Yes, I would shrivel up and die if there were no football next year. Some people take tranquilizers. Some people drink to excess. Football is my stress release. No, on second thought … I would get a cabin in the woods … stop personal grooming … and start sending suspicious packages filled with stink bombs to NFL owners. UniDeb.

@burntorangehorn …

As I’ve clearly said, I think the influx of pro-owner commenters who registered within the 48 hours after decertification are league plants. You are have been around too long to be a league plant. You’re just wrongheaded like chap. Maybe it’s a Texas thing.

How the heck can the owners not impose a lockout? Anti-Trust laws because the owners of separate businesses are agreeing to certain practices? Then how can a league even exist, they have to agree to rules to play the game. Isn’t that like Burger King and Taco Bell agreeing that the cheapest non-side item has to be $2? So in essence, wouldn’t finding the owners in violation of Anti-Trust laws result in no NFL?
******************************
Not exactly. They could enter into a partnership/trade agreement (like when Taco Bell and Pizza Hut build a restaurant together) – part of the trade agreement would be “OK, we will all sit down and come up with a schedule every year”. Of course, if they go down this path, some teams could pay their players minimum wage (if they’d take it), while others would spend millions to win chamionships over and over.

On the merits, I think the owners are on sound ground arguing that the union’s “disclaimer of interest” or decertification is a sham. What is more problematic for the owners, of course, is the pivotal question of whether they WAIVED that defense under the SSA and CBA.

If U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson finds that the owners waived the “sham” defense, it most likely will NOT be because she concludes that the CBA had expired prior to the union decertifying.

Funny you call me a self proclaimed genius, yet you are the one making stuff up. I know exactly what I am talking about. Try reading the actual language of the CBA and the lawsuit and you will find it that no one is claiming that CBA actually expired, including Judge Doty who had sign of an agreement to legally extend it! Try reading the relevant public available information before you tell I don’t know the details because I wasn’t there. I never claimed to have inside knowledge, only the FACTS that are publicly available and meanwhile you posting as if you have inside knowledge when you are completely off base and the legal filings that are publicly available clearly prove you have no idea what you are talking about – that is unless of course you are the only one privy that information and the league, union, and judge overseeing the CBA are unaware. THE FACTS ARE THE CBA DID NOT EXPIRE ON MARCH 4! And no one is disputing that fact except you. And since you apparently have never seen it, here you go educate yourself on the topic you choose to discuss…

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

Obviously an injunction in this case would be a temporary solution to a greater problem, but if Nelson were to issue the injunction, what would be the chances the two sides could resolve their differences before either (A) the injunction is lifted or (B) things break down and the sides walk away?

Deb: it seems you think that those on the side of the owners are shills. I’m not a shill for the owners, but neither am I particularly sympathetic to the players. In the end, I think the players are responsible for refusing to compromise, but I think it’s obvious that the league and owners have a serious advantage in communication to the public, and that’s resulting in a superior propaganda campaign. On the players’ side we have a bunch of loose cannons who don’t know anything about shutting the hell up with their twitter/facebook accounts. This results in a rapidly-growing polarization toward the owners’ side on the part of the public, for better or for worse.

1. If the league is forced to operate as 32 separate businesses, don’t the rules of the game and roster sizes also become anti-trust violations? Can The Cowboys and Patriots negotiate to play under a different set of rules than two other games?

2. Wouldn’t roster sizes become up to each business, since the current size is a result of collective bargaining? Can the owner of the Saints, in an effort to save money, enter the season with only the guys he already has signed on his roster? Perhaps, his coach will tell Drew Brees that he’s now playing DB in addition to QB. If he refuses, couldn’t he be cut for breach of contract – since I presume his contract doesn’t specify that he can only play QB. There would be no league disciplinary process since that was also collectively bargained for.

I would think the idea that the league can operate as 32 truly independent businesses is absurd. I would hope a judge would see it that way as well and find a way to force these sides back to the negotiating table.

Honestly think about this for a minute, what public interest does the NFL serve? Would you shrivel up and die if you found out there was not going to be football next year? Would you get a divorce (assuming you are married) and have your kids (assuming you have kids) taken away from you? Would you go bankrupt and lose all of your savings? Would your health decline so rapidly that you would be given months to live?

The answer to all of those is an obvious no. Life would go on. The only thing football does to the public is distract it from the realities of the world around it for one day a week. Would local economies suffer? Yeah for those 5-6 weekends a year when a team actually hosts a game. So a few hundred part time employees would lose a couple hundred bucks. However I am sure that the smart business men who own NFL teams will find another way to fill the stadiums and make money (concerts, etc.) and keep those people employed.

Are the players being damaged? Yeah, they will be forced to get real jobs and earn 35k-60k a year an average American. They will have to pay 30 bucks a month for their gym membership like we do. Interesting enough though, they wont have to worry about life long injuries that they are complaining about if they don’t play football. In theory that argument may backfire in their face.

I, like you, do also care about the lockout on a daily basis which is pretty evident because I live on this site every day between work projects. I do not however care if I miss one season of football (if I miss two however I might lose it). But keep in mind what a fan like me really wants. I want these greedy players, who all think we are too dumb to understand what is going on, to realize that they are EMPLOYEES. The NFL has been here before them, it will be here after them. If the lockout continues, which I hope it does, I want CFL, UFL and AFL players signed to my team (the Cowboys) and I will buy their jersey’s and root for them just like I do now (of course the talent level wouldn’t change for them). It is the daily reminders of arrogance from these players, and also stupidity (Adrian Peterson and your homeboy Rashard Mendenall) that has me irate.

