Skip to content

Players want to expand lockout insurance case

DavidDotyGetty Getty Images

The NFL players’ recent run of good luck in court (temporary stay of the ruling lifting the lockout notwithstanding) began with Judge David Doty finding on March 1 that the NFL violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by failing to maximize shared TV revenue when negotiating broadcast contract extensions that beefed up the networks’ obligation to pay money to the owners during a work stoppage.

On Thursday, Judge Doty will conduct a hearing on the question of the damages to be paid by the NFL to the players for leaving money on the table in 2009.  The players have asked for amounts that could approach or surpass $1 billion.

According to Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, the players are now angling for even more.

Kaplan reports that the players want to expand the scope of the ruling to include not just TV deals but all commercial contracts.  “One can assume Defendants’ illegal scheme extended to vendor contracts beyond the broadcast contracts at issue here,” the players’ lawyers said last month in a court filing.  “Notwithstanding the limited scope of this proceeding, as guardian of the Class, this Court has authority to expand the inquiry beyond the broadcast contracts and redress related violations, in further proceedings.”

Per Kaplan, “[a]lmost all NFL contracts with sponsors” contain provisions guaranteeing payment in the event of a lockout.  Under the same reasoning that Judge Doty accepted in the case that focused on the TV deals, he could find that the league took less money during normal operations in the hopes of getting money for nothing during a lockout.

The move likely is all about leverage.  As in the players trying to get more of it.  And it could expose the lawyers to scrutiny for failing to make the argument earlier, especially if the applicable statute of limitations has expired, making the allegation too little, too late.

Indeed, the contention should have been included in the original lockout insurance claim.  If it wasn’t, and if it’s now too late to pursue it, well, here’s hoping that the lawyers have been paying their malpractice insurance premiums.

Permalink 47 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
47 Responses to “Players want to expand lockout insurance case”
  1. mick730 says: May 9, 2011 10:18 AM

    I’m really getting tired of you justifying every greedy, lawyer driven tactic of the players by saying it’s all about “leverage”.

    It’s all about money and the simple fact that the last CBA was so incredibly one sided these pampered, spoiled players do not want to allow even the smallest change. They don’t care about “playing the game they love”, they simply want this ridiculously overloaded gravy train to continue running down the tracks.

  2. zoxitic says: May 9, 2011 10:21 AM

    More and more I get the feeling the 2011 season is a goner.

  3. clintonportisheadd says: May 9, 2011 10:22 AM

    I think the statute of limitations in these cases would be three years so they are most likely within the time frame.

    I also believe that if fraud is involved (which is at the heart of the case here) then that statute of limitations becomes irrelevant.

    SO… even if he doesn’t let the NFLPA “piggyback” the cases together here, they can just file a separate action using the same legal theory that they hit a home run on earlier. It’s not like they don’t know how the Judge is going to rule on it!

  4. geo1113 says: May 9, 2011 10:23 AM

    “One can assume Defendants’ illegal scheme extended to vendor contracts beyond the broadcast contracts at issue here,” the players’ lawyers said last month in a court filing.
    ____________________________

    No. In a court of law, one can’t assume. You actually have to have evidence.

  5. chapnastier says: May 9, 2011 10:28 AM

    So let me pose a question here that the pro-player people will ignore or give a solid thumbs down for: Since the players are partners with the owners, could you owners also sue for portions of all endorsement income that players receive? I mean I think that is only fair and if the legal logic supports the players going after this, then the logic works in favor of the owners doing the same.

  6. allinblindsevenduece says: May 9, 2011 10:35 AM

    Well its official. I give up. I can’t do this anymore. Even if the lockout is lifted and the league goes back to normal operations I feel as if the player will still find something to try and sue over. Not sayin the owners are angels either. The court should order a mandate of negotiating towards a new deal and have a date set as a deadline and if they go over that date all business for both parties are shut down until an agreement is reached. that way nobody benifits from it.

  7. stevecmh says: May 9, 2011 10:35 AM

    Whether the scope of the case is expanded or not, any damages awarded to the players will undoubtedly complicate the owners’ lockout financing scheme.

