHIT is right. Millions of people do what they love, but they enjoy doing it for money, and not willing to "do it for just anything." Thats a myth.
Add a few or more zeroes after our salary. Then we'll talk.
Sorry..but despite you believing that these guys just "love" to play sports.... most are doing it as their job. Its a career. Just like making money in the stock market or acting. They may enjoy doing it, but its about the money.If it was about the money they would have quit after high school. The odds of making it to the NFL are insane, so I don't buy the "I planned it all along to have a career playing sports" argument.

The fact is... they have a product that brings in billions. Just as actors and movie directors do. And they pay their players more than fairly for what they actually do. The NFL was built and is run by smart business minds who earned their status. Go ask the players if they want to go play in the USFL, the canadian football league, Arena football or that frikking vince mcmahon football league. No. They want to play in the NFL, because it is run well and is a good business.

I don't know why you think that because the player's union and the owners are having a squabble that its automatically all the players I never said it was all the players. Go review posts if you have to. There is enough owner and corporate greed to go around, But again, if you want to see their hypocrisy, ask them how they are taking care of the retired football players while atempting to make money off of them.and you think that they are crying or asking for you to shed tears for them.Oh you just wait, they'll be trying to jerk out tears pretty soon. Just because the owners are the owners doesn't give them the right to do anything as they see fit. Ask those that have apartment buildings in big cities and those that used child labor. huh? The owners would love it if people just let them do anything they wanted because they are the owners... just as they would love it if the labor would work for what THEY wanted to pay.

There should always be a balance between the corporations and fair labor. But I'll spend my time worrying about the guys making under 100,000 a year in those situations before I spend a moment worrying about guys who make millions just to sign a piece of paper, along with endorsement opportunities and juicy benefits. Case in point, Albert Haynesworth

Nomad
09-11-2010, 05:05 PM
But what I don't understand is what happens other than that. I'm sure, as a player, it sounds great to be able to sue the owners, but surely there are other implications of this kind of decision! Anything that sounds all good for one side, cannot be.

I was too young to pay much attention to the last go round.

I was in high school for the last one! Not sure because you'd have to talk to someone who knows more about the legality of it. Though as an 11 yr IBEW member, I've never heard of decertifying for not getting your way then certifying again when you do get you way! Only times I've heard of members decertifying is if the local is corrupt!!

WARHORSE
09-11-2010, 06:49 PM
But what I don't understand is what happens other than that. I'm sure, as a player, it sounds great to be able to sue the owners, but surely there are other implications of this kind of decision! Anything that sounds all good for one side, cannot be.

I was too young to pay much attention to the last go round.


A lockout means the owners are taking a stand against the union they are IN CONTRACT with. The union, which reps the players is an entity that represents the will of all the players in the NFL.

This entity entered into a contract, the CBA, with the NFL. They signed it.

The owners have basis to lock them out, according to the rules allowed in that same contract the union signed.

So the NFL is working within the rights and agreements that the union agreed to.

The NFL owners can choose to lock them out, cause they work for them and are under contract to them.

By locking them out, they dont work, and they dont get paid.

Its like the union workers for, say FORD motor company. They workers are in contract with the FORD MC. They have agreed to a specific payscale, and benefits. If the FORD motor company all of a sudden wanted to change the agreement, and the union said no, then they could have a lockout. A lockout happens should FORD choose not to open the factories that the workers work at. Cause if they dont open the factories, then the workers are at home rather than working. If they dont work, they dont get paid, and receive limited benefits. This kills the blue collar workers cause they need their checks and cant withstand for long a situation like this unless they have a huge savings stashed in their bank accounts. Thats why the NFLPA is telling their players to save their money in case of a lockout.

Now, if the union decertifies, it basically is dissolving itself, rendering the CBA moot. In other words, the agreement that binded all of them, is no longer binding.

This now means each NFL player who works for their specific teams, is a single rep unto himself. That means they have to take each individual player as a separate case in dealing with each of them.


That means each team has 53 individual caseloads of individual employees that they must treat and respond to on an individual basis. Each contract they have is different, and would bring certain criteria that would be exclusive to the contracts signed between the players and their teams.


