Did Peyton Manning not play football before he joined the Colts? He was a brand at Tennessee. He never uses a Colts logo or any colts gear in his commercials. So that argument wouldn’t hold water. It’s the same reason they make video games with NFL players without the real team names.

ELAINE: …..Excuse me, Mr. Pitt? Would it be alright if I got you the socks tomorrow?

PITT: Tomorrow?

ELAINE: Yes.

PITT: But I was hoping for my new socks today!

ELAINE: Well, it’s just one more day.

PITT: I’m sorry. I must have them today.

Excellent points, questions that it appears no members of the media are even willing to look into, including this entire site. It’s sad.

Didn’t the players, by dissolving their union, give up any rights in this case? There’s noone left on the players side who has a right to question the league’s business decision regarding the TV contract. The only entity that did was the union.

In this case, players or owners? Well if there weren’t owners, there wouldn’t have been teams or a league to play on. Further, who negotiated the first and all succeeding major television contracts? The owners.

Would there have been a union without the owners? No. How do you have a collective bargaining organization without first having someone to bargain with?

It’s as if the current group of players believes the owners and the league can’t make money without them. They have. They can. They will. Game over.

So to you union guys, remember two things. One, many ownerships tolerate your presence because it can still be profitable with a CBA situation. And two, unions don’t make the overall pie any bigger, they just slice it into extra pieces. When number one changes, so does your employment.

I’m still amazed by what the owners offered. They must feel they are at a critical juncture in their growth and are willing to be beneficent to keep the machine rolling. Because in reality, it doesn’t matter who puts on those uniforms, people will watch.

And being someone who feels left somewhat bereft by ties, I’m going to be disappointed unless there is a clear winner in this situation.

Additionally, by lowballing the TV packages for several years in exchange for the $4.3 B war chest, the owners did not negotiate in good faith for the total worth of TV revenues for broadcast of NFL games and thus shorted the players and the NFLPA of revenues that should have contributed to the shared revenue pool and to the player’s salaries.

The league should face fines and penalties imposed by Doty and be made to make whole the NFLPA the amount that has been shorted the players through the conclusion of this renegotiated TV deal. This money should be taken out of the owner’s shares after revenues are distributed.

Even if they took it off the back end, the fact that the OWNERS opted out of the CBA makes that argument void.

How so? They did nothing illegal by opting out of the CBA. I think you would have a hard time convincing people that the NFL wouldn’t have opted out of the CBA without the lockout insurance money. I would bet they have a contingency plan in place.

Another question. Take Peyton Manning who makes, I would have to guess millions yearly on product endorsements (especially on TV). Many of those commercials reference his football career (ie .. shot in a stadium with him throwing passes, or wearing bubblewrap football pads, etc). Manning is clearly earning revenue related to football on television. If the players are revenue sharing partners with the NFL when it comes to TV revenue, why aren’t the players chipping in any of their related revenue?

Wouldn’t any endorsement that referenced a football player’s career while a member of the NFLPA be subject?

“That’s funny coming from a union guy because union members are nothing but mindless drones…”

Drones don’t have rights, much less a seat at the bargaining table.

I know the league took less revenue so that the loan was available for the lockout but :

1) Did they take less on the front end or the back end of the TV deal?

If they took it off of the front end (ie. the part of the deal that was covered under the CBA), then the players have a case.

If they took it off the backend (ie .. 2011-2013) then it’s none of the players business as the CBA is expired. If the league can successfully argue that they didn’t take less in 2009 and 2010 then they should still have access to the lockout money. The players have no legal expectation of a guaranteed percentage of the revenue proceeds from 2011- absent a binding CBA. Currently there is none.

Am I understanding it correctly?

Even if they took it off the back end, the fact that the OWNERS opted out of the CBA makes that argument void.

Part of the evidence in the case are emails and memos from various “broadcast partners” of the NFL complaining of both the tactics (“This is the deal-take it or leave it!”) and of the sleazy way it was being done to screw the players.

Lets not forget the basis of this suit. The NFL has a fiduciary responsibility to the players (since they share revenue) to negotiate the best possible deal. In this case the the league did not do that and the Judge rightly called them on it.

That’s funny coming from a union guy because union members are nothing but mindless drones when they follow the likes of DeMaurice “Can you Dig it?” Smith and Richard Trumka.

Good morning to you too sir.

“There was absolutely no collusion last year, just evidence of wise business decisions due to the anticipation of the lockout situation.”

You’ll make an excellent drone.

It seems to me he would have no say in the matter as the players have no binding agreement with the owners.

I know the league took less revenue so that the loan was available for the lockout but :

1) Did they take less on the front end or the back end of the TV deal?

If they took it off of the front end (ie. the part of the deal that was covered under the CBA), then the players have a case.

If they took it off the backend (ie .. 2011-2013) then it’s none of the players business as the CBA is expired. If the league can successfully argue that they didn’t take less in 2009 and 2010 then they should still have access to the lockout money. The players have no legal expectation of a guaranteed percentage of the revenue proceeds from 2011- absent a binding CBA. Currently there is none.

Am I understanding it correctly?

1)