    I hope the financial jeopardy represented by the upcoming hearing before Judge Doty helps to encourage the owners to end the lockout. They need to realize they have as much to lose as the players in this stand-off.

    Of course, applying the bizarre logic used by most who comment on this site, this development will likely be portrayed as further proof of a Jerry Jones-led conspiracy to turn the NFL into MLB.

  8. mystictate says: May 9, 2011 10:37 AM

    Quick Vote
    If you are on the Owners Side Thumbs Up
    If you are on the players side Thumbs Down
    Me im on the owners side

  9. seahawkhuskyfan says: May 9, 2011 10:49 AM

    This whole thing reminds me of the little fat kid at the park with the only ball. That fat kid is the owners. You can only push him so far, make fun of him so long, embarrass him so many times before he takes his ball and goes home. Regardless of what everybody thinks, the Owners can survive a year without football. Most players, even with the great educations, cannot.

  10. CKL says: May 9, 2011 10:51 AM

    Pretty much everything that’s happened so far has convinced me of one thing for sure. The method used to compensate the players MUST change…or all they’ll be from now to eternity is more opportunities to tie this up in court now and in the future. I wish serious consideration had been given to Cornwell’s model.

  11. endzonezombie says: May 9, 2011 10:58 AM

    I wonder what the shill posters get paid to come onto this site with their owner propaganda. If you are pro-owner, you are pro-lockout and anti-fan. So why be hypocritical and try to have it both ways: pro-owner and pro-fan? Once a CBA is reached, I assume these hypocrits will disappear from this site, or change their names. This site doesn’t show how many days a poster has belonged, so we have no idea if a poster joined yesterday to post propaganda.

  12. hail2tharedskins says: May 9, 2011 11:03 AM

    First, let me say this could ultimately backfire when this goes to appeals court. Judge Doty ruled that the league intentionally included the lockout clauses and left money on the table in the renegotiated contracts to secure leverage over the players in CBA negotiations. If in fact the league has been including this language in all contracts for many years, and by trying to include these contracts into case it could give an appellate court justification to say that Judge Doty erred in his ruling (since he hasn’t ruled on damages yet, he might even look at these other contracts and conclude that damages (esp punitive) are minimal if this practice predates preparations for negotiating a new CBA and just say I will hold the funds in escrow and not award any damages – which is probably the appropriate outcome anyway and which he might have been inclined to do anyway). My second point is that this entire case is really moot from the players’ perspective anyway (unless of course they never intend to negotiate another CBA). Decreasing the owner’s income during a potential lockout of games would only be effective if the players’ actually are willing to miss games. Since they have made it very clear they do not intend to drag this out if they have to miss games there really is no leverage to be gained by decreasing the income to owners in the event a lockout lasts into the season. As for any damages the players could get from this case, it would simply be deducted from the players’ share of revenues in any future CBA (its not like owners who are looking to decrease player costs and retain more are just going to pay damages to players out of their cut – the will simply reduce any future proposals by the amount of damages they owe). I just don’t think this case will have any bearing on the outcome of the labor dispute. The real battle has and will continue to be whether or not the players can get the lockout lifted (and of course if they get the lockout lifted then the lockout insurance is even less meaningful).

  13. mick730 says: May 9, 2011 11:04 AM

    Sorry CKL, I agree with your premise that the method used to compensate players must be changted, but if memory serves, Cornwell wanted the owners to give the players a large equity stake in their teams. First off, that cannot happen for the Packers; more importantly, nobody who has a business, whether they built it themselves or whether their parents or grandparents did, should be forced to give away any portion of their ownership.

    The players are employees. That’s it. While the NFLPA’s claim that the average career in the NFL is only 3 years is a sham, regardless, it is a temporary gig. The average player coming into the league as a rookie gets far more in terms of compensation than even the most highly qualified college graduate with an advanced degree. During their time in the NFL, even at the league minimum, they receive more than ten times the average pay of the average American.

    I think the NFL players are more than adequately compensated. I’m currious as to why so many people are worried about the compensation of 1800 very wealthy football players given the plight of millions of Americans stuck in an economy that is going nowhere.

