Skip to content

League plans to enforce personal conduct policy during lockout

GETTY_N_102510_PrisonInmateFeet

And just when it appears that public opinion would begin to swing firmly in the favor of the owners, the National Football League drop kicks the pendulum in the other direction.

Alex Marvez of FOXSports.com reports that the NFL intends to enforce the personal conduct policy against any players who find trouble, or vice versa, during the lockout.

“While players won’t be able to get the benefit of our evaluation and counseling program during the work stoppage, the personal conduct of players and employees is an integrity-of-the-game issue,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told Marvez.  “Any misconduct that is detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL will certainly be addressed when play resumes.”

In that case, the NFL should find itself to be in violation of its own policy, because this blatant effort to have it both ways is indeed detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL.  Put simply, the league wants to hold players accountable for the things they do away from work at a time when the league is preventing them from working.

Suddenly, we have a better understanding as to why the NFL saw no problem with using its duty to maximize TV revenue as a tool for generating a lockout war chest.

Permalink 60 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
60 Responses to “League plans to enforce personal conduct policy during lockout”
  1. p4ever says: Mar 17, 2011 9:22 PM

    Let the NFL keep talking; the more they say, the more they contradict themselves. The TRUTH will come out.

  2. millertime30 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:22 PM

    …i can’t help but feel that this will also be challenged in court

  3. lasher1650 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:25 PM

    Its just a shot across the bow by the owners, nothing more.

  4. riderspantherssk says: Mar 17, 2011 9:27 PM

    That’s brutal.

  5. FinFan68 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:27 PM

    Not so fast, Mike. On the surface it looks like a bad PR move (and may turn out to be such) but, in reality, this is not new. Unrestricted free agents are not affiliated or under contract with any team until they sign another deal, but the policy still has applied to them in the pass. It was never a free pass to act like an idiot, and neither is this situation. If the league starts calling players into Goodell’s office before a new deal is struck, then you have a valid point but as it stands now, this is much ado about nothing.

  6. vikefan4life11 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:28 PM

    I actually commend the League…just because they are so full of themselves and cant see a good deal in front of them doesnt mean they get a free pass to break the law and do whatever they want…I think the owners should actually open tryouts to the public…anyone that wants to tryout…I guarantee everyone when the checks dont show up 99% of these guys will realize the world doesnt revolve around them…they will crumble like an old peanut butter cookie…

  7. strategerie says: Mar 17, 2011 9:28 PM

    Maybe the union should make Goodell and the entire hierarchy of the NFL pee in a cup as condition of a new deal. After all, they’ve already shown they like setting the rules, but will not hold themselves accountable.

  8. FinFan68 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:28 PM

    *past

  9. charly0418 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:29 PM

    Kevin Burnett better start filling job applications at McDonalds

  10. zackd2 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:29 PM

    How will people spin this to bash unions now?

  11. oldhamletman says: Mar 17, 2011 9:30 PM

    here’s hoping that they actually do it… Players haven’t seen the light so far..

  12. vikefan4life11 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:31 PM

    Someone needs to take DeMoron Smith out to the woodshed…Look at that deal the owners gave them?…Tell them to get a real job and see if their new boss opens the books for them and pays their medical for the rest of their life…these so called players need to wake up…the game can and will go on without them…

  13. chargersrule says: Mar 17, 2011 9:33 PM

    You are grasping Mike. The owners are still invested in these athletes and they have every right to hold bad conduct during this time against the employees. This policy could be seen as the owners trying to help players stay on the right track while they don’t have team supervision.

  14. JimmySmith says: Mar 17, 2011 9:34 PM

    Chris Cook better watch out, brandishing a hand gun is not the sort of of charge that you can hide behind the skirts of a state court judge. He might actually have to face consequences unlike his teammates.

  15. cincinnasti says: Mar 17, 2011 9:34 PM

    Can anyone say “Modern Day Slavery” ?

  16. vikefan4life11 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:38 PM

    Dennis Green needs to be brought in on behalf of the owners…Theres a new sherriff in town boys…this is what we are paying…take it or leave it…dont let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out Drew Brees…which the only way you went to the Super Bowl is cuz the refs gave it to you…give me a break…a fumble on 4th down that when recovered wasnt a first down…a 3rd and 15 pass completion that everyone on National tv sees clearly hit the ground…then in overtime you cant move the ball so the refs call pass interference on an uncatchable ball 10 feet over the receivers head…get over yourself…CHALK THAT WIN UP TO HURRICANE KATRINA…EVERYONE ISNT FEELING SORRY FOR YOU ANYMORE!!!!!