Whether the sham defense [ as relates to the timing factor] is going to stand or fall, will be determined by the judges view of interpretation. The”Letter” of the law verses the “intent ” of the law.Which one is going to prevail ? Case precidence anyone?

…and that’s why the owners presented their “offer” 10 mins before the deadline knowing that the players would not have the time to respond before the CBA expired and thus remove their option of decertifying.

In other words it was a sham offer purely done for PR.

In other words, the owners had zero interest and put in very close to zero effort in making the mediation a success.

The owners have planned on a lockout for two years and nothing was going to get in their way.

The owners want a lockout, they want a union and they want to break that union by pitting player against player as they sit at home with no work & no money coming in.

Once that is done they can cream off the profits for the next 20 years.

Games will have to be missed for the owner’s strategy to work. They’re OK with that. They don’t care about the fans.

The players don’t care any more than the owners but at least they want to play because it’s the only way they will get paid. And they’re going to court to force the owners to let them do that.

So Vrabel is 100% correct. All true fans will want the injunction to be granted. It guarantees next season.

What makes this forum entertaining is the number of self-proclaimed genius’ that post here. The NFLPA was prepared to file for decertification on March 4th. The league negotiated a 7 day extension for negotiating purposes. You have no idea what conditions for the extension were discussed in that March 4th meeting, because you, pal, were not there. Neither do you know what the players/NFLPA* will argue in response to any ‘sham’ defense. I merely pointed out one of issues surrounding this issue. The attorneys representing the NFLPA are not as stupid as you think they are. They know many more details than you think you do.

If you truly don’t care about either side’s argument and just want to see NFL football in 2011 then you would be rooting for the judge to lift the lockout…..if you have some sort of agenda that outweights watching football in 2011 then you’re probably hopping the lockout is not lifted.

————————————————–
Sorry, but that makes no sense. I care about seeing football in 2011. I also care about the business of the NFL and what’s best for the fans and fair for those involved. And I want the players to be granted their injunction and the lockout to be lifted.

First, lifting the lockout will resume the NFL season, free agency, and OTAs. Second, it will force the owners–who I believe have not negotiated in good faith and are dragging their heels now while trying to make it seem the players are the obstacle–back to the table. At that point, I think they’ll suddenly be more inspired to work out a fair deal.

You are completely wrong. how the league treated the extended period has no bearing on whether or not the CBA had actually expired. And you are so off base that the union/players won’t even try to make your argument, one because it has no merit to begin with and two, if the CBA had actually expired on March 4, then the union cannot decertify and file a suit for six months after the desertification. That is precisely why they ran to court before the CBA actually expired, they felt it was worth it to try and get the suit filed before the CBA expired because legally they would have to wait 6 months if the CBA expired.

How the heck can the owners not impose a lockout? Anti-Trust laws because the owners of separate businesses are agreeing to certain practices? Then how can a league even exist, they have to agree to rules to play the game. Isn’t that like Burger King and Taco Bell agreeing that the cheapest non-side item has to be $2? So in essence, wouldn’t finding the owners in violation of Anti-Trust laws result in no NFL?

Per the following link on NFL.com from March 4th, the conditions for the extensions were discussed.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e9a6e6/article/league-players-union-agree-to-extend-cba-deadline-seven-days

Specifically:

“During Friday’s one-day extension, teams were instructed ( by the league) to operate as if the CBA has expired, meaning they no longer can cut, re-sign players or make any player moves until a new CBA is bargained. The terms will remain the same under the new seven-day extension.”

Therefore, the league cannot effectively argue that the NFLPA decertified too soon if the league itself stated that the extensions – for negotiation purposes only – operated under the premise that the CBA had expired. The ‘sham’ defense is without merit.

Look if the owners felt they had an advantage by having this dispute go to court they too would have done so a long time ago. We’re talking billions of dollars here and no one holds back with that much money involved. Each group will use the tools available to them to get the upper hand. In the owners case it’s a lockout (which was dimminished with Dotty ruling the lockout insurance illegal)….for the players it’s decertification and the courts.

Just as with the Dotty ruling whatever happens after this court ruling will go a long way towards determining the outcome of this dispute.

If you truly don’t care about either side’s argument and just want to see NFL football in 2011 then you would be rooting for the judge to lift the lockout…..if you have some sort of agenda that outweights watching football in 2011 then you’re probably hopping the lockout is not lifted.

Meanwhile, I’ll go back to watching the “Tim Tebow of college basketball”, Jimmer Fredette.

(Hurry up NFL. Please.)

Yes, peester15, I care about the lockout on a daily basis because I care about free agency. You have heard of free agency, right? We have some free agents on our team and I’d like to know if they’re going to go or stay before the draft. I’d also like to know if we can fill some needs by picking up any free agents.

Mike, re the fourth point–the public interest: Could the players have added the name of a representative fan to their request for an injunction? As a fan, naturally I believe it’s in our interest to have free agency and to ensure my team gets its workouts, OTAs, camp, etc. But apparently some so-called “fans,” like hobartbaker, want the injunction to be denied, the lockout to continue and us to have no football in 2011. Perhaps they could go watch soccer … and take the soccer ball and shove it in their … okay, I’ll behave.