    Every true NFL fan should be concerned about the long term health of the game. Maybe as a Packer fan, this is of greater concern to me as we do not have a billionaire owner like Paul Allen, Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones to bail us out when we get into financial difficulties. While the Packers are still making money, the downward trend in profitability is simply unsustainable. That’s all there is to it. The Packers are a non profit entity, which doesn’t mean they don’t make a profit. However, as shareholders, we cannot sell our stock nor do we receive and dividends. The team must fund all of it’s costs from operations. If the NFL players continue to take 60% of each and every revenue dollar, at some point, the Packers will become insolvent. So will the other teams once their owners decide that enough is enough.

  14. broncofan4life says: May 9, 2011 11:08 AM

    There is no football,and playstation network is offline for 6 weeks iam going nuts time to start watching soaps…….same amount of drama,,what am i saying cmon guys get it together

  15. bmac187 says: May 9, 2011 11:12 AM

    chapnastier says:
    May 9, 2011 10:28 AM
    So let me pose a question here that the pro-player people will ignore or give a solid thumbs down for: Since the players are partners with the owners, could you owners also sue for portions of all endorsement income that players receive? I mean I think that is only fair and if the legal logic supports the players going after this, then the logic works in favor of the owners doing the same.
    —————————————————
    The TV $ was part of the revenue that determines how much $ goes toward players contracts, as negotiated in the prior CBA.

    Endorsement $ was not not part of the revenue that determines how much $ goes toward players contracts, as negotiated in the prior CBA.

    So the answer is, it wasn’t negotiated.

  16. p4ever says: May 9, 2011 11:14 AM

    @endzonezombie
    You’re absolutely right.
    Beyond the NFL, these shill posters are fighting against their own class (I cannot phatom a rich person being paid to post idiocies he doesn’t believe in). This is all about the fight against poor and middle class America and these shills are being used as mercenaries. Gain a dollar today but destroy your future…

  17. geo1113 says: May 9, 2011 11:16 AM

    broncofan4life says:
    May 9, 2011 11:08 AM
    There is no football,and playstation network is offline for 6 weeks iam going nuts time to start watching soaps…….same amount of drama,,what am i saying cmon guys get it together
    __________________________

    I would think looking for a job would be a good way for you to pass your time!

  18. chapnastier says: May 9, 2011 11:19 AM

    @ endzonezombie

    I don’t really think you understand why so many of us are pro-owner. And to be fair, I don’t think it is really “pro-owner” but supporting the side that is trying to keep the sustainability of the league over the long term. The players are reaching for far more information and access then they are legally allowed. This is bigger than the NFL right now though. If the players win this battle, remove FA, salary cap, draft, and other things that make the NFL what it is today, then the NBA will take notice. Those players will hold out, refuse to negotiate and take a sham argument to the courts. This is bigger than the NFL, the owners, the players or schmucks like you and I.

    We aren’t getting paid to comment here, we are just using common sense logic to come to our conclusions. And I have been here for 3 years chief and I love this site too much to go anywhere even if my “side” loses.

  19. mightymightylafootball says: May 9, 2011 11:19 AM

    endzonezombie says:
    May 9, 2011 10:58 AM

    I wonder what the shill posters get paid to come onto this site with their owner propaganda. If you are pro-owner, you are pro-lockout and anti-fan. So why be hypocritical and try to have it both ways: pro-owner and pro-fan? Once a CBA is reached, I assume these hypocrits will disappear from this site, or change their names. This site doesn’t show how many days a poster has belonged, so we have no idea if a poster joined yesterday to post propaganda.

    *~*~*~*~*~*~*

    I’m pro-owner and pro-fan. Your premise is that if “you are pro-lockout and anti-fan”. Bad premise, mustard-head.

    I take my stance from the notion that business builders should be free to offer whatever compensation they like to employees, and that employees are free to accept or reject whatever compensation they like.

    The owners are offering X. Players aren’t willing to play for X. So the owners said “forget it”. That’s about sums it up.

    Now they players are crying that they are being abused, marginalized and are treated unfair. Cry me a river. Players are more than welcome to form thier own league. Hell, the owners did….

