Skip to content

NFL needs to revisit its legal strategies and tactics

courtroom_0 Getty Images

During a 6:30 a.m. ET pre-coffee visit with our good friend Ross Tucker of Sirius NFL Radio, Ross pointed out a tweet he posted in the wake of the news that Judge Susan Nelson has lifted the lockout:  “Maybe I just haven’t paid enough attention over the years but when is the last time the NFL/owners actually won a legal proceeding?”

It’s a good question, and I don’t know the answer.

Maybe it was the T.O. arbitration in 2005.  Perhaps there have been some victories since then.  If so, they’ve been obscured by a string of failures both under the expired Collective Bargaining Agreement and otherwise.

The problem traces to an apparently unrealistic assessment of the law, and lawyers who either can’t or won’t speak candidly with the owners about the weaknesses of the positions that the owners want to take.  Billion-dollar businesses simply won’t lose that often and that decisively if they are crafting legal positions based not on what the law and the facts reasonably support but based on what the owners want.

We’re not prepared to place the blame for this on general counsel Jeff Pash.  He may have tried at some point over the past few years to persuade the owners to be more objective and/or reasonable, pointing out the potential problems with the positions the league has taken.  But the owners may have refused to listen, or they may have directly or indirectly suggested that, if Pash can’t or won’t argue what the owners want to argue, they’ll find someone else who will.

Regardless of whether Pash has tried to take a more balanced approach, the league has simply refused to acknowledge the possibility that the league could be wrong.  Even a crushing, 9-0 loss before the U.S. Supreme Court in the American Needle case, which focused on the NFL’s long-held insistence that it is one business and not 32 separate ones for antitrust purposes, couldn’t snap the NFL out of it’s “we’re right and you’re wrong” mindset.

We’re confident that the league’s confidence regarding its ability to overturn the lifting of the lockout on appeal shows that the league has yet to revisit its broader legal strategies and attitudes.  As we’ll explain at some point this morning, the league needs to realize that Judge Nelson turned what could have been a 20-page ruling into an 89-page opus in order to make it even harder for the league to secure on appeal the victory that it has presumed.

Until the league stops externalizing blame for its legal failures and starts acknowledging the reality that they have been far too aggressive and unrealistic in the positions they’ve taken, the losses will continue.  If losing the appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling doesn’t prompt the owners to develop more reasonable approaches to significant legal issues, perhaps nothing will.

Permalink 53 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
53 Responses to “NFL needs to revisit its legal strategies and tactics”
  1. lostsok says: Apr 26, 2011 8:10 AM

    Look forrrr the union laaaabel.

  2. mrznyc says: Apr 26, 2011 8:12 AM

    Somewhere along the line Sport became about agents and lawyers and coaches and managers and plans and strategies and systems and commentators and analysts and graphics and sound wipes and wringing the absolute last penny from each and every fan and not about athletes. It’s not a very good formula for the future.

  3. alewatcher says: Apr 26, 2011 8:14 AM

    Wealthy and powerful individuals often cannot handle inconvenient truths, especially if it means they can’t have their way.

  4. chapnastier says: Apr 26, 2011 8:17 AM

    They need to get their cases out of liberal courts. Its that simple.

  5. dgrenard says: Apr 26, 2011 8:18 AM

    Often in closing argument and when attacking the bias and credibility of my opponent’s expert witness, I say”whose bread I eat, his song I sing.” This saying aptly applies to the NFL’s lawyers. They’ve been milking the NFL labor cow for 20 years or so and will continue to do so if allowed. The owners should cut their losses and move on. Most savvy business owners would also have long ago replaced their legal team after serial defeats at the hands of their prime opponent.

    This criticism comes from a defense attorney.

  6. shooliganza says: Apr 26, 2011 8:18 AM

    The NFL’s two year strategy to end the CBA and renegotiate a better deal for themselves came down to their success in getting the lockout and having the television revenue during the lockout.

    Their brilliant legal strategy for success with the lockout was to argue:
    1. We already filed a complaint with the NLRB
    2. Norris Laguardia should be used in a way it has never been used before and for a purpose it was not intended for.

    THIS was the bold legal strategy that would insure the success of the lockout?

    My guess? The legal strategy for defeating the injunction was found to have serious flaws shortly before the reply was due and the league then got the best argument they could out of Boies .