  17. peytonwantsaflag says: Mar 17, 2011 9:38 PM

    what an idiotic opinion

    so is the league supposed just let these infants do whatever they want? remember there’s a reason they have to have this policy – many of them have about as much self control as a rutting pig.

    and who the hell are you to presume what public opinion will be. I’m fine with it.

  18. corvusrex96 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:38 PM

    Uh isn’t locking players out and effectively shutting down the league ” detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL” ??

    I am guessing they won’t fine themselves

  19. stataddict says: Mar 17, 2011 9:39 PM

    In other news, Ben Roethlisberger just canceled his guys night out that was supposed to happen near a local college….

  20. duanethomas says: Mar 17, 2011 9:40 PM

    If I was a player, when this lockout ends I would submit my health insurance and training bill’s to my team. You can’t have it both ways, either I’m employed or not. This to will be challlenged in court, they will keep overplaying their hand for all to see how greedy they are.

  21. hosmachine says: Mar 17, 2011 9:48 PM

    Alright 2 players have gun related issues and the league decides they better step in. Wow way to go Goodell. Thats great so all the guys in couseling and their counseling sessions were cancelled the minute the lockout took affect. Way to think that one out. This will probably lead to more cases against the league going to court adding to the length of this lockout. Well atleast you know if your a player and you get in trouble you won’t have to meet with Goodell face to face since there is no contact between leage and players. So players be checking the mail!!! Hahaha what another JOKE

  22. dolphinatic says: Mar 17, 2011 9:49 PM

    Funny how so many poor people on here convince themselves that they are in the same social cast as the owners. Just saying, kinda a problem here on most issues. Odd how it even translates to football..

  23. thehighhat says: Mar 17, 2011 9:50 PM

    Hey, is that a picture of Peterson or Mendenhall wearing their offseason shackles?

  24. hail2tharedskins says: Mar 17, 2011 9:58 PM

    Not sure why you think this would be a bad PR move. The public sentiment is strong against all the illegal activity by NFL players. The brilliance of this announcement is that no one knows whether they will try to enforce the claim or not until after the lockout is over. In the meantime, the players are left worrying and the union (or former union) dare not come out and say the players are free to act like fools if they like during a lockout and the NFL can’t do anything about it… now that would be a bad PR move. So for now the NFL gets to make these statements that certainlyput them on the side of public sentiment and the NFLPA* dare not even challenge it or they come off looking completely out of touch. This issue will certainly be addressed when they get around to negotiating a new CBA, in the meantime I think the league made a good PR move and also possibly added another bargaining chip.

  25. txchief says: Mar 17, 2011 9:59 PM

    Great insight Mike Turdio! I guess cincinnasti considers obeying laws and meeting expectations of behavior befitting a (usually multimillionaire) professional ( and I use “professional” very loosely here) to be some type of indentured servitude. cincinnasti obviously hs never worked a tough job before!

  26. lasher1650 says: Mar 17, 2011 10:00 PM

    FinFan68 says:
    Mar 17, 2011 9:27 PM
    Not so fast, Mike. On the surface it looks like a bad PR move (and may turn out to be such) but, in reality, this is not new. Unrestricted free agents are not affiliated or under contract with any team until they sign another deal, but the policy still has applied to them in the pass. It was never a free pass to act like an idiot, and neither is this situation. If the league starts calling players into Goodell’s office before a new deal is struck, then you have a valid point but as it stands now, this is much ado about nothing.

    ================================
    Actually yes, this is new. Unrestricted free agents, while not affiliated with a specific team, fell under the larger code of the collectively bargained agreement between the player’s union and the NFL regarding personal conduct. Today, there is no standing contractual agreement between the two sides, so the NFL trying to enforce conduct rules that are technically no longer in existence is in fact very new.

    And yes, ownership’s stance, given the fact that they opted out of the previous agreement, is a very poor PR move.