Should the NFL owners now choose to lockout the NFL players all at once, it means they are acting in collusion because how can the 32 individual NFL teams all of a sudden come to one common ruling on how to deal with all these individual players in a single month without talking to one another?


That would be the basis for individual players to sue their teams.




The NFL, will then argue that the players themselves are doing the same thing, thats why they decertified themselves, cause they got together, decided to decertify the union, with the secret plan to reorganize once the lockout is over.

They wouldnt be a union on paper, but they would still be acting as a single entity.


Hope that explains it.

frauschieze
09-11-2010, 07:07 PM
That sounds like pure cluster****ery.

topscribe
09-11-2010, 07:17 PM
I really hope the whole damn thing goes in the crapper. About freaking time top of the stadium seats drop back down to a cool 20 spot, not 50 friggin dollars.

Let the greed of all of the folks(owners/players/corp sponsors) bring a whirlwind of loss. Im sick of looking at a price tag for a piece of fabric with colors and a name at 70 dollars, when there isnt any more material in that shirt than a haines undershirt.

The whole industry is out of control. Lock out or walk out, let this hit all these people where it counts to them.

And hope we as the little guy get a bit of a reward for making these people rich, by giving back to us.

wishful thinking and craptastic rhetoric from me

QFTqft

-----

Bosco
09-11-2010, 07:27 PM
Excellent explanation Warhorse.

rcsodak
09-11-2010, 11:08 PM
You know the whole millionaire vs. Billionaire vs. fan point is a very good one. Honestly, we're the reason why the NFL is at an all time high popularity. We're the boss. Without us, the millionaires and billionaires arent millionaires and billionaires.

Easier said than done, but, if fans were to just abandon the sport for a few weeks, both sides would be reminded who the boss really is. No ticket sales, no TV ratings, no $10 beers being purchased, ect... Now I know its totally unrealistic to expect millions of fans to just quit watching/attending but just imagine the message that would send.... I bet a deal would get done pretty dang quick.

Then again, Divas aren't easy to persuade...

Well, nice idea, but it's been tried before, and was an EPIC FAILURE. There is NO way you're going to get EVERY fan to not watch a game, go to a game, buy concessions or jerseys. Besides, season tickets have already been purchased. Other than only playing before a handful of people *like Jax does*, it wouldn't hurt the owner or players.

Then only way this will get rectified is when both parties get off their high horses, and decide they can both get rich without taking money from the others' pocket.

Hopefully, they'll keep in mind who the customer is, and without us, they'll BOTH fail.

rcsodak
09-11-2010, 11:16 PM
the owners just need to say from this point forward every NFL player will be paid one half of what they get paid now....and every NFL ticket will now be one half of what they have been.

and then continue on.....not many nfl players will go elsewhere and make anything close to that.....and a guy could take his family to the ball games and not wonder how they are going to pay for it.

as much money as they all make.....it's rediculous...

There's always the UFL! :shocked:

Omaha's team is stocked with ex-broncos. SB!!! *or whatever they're going to call it* :D

WARHORSE
09-11-2010, 11:19 PM
That sounds like pure cluster****ery.


Pretty much.


In the end though, I believe the owners will win out.

The best thing to do is to settle......lets hope that happens.:beer:

rcsodak
09-11-2010, 11:22 PM
I was in high school for the last one! Not sure because you'd have to talk to someone who knows more about the legality of it. Though as an 11 yr IBEW member, I've never heard of decertifying for not getting your way then certifying again when you do get you way! Only times I've heard of members decertifying is if the local is corrupt!!

Aren't most? :rolleyes:

CrazyHorse
09-12-2010, 12:00 AM
When it says they would lose marketing rights does this mean we could see the return of NFL 2k?

BroncoWave
09-12-2010, 01:32 AM
Sorry Atwater, but this quote by you is a LOAD of bullshit:


If it was about the money they would have quit after high school. The odds of making it to the NFL are insane, so I don't buy the "I planned it all along to have a career playing sports" argument.

You don't really believe that. Do you know how delusional many high school football stars are? Millions of them truly believe that they will play in the NFL. You have to remember they are 18 year old kids. I don't think they think as clearly about their career as you give them credit for.

Nomad
09-12-2010, 08:00 AM
Aren't most? :rolleyes:

Can't say I don't disagree!!:D