  7. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 8:18 AM

    They should just do what they did in the 1920′s – call in the Pinkerton Detectives.

    It would make more sense than what they’ve done to date.

  8. shrike58 says: Apr 26, 2011 8:25 AM

    I always figured that the owners were seeking Total Victory, or at least a Total Do Over, and that’s a big part of why I had so little respect for their position; this just usually doesn’t happen in real life.

  9. txchief says: Apr 26, 2011 8:31 AM

    Attorney$: 1

    Everyone Else: 0

  10. sabeybaby says: Apr 26, 2011 8:41 AM

    How can you expect the league to win anything when they have to appear before ass clowns like Doty and Nelson?

  11. quirtevans says: Apr 26, 2011 8:41 AM

    From what I can see, Mike, you have it exactly right. The owners wanted what they wanted, and refused to acknowledge the reality that the players had found a better legal strategy.

    The real question is, what now. In the absence of a CBA, do the owners really have to negotiate with each player individually? Is the draft legal? Are any unilaterally imposed workplace rules legal, even if they were previously agreed to under the old (and expired) CBA? And would you want to take the risk of imposing such rules with the threat of triple damages under the antitrust laws hanging over your head?

    If the league office were smart, it would just shut up and stop telling the teams what to do. Any directive from the league office carries a risk of antitrust violations. Let each team decide for itself, and don’t under any circumstances collude to act in concert.

    Unless there’s a stay, I think the owners are well and truly hosed, no matter what they do.

  12. duanethomas says: Apr 26, 2011 8:44 AM

    Just not a smart bunch, especially when it comes to the business of football and players. The average and dumb owners get lucky and hire the right people occasionally and win. Jerry Jones is the leader of that group, then the other group can’t even do that and have losing records consistently, (Bengals). So its no surprise they haven’t had a win in court against players in awhile. They didn’t learn from their history, and in another 20 years won’t learn from this beating. They are incapable and most should have stayed in the business that they made money.(Snyder) Players won last time with Republican appointed judges, and will win this time. Then there will be a fair CBA, because the players will be reasonable. If the situation was reversed the owners wouldn’t and would have an 18 game season, no free agency, no offseason etc…. Greedy & Stupid.

  13. santolonius says: Apr 26, 2011 8:44 AM

    i don’t know why, but i really enjoy all this pondering of legal navels.

  14. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 26, 2011 8:47 AM

    : “Maybe I just haven’t paid enough attention over the years but when is the last time the NFL/owners actually won a legal proceeding?”

    It’s a good question, and I don’t know the answer.

    ————

    Maurice Clarett case?

  15. airraid77 says: Apr 26, 2011 8:48 AM

    The owners need to union bust….sorry if that inconvenient truth hurts your feelings.
    if I am the owners, I dont do a deal, I Set a cap at 50 million dollars and its a free for all after that.
    that would get the players attention almost immediately.
    almost immediately half the leagues players are out of jobs.
    And dont let the players re-constitute their union.
    You wanna sue? we can play hard ball to.

  16. miainthemia says: Apr 26, 2011 8:51 AM

    @chapnastier:

    The NFL owners are running a very profitable monopoly. It’s that simple.

    Liberal court or not, the league really doesn’t have the legal basis to support what the owners want. They are greedy beyond belief. It’s that simple.

  17. fivetwos says: Apr 26, 2011 8:53 AM

    These owners aren’t people that are used to being told what to do, or how things are going to go. They are surrounded by yes people, and are wealthy enough to influence most things to go their way, so I can see the attitude.

    However the laws apparently aren’t on their side in the labor wars.

    Now, it’s time to take the loss like men, get back to the bargaining table and take what you can get.

    This is about to get real ugly with fans if the only thing preventing the league year from commencing is awaiting an appeal they have next to no shot at winning.

    Don’t like it? Sell your team. No shortage of takers.

    And I actually side slightly with the owners, but they clearly overplayed thier hand.

  18. miainthemia says: Apr 26, 2011 8:54 AM

    Another point – this entire argument comes from the inability of the less profitable teams to get the more profitable teams to agree to a revenue sharing model.

    A salary cap cannot work without significant revenue sharing. To ask for one without the other, considering that the NFL as a league is a very profitable monopoly, is simply an untenable business model…unless you’re able to squeeze the players (the most valuable asset the league has – even moreso than the stadiums) dry. It’s just bad business.