  27. shiftyshellshocked says: Mar 17, 2011 10:02 PM

    Don’t get used to it JimmySmith but for the first time in two years I agree with you.

  28. veistran says: Mar 17, 2011 10:03 PM

    Isn’t communicating with the plaintiffs when you are being sued kind of a dumb idea? Bet the Roge didn’t run this one by his lawyers like a moron.

  29. toe4 says: Mar 17, 2011 10:12 PM

    Hoe
    Lee
    Cow

    At first I nearly fell out of my chair laughing out loud at myself because I had shifted from Pro-Player to Both and heading toward Pro-Owner but just when I was about to make the plunge the league reminds me exactly how self-centric it is.

    Then I logged on to check out how many people are blowing up the league and I find NFL apologists much to my shock!

    I mean I can understand how someone sort of thinks the NFL works like their factory (if we actually had factory workers in this country anymore) and the employees are employees and the bosses are the bosses and unions are bad.

    But to see people make excuses for the owners that are so blatantly trying to have their cake and eat yours too is beyond me.

    Just when I was firmly on a “both you guys can bite it” kick the owners gave the players a brand new first and ten on a roughing the passer penalty.

    Both you guys bite, but the owners bite more.

  30. blantoncollier says: Mar 17, 2011 10:19 PM

    The post after this one is about a player and gun charges. A post several before is about a player and gun charges. Someone better protect the players from themselves, its not the NFLPA*.

  31. hargi22 says: Mar 17, 2011 10:28 PM

    Who cares?! If anything I would side with the league on this one. Nearly every player makes enough money that they should thank the lucky stars above that they get to make millions of dollars for playing a game. They have enough money to where they don’t have to worry about bills for the rest of their lives if they are smart and don’t blow it on things they don’t need.
    Everything they do will be scrutinized to the nth degree and each and every one of them know that. If they are smart, they wouldn’t be going out at all hours of the night and getting into trouble to begin with. They risk losing endorsements or even their jobs over the trouble they get into. Their actions can also hurt the image of the NFL, whether they are locked out or not. They will be playing the game soon enough.
    So yes, even in these times with all the controversy, they should still be held accountable for their actions. As much as I hate everything involved with the NFL lately with a bunch of millionaires/billionaires being greedy and wanting even more money that they are “entitled” to, I agree with the NFL.

    A judge should take the money both sides are fighting over and donate it to charity and give it to people who truly need it, not some money hungry greedy people (players and owners). Give some to Japan and give some to help our own nation.

  32. jakinchitown says: Mar 17, 2011 10:30 PM

    Mike, this is such a REACH. The owners are just saying “you know the rules” about acceptable behavior. If the NFLPA has really decertified or disclaimed interest, the League is simply setting out a part of what the work rules will be if a judge approves the union going away-disallows the lockout and FORCES the league to clarify what rules it is going to operate under for the upcoming season. It would be highly advisable that you consult with someone who understands labor law before you throw these uneducated opinions out there. If you don’t care whether you’re accurate or not – have at it.

  33. fiveaces20000 says: Mar 17, 2011 10:31 PM

    cincinnasti says:
    Mar 17, 2011 9:34 PM
    Can anyone say “Modern Day Slavery” ?

    Can I be one of the slaves? Slaves didn’t get paid like this. These players are richer than 95% of society. You are insulting those who were considered slaves.

  34. stanklepoot says: Mar 17, 2011 10:49 PM

    FinFan68 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:27 PM

    Not so fast, Mike. On the surface it looks like a bad PR move (and may turn out to be such) but, in reality, this is not new. Unrestricted free agents are not affiliated or under contract with any team until they sign another deal, but the policy still has applied to them in the pass. It was never a free pass to act like an idiot, and neither is this situation. If the league starts calling players into Goodell’s office before a new deal is struck, then you have a valid point but as it stands now, this is much ado about nothing.
    __________________________
    I see what you’re saying, but there’s one big difference. An unrestricted free agent may not be subject to the rules of any one team, but they are still an active player in the league, and therefore subject to league discipline. This is a completely different issue. The Personal Conduct Policy that allows the league to discipline players whether or not they’ve been convicted of a crime was negotiated in the cba. Without a cba, the extent to which the Personal Conduct Policy expanded the league’s power to discipline players or control their actions has vanished, as has the substance abuse policy. This authority was a result of negotiations with the players. The league has no innate right to control the private lives of the players. They teams don’t actually own the players, simply the rights to negotiate terms for their services within the NFL. Furthermore, when the league locked out the players, it froze all of the currently existing contracts. If it hadn’t, then every player under contract could sue their team for breach of contract. So, if there is no negotiated personal conduct policy or substance abuse policy, and the teams contracts with the players are frozen, then the league currently has no authority over the players. So, what the league is saying is that they intend to punish players in the future for violating rules that didn’t exist at a time when they had no authority over the players. If the league really does want to stay out of court as much as possible, they might want to rethink such an idea.