  20. clintonportisheadd says: May 9, 2011 11:21 AM

    hail2tharedskins says: May 9, 2011 11:03 AM

    First, let me say this could ultimately backfire when this goes to appeals court. Judge Doty ruled that the league intentionally included the lockout clauses and left money on the table in the renegotiated contracts to secure leverage over the players in CBA negotiations. If in fact the league has been including this language in all contracts for many years…..

    ===============

    It hasn’t been.

    Testimony in this case from TV execs showed they were troubled by these NEW demands from the league and did not want to agree to them. However, the NFL held all the cards and forced them to take the deal (lockout payments and all) or lose their games.

    Sorry to ruin your hypothesis.

  21. dcbronco says: May 9, 2011 11:24 AM

    @Chap. The answer there would be no. The players endorsement deals aren’t a part of shared revenue because the players aren’t allowed to wear their uniforms or do much of anything in regard to team association unless approved by the league. In cases where they do, you can bet the league was already getting a share of that money. Remember the situation with Warren Sapp years ago where he argued that he wasn’t even allowed to use his association with his team to make extra money.

    You have to remember that everything involved in these cases is based on contracts. And those contracts are based on established laws. What the league has done in this case is a clear violation. They had an obligation to maximize income as the TV deal negotiated. Having money set aside for themselves alone was illegal.

    Look at it like you and a friend are selling a service that will last a year. Your friend does the negotiation and he sets it up so that if the job ends before a year, he will continue to be paid for the year. The total to be paid is 1 million. All revenue is shared between you two 50 50. After 9 months, he cuts the contract. You receive half of 750 thousand. You don’t know that he will still be paid the 250 thousand and he pockets the entire sum.

    That is what the league did to the players.

    And the real kicker was that the league would repay some of the money when games started again. But from shared revenue. So the players were meant to lose twice.

  22. CKL says: May 9, 2011 11:26 AM

    AAAAANNNNNNNDDD…endzonezombie goes on “the list”…. sigh.
    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    mick730 says:
    May 9, 2011 11:04 AM
    Sorry CKL, I agree with your premise that the method used to compensate players must be changted, but if memory serves, Cornwell wanted the owners to give the players a large equity stake in their teams

    ___________________________________
    I believe you are correct that players salaries in his model were based on more of a “true ownership”. But IIRC the players would have to absorb losses if profits went down as well. I just think that if they wanted to be true BUSINESS PARTNERS instead of “partners as it relates to sharing revenue only”, that mode was a lot more fair and at least a starting point.

  23. mackie66 says: May 9, 2011 11:30 AM

    What if all 32 owners simply cut/released/waved every player now on their rosters? If the players became non employees how much money could they receive? Two weeks severence? The players will not let “well enough” alone. I understand the NFLPA is still, no longer a union and the players should be paid for their work, but they are not partners with the owners.

  24. clintonportisheadd says: May 9, 2011 11:36 AM

    mick730 says: May 9, 2011 11:04 AM

    Maybe as a Packer fan, this is of greater concern to me as we do not have a billionaire owner like Paul Allen, Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones to bail us out when we get into financial difficulties.

    ===================

    As a fellow Packer fan I must say you have just listed 2 of the 3 greatest enemies to the future existence of the Packers. And none are the players.

    There is plenty of money now (and even more in the future) for professional football. The players are not the problem. The owners are the problem. Right now you have a war going on amongst them for greater autonomy over their finances. A great number oppose the revenue sharing concept and want their “big market” teams to have the competitive advantages in football as the Red Sox or Yankees do in football. Forget Green Bay becoming the Kansas City Royals of pro football-they would end up in the UFL!

    Football players are entertainers. Like singers, actors, or musicians they command a high price due to a specific skill. While we can all act, we all can’t be Tom Cruise. While we all can sing, we all can’t be Streisand. And while we can all throw a football, we all can’t be Aaron Rodgers. That the top football players command high prices is semi free market reaction to their skill. I say semi because the NFL has been adjudicated a monopoly on many occasions.

  25. ffootballontwitter says: May 9, 2011 11:47 AM

    @endzonezombie @p4ever
    Is it more likely that all of us are getting paid under the table by the owners — or that the two of you have never run or managed a business, and therefore have no idea of what it means to deal with spoiled employees who believe they are entitled to all sorts of things, blame managers for their inability to manage their own lives, and are constantly on the lookout for ways to scam the system?