  19. miainthemia says: Apr 26, 2011 8:55 AM

    *to agree to a more reasonable revenue sharing model.

    Understood that some revenues are already shared (eg, TV rights).

  20. jwayne11 says: Apr 26, 2011 8:56 AM

    There is still a long way to go in this but I will tell you folks the Owners will always win. Without a CBA, they don’t need to do the following

    1. There is no roster size limits both floor or ceiling. If you are say Pittsburgh and you need to save some cash you go with 45 players instead of 53, at an average salary of 500k that is a 4 mill savings. Who wins in that ?

    2. No minimum salary for any player. So if you want to play football MR 5 year vet on the bubble you are not going to make 550K you are going to make 300k (roughly what an incoming rookie competition might make) Who wins in that?

    3. Teams can do the Norman Braham and charge players for their socks, uniforms, use of the weigh facilities etc. Once again who wins on that?

    4. Once you are retires or no longer a player the owners have no obligation to give you anything. Unlike now where they contribute to a retired players fung. Who wins on that?

    You see if the owners true goal was to cut expenses, they can HACK away now. Its not in the best interest of the game, but it will put the players in a position to truly negotiate.

  21. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 26, 2011 9:00 AM

    chapnastier says: Apr 26, 2011 8:17 AM

    They need to get their cases out of liberal courts. Its that simple.

    ——————

    They lost 9-0 in front of the Supreme Court. 9-0!!! You obviously don’t have a clue. And you can’t find a more conservative (and activist) court in this country.

  22. east96st says: Apr 26, 2011 9:03 AM

    chapnastier says:
    “They need to get their cases out of liberal courts. Its that simple.”

    Ahhh, the assclown from Texas once again confuses his opinion for fact. READ THE ARTICLE!!! They lost before the Supreme Court 9-0!!! If the problem was “liberals” then why were they not able to sway Scalia, Thomas (two of the most conservative judges in Supreme Court history), Alito, and Roberts? If it was “all about liberals”, surely those justices would have sided with the owners. The “problem” chaps is the law was never on their side. If you weren’t such a blind zealot believing whatever talk radio commands you to, you could have seen this coming a mile away. I know it’s pointless to talk to dolts like you. If the facts don’t suit your beliefs, you’ll always come up with a scapegoat. It’s the Texas way. It’s never about personal responsibility with idiots like yourself, it always about blaming the “other” even if there is overwhelming proof that the “other” was never the source of your problems.

  23. salmen76 says: Apr 26, 2011 9:06 AM

    Wake up moderator. Posts my comments. Are you too busy crying for the filthy rich owners! Ha Ha. Ain’t life great. Football is back! “Never Feel Sorry For A Billionaire”. Geaux Saints!

  24. salmen76 says: Apr 26, 2011 9:11 AM

    Moderator is only posting comments favorable to his cause, The League”. Ha Ha. Whether you posts our comments or not will not change the fact the lockout has been lifted. YOU LOSE. Players win, Fans win. We are what matters most anyway. The players endure the playing and we the fans endure the Paying. Owners do nothing whats so ever besides just be rich. Geaux Saints!

  25. pappysarcasm says: Apr 26, 2011 9:19 AM

    This is BS. The communist liberal socialist wasteland we call minnesota of has once again spewed vial chiat all over a good thing! Since when does/can a court order a businessman to take on partners?! The owners should all declare their businesses shut down and declare firesales of all team equipment and facilities, on the day camps would have otherwise opened!

    The owners may have had poor legal strategy knowing the odds they are facing in that COURT, but they are right that they should not be forced to share any revenue or open there books or anything else these criminals are demanding!

    Option 12: if the players win, all high $$ veterans are cut immediately, and sign a 53 man roster of undrafted rookies for $30 and hour with a minimum obamacare and no pension of anykind!

    What a pitiful place this country has turned into! :(

  26. salmen76 says: Apr 26, 2011 9:19 AM

    Doesn’t look like to me i already said it cuz yall won’t post it. Two different things here moderator man. What a job? Moderator man. What cha gonna be when you grow up? Ha Ha. I kill me. Geaux Saints!

  27. mdh67 says: Apr 26, 2011 9:20 AM

    I think the owners’ strategy has been to starve players out regardless of the legal merits of their position. They knew they could engage in a lockout for some period of time to put pressure on the players.