  35. stanklepoot says: Mar 17, 2011 11:03 PM

    vikefan4life11 says: Mar 17, 2011 9:28 PM

    I actually commend the League…just because they are so full of themselves and cant see a good deal in front of them doesnt mean they get a free pass to break the law and do whatever they want…I think the owners should actually open tryouts to the public…anyone that wants to tryout…I guarantee everyone when the checks dont show up 99% of these guys will realize the world doesnt revolve around them…they will crumble like an old peanut butter cookie…
    _________________________
    First of all, what free pass? If players break the law and get convicted, then they’ll pay the same price for their actions that anyone else would. The problem with the league’s statement is that the players don’t currently work for the league right now…because the owners locked them out. If the players don’t work for the league, then the league has no authority over the players. This would be like having your current employer dock your pay now because you got caught skipping class in high school.
    As for replacement players, good luck with that one. This isn’t a case of the players refusing to fulfill their contracts. The players are willing to show up to work, but are being barred from doing so by the owners. If the owners are worried about lawsuits now, just imagine what would happen if they breach the legally binding contracts they have with players now and bring in new people to play in their place. Also, you seem to make the common mistake of thinking that the NFL is just about football. It’s not. It’s about football played at an elite level. That’s the difference between the NFL and the UFL. It’s a moot point anyway, as the networks wouldn’t air those games. They learned that lesson the last time around, and the NFL won’t pay replacement players to play games the networks won’t air and fans won’t pay to go see.

  36. 3octaveFart says: Mar 17, 2011 11:05 PM

    Where are all the league’s paid shills on this one?

    Normally they’d have clicked thumbs down on every post about 50 times by now..

  37. mnk1990 says: Mar 17, 2011 11:07 PM

    I don’t understand why PFT thinks is such a big deal. The NFLPA opted out of negotiating, but the league is the entity affected by negative publicity. If a player does not plan to return to the league, then they need not worry about it. When looking at hiring prospective employees I do a background check, which can affect if an offer is made or not. The NFL is not acting out of line based on what the majority of employers do, just different based on a union-based circumstance. The NFLPA holding the owners & fans hostage to their ‘demands’ when they do not own the teams is ridiculous to me.

  38. jimmysee says: Mar 17, 2011 11:10 PM

    How about reinstating Johnny Jolly.

  39. endzonezombie says: Mar 17, 2011 11:20 PM

    “Unrestricted free agents are not affiliated or under contract with any team until they sign another deal, but the policy still has applied to them in the pass. It was never a free pass to act like an idiot…”

    Duhh…FA were still employees of the NFL under the previous CBA. They were still covered by paid benefits and restrictions. All prior NFLPA players are currently locked out and no longer employees of the NFL. The have no paid benefits. The league has no control over players they no longer employ, and any attempt to punish them will surely result in legal action against the leagye.

  40. kagerman says: Mar 17, 2011 11:24 PM

    But what about their current contracts? Are they all void right now and then will be rewritten when this is over? If not then your case doesn’t make any sense.

  41. goldsteel says: Mar 17, 2011 11:28 PM

    What’s the point? The players are locked out. Technically they are no longer part of the NFL. I thought that’s what we have courts of law for? Roger Goodell, what a piece of work.

    Football is dead.

  42. Deb says: Mar 17, 2011 11:55 PM

    Most players have nothing to worry about if Goodell handles PCP issues as he did last year. He only punished big name players who generated bad publicity and ignored everyone else. Obviously being a Class A Hypocrite is not against the personal conduct policy.

    Players should take the last contract offer and drop the rest in exchange for switching from challenge flags to booth review … and dumping Goodell for a decent commissioner who stops dragging them to Europe and fining them for legal hits.