    I don’t think it is likely their attorneys led them down this road with bad advice. I am sure they were advised that losing on lockout was a possibility or even a likelihood. Certainly attorneys can drink their own kool-ade but I cannot believe they would have told the owners the lock out was a guaranteed winning strategy. I am sure their are many memos on this point.

  28. stanklepoot says: Apr 26, 2011 9:23 AM

    hapnastier says: Apr 26, 2011 8:17 AM

    They need to get their cases out of liberal courts. Its that simple.
    ______________
    In the name of all that’s holy, please move on from that ridiculous argument. The NFL isn’t just losing anti-trust cases in “liberal” courts. They’re losing them everywhere, including the currently conservative-leaning Supreme Court. You’re making the same mistake the owners are making. You’re blaming everyone else because you don’t like the outcome.

    I have to say, while I’m a democrat, most of my friends are either Republicans or conservative leaning independents. We get along just fine, and we have some interesting debates from time to time. It’s you die-hard right wingers that are so frustrating. You’re so blinded by your ideology that you refuse to recognize any facts that don’t agree with that ideology. The NFL doesn’t keep losing anti-trust cases because everyone who rules against them is some raging liberal out to get every rich guy they can get their hands on. They keep losing because there arguments aren’t in line with anti-trust law. When it came to labor negotiations, they used to be protected by anti-trust exemptions that arose from the fact that the players were unionized and there was a negotiated cba in effect. That’s no longer the case, and so now those exemptions are gone. It’s as simple as that. The only way to rule against the players in this case is to rule that the decertification never happened. Since the players have the right to dissolve the union, and since they followed the appropriate process to do so, that’s hard to prove in court.

  29. salmen76 says: Apr 26, 2011 9:28 AM

    How bout dat Mike? Ha Ha. All you high-powered “X” lawyers said the league was right all along and that the league would and should win. Now what? Ha Ha. As usual Mike, you are wrong again. Players win this big victory in your face. So you can type your bull crap excuses about the law and why yall lost all you want to but bottom line is, You Lose Again Mike! Ha Ha. To hell with all those rich owners cuz they don’t matter. They don’t play football. The players endure the playing and us fans endure the paying. Geaux Saints!

  30. zaggs says: Apr 26, 2011 9:29 AM

    One major reason for their string of losses is that the league is forced to go in front of a judge (Doty) who would never vote against the friends he has met with in private several times.

  31. rocketdogsports says: Apr 26, 2011 9:29 AM

    There is nothing more frightening than well funded ignorance, teamed with the arrogance that wealth brings, in action. The NFL owners are a very frightening bunch of delusional and misinformed greed mongers. Their strategy has been a failure from the beginning on the same scale as that repeated massive boondogle; invading Russia.

    And yes, I know the players are no chior boys themselves.

  32. ggeden says: Apr 26, 2011 9:31 AM

    The NFL owners only chance at redemption is a CBA the players would re-certify to accept. Because the NFL is looking down the barrel of the American Needle result.

    The whole anti-trust issue in sport has been brewing for decades and probably ought to get finally settled like this is heading (needle).

  33. themohel says: Apr 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    The owners, I think, have been in a tough position over the past 20 years. Generally labor relations is a game of mutually assured destruction – the lockout/strike weapons systems generally force both parties to accept something both dislike but can live with. If one side can remove the other side’s weapons by simply stating “we are no longer a union, at least for a few months,” it removes the necessary balance. In the long run this balance can only be restored by continuing the legal route until the end and trying to get a ruling from the Eighth Circuit (either now or after a trial).

  34. nflsucker says: Apr 26, 2011 9:37 AM

    The deal the owners had before might not have been their dream deal, but everybody prospered, including overhyped draft picks who proved to be busts with guaranteed money.

    It just seems that reasonable people on both sides could agree to a rookie wage system that protects owners from the future Jamarcus Russells and Vernon Gholstons getting mega-rich for doing nothing.

    Then, play some damn football.

  35. livenbreathefootball says: Apr 26, 2011 9:40 AM

    Judge Nelson also gave the owners a chance to see reason before handing down her decision. That was what the two week delay was for. But, the owners refused to take the opportunity given to them, still believing that rich people with rich lawyers don’t lose in court.

  36. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 9:41 AM

    But when daddy gave them the team he said they could do whatever they wanted.

  37. rad312 says: Apr 26, 2011 9:42 AM

    Whether a brilliant strategy by the NFLPA, a colossal blunder by the owners, or a matter of circumstances however the multiple defeats can be directly linked to the liberal court rulings and oversight by Doty and the Minnesota court system.

    The owners need to get to the 8th Circuit to level the playing field.

    Having a blind following of either the owners or the players reminds me so much of politics where a percentage of our population simply vote along party lines.

    The reality is both sides have valid points, which need to be collectively bargain by business people and not the lawyers looking for wins through litigation.

  38. moochzilla says: Apr 26, 2011 9:43 AM

    “They need to get their cases out of liberal courts. Its that simple.”

    Yeah, screw the law.

  39. bronco1st says: Apr 26, 2011 9:44 AM

    It’s probably because the owners won’t take their lawyer’s advice because they feel they are above the law and want to attempt to force their own selfish beliefs. Okay owners sheep, now hit me up with the TDs!

  40. yokoromo says: Apr 26, 2011 9:51 AM

    The ruling may be “in favor of the players”, but the owners are actually getting EXACTLY what they want:
    no minimum salaries, no revenue sharing, no guarranteed benefits, not being forced to sign top ten draft picks to big money contracts, the ability to run a franchise any way you like, etc.

    The small market teams will make more money by spending less. The big market teams will make more money by not having to share as much with small market teams. This solves the biggest obstacle that the owners faced in the last CBA negotiation.

    Best of all, when the competitive ballance of the league is destroyed, the owners can point to the players and say, “It’s all their fault!”

  41. airraid77 says: Apr 26, 2011 10:08 AM

    How can you have a conservative or strict reading of the law and be an activist?LOL!
    Liberal means you interepret the law the way you see fit…..shocking that you dont understand the difference.

  42. tdotsteel says: Apr 26, 2011 10:18 AM

    The NFL owners have been soundly defeated in court up to now because they have no legal ground, liberal or conservative court notwithstanding.

    This is what is wrong with America, the law should be interpreted based on jurisprudence as opposed to partisan leanings which some on this board would prefer to support their political bias.

    The Jerry Jones et al essentially operate a monopoly, have the best system in sports and are willing to kill the golden goose because they want to skim another billion off the top, not reveal their books……because they feel like.

  43. rad312 says: Apr 26, 2011 10:22 AM

    It is amazing to me with your continued editorials portraying the owners as being dumb or above listening to their legal representation.

    The majority of the owners have very successful business enterprises outside of football. So it must be dumb luck that the owners have been successful outside of football however when matters pertain to football they are just simply devoid of common business sense and practices.

    The owners all have separate business interests outside of football so they have been successful in various other industries.

    So when it comes to the common business interest which is the NFL the common failure point has been the Minnesota court system.

    Not labor disputes as a number of owners have other business interests which either employ union members or have business dealings with unions

    The common failure point has been the Minnesota court system!

  44. hatesycophants says: Apr 26, 2011 10:27 AM

    My question to all of you posters (save chapnastier and other obvious bigots) is; where the hell have you all been? This site and these stories in particular have been plagued by seemingly hundreds of posters in support of the owners. For those of us who are reasonable and haven’t fallen victim to the Conservative (most of you who claim this set have no idea what the word means) versus Liberal narrative, the legal position of the owners has always been untenable. Yet, for months this place has seemed like the Heritage Foundation website.

    The owners have the enviable position of being a very poorly regulated monopoly. Since when does middle America shill for that?

    Glad you’re all still out there. Let’s put this nastiness behind us and play some football!

  45. footballfan292 says: Apr 26, 2011 10:29 AM

    So you think the owners would have a better chance in a conservative court?

    The US Supreme Court is a conservative court. And it ruled 9-0 against the NFL in the Needle case. 9-0!!!! The league couldnt get one conservative on the Supreme Court to agree with them?

    Something is very, very wrong with the NFL’s legal strategy. And they will continue to get destroyed in front of every court until they fix it.

  46. mdh67 says: Apr 26, 2011 10:30 AM

    pappysarcasm says:
    Apr 26, 2011 9:19 AM
    This is BS. The communist liberal socialist wasteland we call minnesota of has once again spewed vial chiat all over a good thing! Since when does/can a court order a businessman to take on partners?! The owners should all declare their businesses shut down and declare firesales of all team equipment and facilities, on the day camps would have otherwise opened!