  43. mataug says: Mar 17, 2011 11:57 PM

    Considering his speeding record, Adrian Peterson considers this yet another case of slavery by the NFL owners.

  44. montsta says: Mar 18, 2011 12:04 AM

    Simple solution to this if I’m the NFL;

    “The players involved in proven and/or alleged criminal activities while there is no collective bargaining agreement in place will not be disciplined or fined as dictated by the terms of the previous collective bargaining agreement.

    However, a non-negotiable term of the new collective bargaining agreement will be that the NFL, without fear of collusion charges being filed, will have the right as individual organizations or as a whole, to not employ persons with criminal records, existing or pending.”

    It’s really that simple.

    I’m a 9-5 Mon-Fri working stiff, but the things I do on my Saturday nights absolutely affect my job status. I’m not even a public figure, but if I get a DUI Saturday night and my boss found out, I’m liable to get fired Monday morning.

    Just my $.02

  45. claytron5000 says: Mar 18, 2011 12:27 AM

    It’s truly amazing how many toolboxes here and elsewhere are aligning themselves with the NFL execs on everything pertaining to the lockout. It’s like sucking up to a boss that you don’t even work for and will never even be remotely connected to. There are a handful of NFL owners and they are multimillionaires, if not billionaires whereas the vast majority of NFL fans are not and never will be. So why exactly are so many lemmings willing to side with a bunch of dudes that would rather eat their own hand than sit alongside one of their season ticketholders?

    It’s just another round of people supporting a “cause” or a “philosphy,” that is actually detrimental to their own well being because they’ve been told otherwise. Bush tax cuts anyone? Idiots.

  46. jsbrasha says: Mar 18, 2011 12:31 AM

    I know I’ll get the stupid “and next you’ll be saying you talk to aliens” comments, but are any of the other PFT regulars freaked out by the take-over of the comment board by what I’m certain are paid employees of the NFL? I don’t recognize the names above the comments and I’ll wager my left nut that at least 75% of them trace back to ethernet ports at league or team headquarters.

    If the NLF’s tactic was to sway public opinion by blitzing the popular blogs (which I know it was), you’re going too far already, dudes. The jig is up!

  47. hedleykow says: Mar 18, 2011 1:50 AM

    Tomorrow the league will publish the breakdown of fines that will be levied against any players suspected of excessive celebration in the wake of the upcoming court decisions.

  48. 6250claimer says: Mar 18, 2011 2:51 AM

    Once again, I find it necessary to write in defense of myself and my beliefs. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone’s opinions, nor do I intend to demean The NFLPA* personally for its beliefs or worldviews. But I do suspect that I must make The NFLPA* answer for its wrongdoings. “What’s that?”, I hear you ask. “Is it true that The NFLPA*’s approach is generally to seize upon an anecdote or a narrow and limited manifestation and/or purpose, and then totally blow it out of proportion to justify its insensitive reportages?” Why, yes, it is.

    There are rumors circulating that The NFLPA* should think twice before it decides to regulate recidivism, so let me just clarify something: If the past is any indication of the future, it will once again attempt to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. This is not the first time I’ve wanted to clear the cobwebs out of people’s heads and help them understand that The NFLPA*’s ability to reason from premise to conclusion is nearly non-existent. But it is the first time I realized that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If The NFLPA* finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that he who pays the piper calls the tune. With that in mind, I did a little research to find where The NFLPA* gets its money. It turns out that it comes primarily from high-handed whiners, inarticulate deviants, and—you guessed it—complacent flibbertigibbets. This explains why when The NFLPA* says that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day, that’s just a load of spucatum tauri. And that’s it. The NFLPA* is capable of a large array of negative feelings.

  49. cup1981 says: Mar 18, 2011 6:07 AM

    Good luck with that, NFL. You really think you can enforce that without a CBA. The individual teams that the players are contracted with can enforce their own policies, but the NFL cannot. Best wishes, should you try…

  50. zackd2 says: Mar 18, 2011 7:16 AM

    “I think the owners should actually open tryouts to the public…anyone that wants to tryout…I guarantee everyone when the checks dont show up 99% of these guys will realize the world doesnt revolve around them…they will crumble like an old peanut butter cookie…”

    Actually, they would sue and win a ton of money because that’s ILLEGAL. It’s a lockout – they can’t hire scabs.