    The owners may have had poor legal strategy knowing the odds they are facing in that COURT, but they are right that they should not be forced to share any revenue or open there books or anything else these criminals are demanding!

    Option 12: if the players win, all high $$ veterans are cut immediately, and sign a 53 man roster of undrafted rookies for $30 and hour with a minimum obamacare and no pension of anykind!

    What a pitiful place this country has turned into!
    __________________________

    What you are proposing is far more un-American. What you fail to understand is that the owners have the benefit of not having to compete against each other. This is what is an antitrust violation. Businesses cannot work together to set prices or artficially impact the market. So, owners can now compete against each other for players with no draft or free agency rules. If one team doesn’t want to sign high priced veterans, I am sure another team will. If this means that smaller market teams cannot compete, well then that’s too bad for them. That is just the way capitalism works.

  47. hatesycophants says: Apr 26, 2011 10:32 AM

    One more thing… @ pappysarcasm,

    I love and have fought for my country. I would fight again if called. Since you hate her so, enjoy Europe? South America? Canada?

  48. tremoluxman says: Apr 26, 2011 10:32 AM

    In the legal dick contests, the owners have consistently come up short.

  49. teddyrex says: Apr 26, 2011 10:34 AM

    rad312, maybe you should not talk about things you don’t know about. for example, i wouldn’t talk about advanced medicine or how to deep fry french fries, because I don’t work in those fields. nor would i claim that the refusal of my doctor to give me chemotherapy reflected a political bias.

    the law and facts here are very very clear, which is why the NFL keeps losing in front of both Republican and Democratic-appointed judges. The fact that you’d call this political bias, without any evidence backing up your claim, without any apparent understanding of the legal issues or facts under consideration, clearly paints YOU as the political hack. Get a clue, stop listening to talk radio, and start actually researching things before you spout off on them.

  50. wholeftthegateopen says: Apr 26, 2011 10:36 AM

    airraid77 says: Apr 26, 2011 8:48 AM

    The owners need to union bust….sorry if that inconvenient truth hurts your feelings.
    if I am the owners, I dont do a deal, I Set a cap at 50 million dollars and its a free for all after that.
    that would get the players attention almost immediately.
    almost immediately half the leagues players are out of jobs.
    And dont let the players re-constitute their union.
    You wanna sue? we can play hard ball to.

    The only problem with your argument is that is EXACTLY what you can’t do! What you are proposing only works if every team has to decide on it’s own rules for doing business…the LEAGUE no longer exists, all anti-trust exemptions no longer apply and you are now 32 separate businesses. When have you ever seen 2 businesses agree on anything? the hardball you propose playing means there will be NO NFL FOOTBALL. I don’t understand why so many people don’t understand that THE OWNERS don’t exist without a UNION – anti trust 101, high school level civics class.

  51. Deb says: Apr 26, 2011 12:19 PM

    @chap …

    Take your personal political obsessions out of this because they make you sound foolish. Read the post from the attorney that appears just after yours. The writing has been on the wall in Big BOLD Letters for a long time. The owners simply ignored it.

    The NFL is a gold-producing goose paying billions of dollars of which the owners reap the lions share no matter how much they choose to poor-mouth and how much gullible people choose to believe them. But after generations of exploiting talent, they didn’t like the simple idea of players having some of the eggs. So like the king, they’re now standing on the brink of strangling the goose.

    We are at this point because the owners opted out of a sound CBA and tried to get more. They rejected a player offer that would have given them more but not enough. They played fast and loose with the law in planning their lockout strategy and got shut down. They didn’t stop. The players caught them off-guard with a quick end-around. They didn’t stop. Instead they gambled everything on a flawed legal stragegy. It’s time to stop and sign an agreement before they lose everything. But some men simply can’t take No for an answer.

  52. airraid77 says: Apr 26, 2011 2:00 PM

    wholeftthegateopen,
    the owners wouldnt have to do that for very long.
    the players would sh it. 50 million dollars 3/4 of the players would almost immediately be out of work, the salaries would be cut devastatingly so, and the players have a deal, the owners on the table.
    it would take the players about a 24 hours to figure sign the deal or life as we know it is gone.

  53. thefiesty1 says: Apr 26, 2011 4:28 PM

    Just what the fans need, more lawyers and more legal strategies. This mess is too F’ed up to fix. No thanks to the layers and an Obama appointed judge.

Leave a Reply

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