    Yet another uninformed NFL fan fails at adding his 2 cents to the situation that he doesn’t understand. Nice try, come and take another crack at it tomorrow.

  51. EJ says: Mar 18, 2011 7:47 AM

    I think its complete BS that the NFL thinks it can have their cake and eat it too. They should have no say unless they are employing the person.

    I still don’t agree that this should be a freebie for any player to screw off though.

  52. mike83ri says: Mar 18, 2011 7:48 AM

    I think it’s a big assumption to just assume that this would sway the public opinion back to the players side.

  53. bigtrav425 says: Mar 18, 2011 8:02 AM

    I’m confused on how they can do this? makes no sense i do know it takes some pretty big balls to even think that in this case

  54. fedupsaintsfan says: Mar 18, 2011 8:19 AM

    I see a Viking fan still can’t get over his team getting their azz whipped!!! LOL Sweettttttttt

  55. toe4 says: Mar 18, 2011 8:55 AM

    jbrasha,

    I completely agree with you. Last week a couple of things happened that is very strange.

    #1 several comments were made suggesting that the pro-player commentors were actually players.

    #2 there was a dramatic sudden increase in pro-owner sentiment.

    Wednesday of last week the vibe was pro-player and on Friday of last week the vibe was pro-owner.

    Now not only are people pro-owner but they are blindly pro-owner. No matter how ridiculous the owners statements are there are a dozen supporters (each with a thumbs up brigade) that blindly support the owners.

  56. joepags says: Mar 18, 2011 9:14 AM

    actually the nfl cant!!! the players are unemployed and go play or work where ever they want. the lockout was on the owners, not the players, not showing up for camps or practices.

  57. stanklepoot says: Mar 18, 2011 10:15 AM

    montsta says: Mar 18, 2011 12:04 AM

    Simple solution to this if I’m the NFL;

    “The players involved in proven and/or alleged criminal activities while there is no collective bargaining agreement in place will not be disciplined or fined as dictated by the terms of the previous collective bargaining agreement.

    However, a non-negotiable term of the new collective bargaining agreement will be that the NFL, without fear of collusion charges being filed, will have the right as individual organizations or as a whole, to not employ persons with criminal records, existing or pending.”

    It’s really that simple.

    I’m a 9-5 Mon-Fri working stiff, but the things I do on my Saturday nights absolutely affect my job status. I’m not even a public figure, but if I get a DUI Saturday night and my boss found out, I’m liable to get fired Monday morning.

    Just my $.02
    __________________________
    It might be that simple if the league were talking about not hiring these players. They’re not. They’re claiming they have the right to bring the players back and then punish them for things that happened when they had no authority over the players at all. Completely different issue. This is more like having a current employer dock your pay because they found out you were late to work at a previous job. It’s simply not something they have the legal right to do. A team can sign them to a contract or not, but they (or the league) can’t actually punish them for something they did when they weren’t working for them.

  58. Deb says: Mar 18, 2011 1:05 PM

    @jsbrasha …

    You’re not stupid. It’s easy enough to check. Several of the most passionate pro-owner commenters never posted on PFT (at least not under these usernames) until the players decertified on Friday. One of them had only commented once before Friday–to condemn Judge Doty’s ruling against the owners a few weeks before. Of course they’re plants.

    Some guy called me a union plant LOL I’ve posted on here every day and on CFT every week for almost two years and anyone who’s read my comments knows my team allegiances. That’s the difference between me and these other guys. I have a history on the site.

  59. jebdamone says: Mar 18, 2011 2:06 PM

    nfl owners “yes we’d like a piece of cake please….and we’d like to eat it as well.”
    i cannot believe that there are actually people on the side of the owners. they are the ones that opted out of the contract that they signed. they are the ones that want the players to make ALL of the concessions with money while still pushing two extra games. they are also the ones that have little leverage in my opinion.

  60. commandercornpone says: Mar 18, 2011 8:11 PM

    they can sure retroactively enforce it as soon as there is an agreement. and the nfl can cooperate with law enforcement until then and afterwards.

    it is certainly a warning that the players better not pull any of that wisconsin teacher (or related osamabama rent a mob) bs.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!