  26. hail2tharedskins says: May 9, 2011 11:49 AM

    clintonportishead,

    Maybe you should read what the article is about. The palyers are trying to introduce all commerical contracts, that would mean more than just the recently negotiated tv contracts. That is why I expressly said introducing these other contracts could backfire as it would complicate the ruling that was made expressly as it related to the renegotiated tv contracts. Why is it that you are so quick to attack my post that you don’t even bother to read my post or the article it is in response to???

  27. chapnastier says: May 9, 2011 11:49 AM

    @ DC

    I am more making a larger point at how asinine the partnership theory is. I understand that contractually no endorsement income is entitled to the teams. I mean if players are going to make money off of endorsements that wouldn’t even exist had they not played in the NFL and they are partners as they keep trying to convince us of, then it would seem logical that in the future a percentage of that should go back to the league. I just have a huge problem with the hypocrisy of the players.

    @ Clinton

    When Tom Cruise stops acting there will be another great actor. When Streisand (really man?) stops singing there will be another great singer. When Aaron Rodgers leaves, there will be another great QB. These people come and go, they aren’t bigger than their institutions like you keep implying.

  28. mick730 says: May 9, 2011 11:54 AM

    Thank you for your response CKL. While your premise is correct in theory, there is one major flaw: Just becaue the players want to be partners, doesn’t mean the owners have to make them their partners.

    They aren’t partners, they are employees.

    Clintonportisheadd, I thank you also for your response. However, as a Packer fan, I would hope that you have taken the time to review the financials of our team. Second, the national revenue, things like the Network TV deal and DirecTV are subject to revenue sharing amongst the teams. The “local revenue” is not. In terms of “local revenue”, it is estimated that the Packers rank 11th among the 32 NFL franchises in local revenue. That’s awfully good for the smallest market in the league. Despite that, as the financials show, the Packers bottom line during the term of the last CBA has fallen off a cliff. I don’t care how one cuts it, going from 35.8 million to 5.2 net profit (9.8 for operational profit) demonstrates that there is a clear and unsustainable financial problem for the franchise.

    Lastly, as a Packer fan, you probably also know that the Packers are not one of the teams that are on the receiving end of revenue sharing between the franchises. Minnesota and Kansas City, to name but a couple, are net recipients of NFL revenue sharing.

    The Packers have always viewed revenue sharing as the ultimate financial insurance policy for themselves. While they have not partaken of any revenue sharing benefits to date, knowing that it is there provides stability and a financial floor for the team.

    Again, while I am a die-hard Packer fan, I am a fan of the team, not the players. While I very much like many of the Packer players throughout the years, they come and go. The team edures. Some Packer fans could not imagine Brett Favre leaving and the Packers surviving. They survived just fine and in fact have prospered.

    I do not want any NFL player to be impoverished. But they are now overly compensated. We are not talking about donw and out people getting their government support cut or reduced, in fact, in the owners last offer, not a single current NFL player would see a cut in his pay. Not one penny.

    People like myself want the Packers to be financially healthy for the long haul. I share your suspicions of Jerry Jones, I always have. I think he would sell the Green Bay franchise, along with the Vikings and the Chiefs right down the river if he could to make a extra dime for imself. But I believe that the vas majority of NFL owners as well as NFL fans, know that the NFL without a viable Green Bay franchise would not be the NFL.

  29. southmo says: May 9, 2011 12:03 PM

    The lawyers should have addressed this in their previous arguments???

    Well doesn’t that mean the players can now sue their own lawyers for “leaving money on the table?”

    And if Doty doesn’t give them a billion plus, they should sue Doty for leaving money on the table.

    And later, they can sue all the season ticket holders for not renewing this year, and leaving money on the table.

    And we wonder why the owners don’t want the courts to oversee the next CBA…

  30. tommyf15 says: May 9, 2011 12:10 PM

    chapnastier says:
    So let me pose a question here that the pro-player people will ignore or give a solid thumbs down for: Since the players are partners with the owners

    The players are NOT partners with the owners, so your question is based on a false premise.

    However, in the real world business partners sue each other all of the time.

  31. CKL says: May 9, 2011 12:17 PM

    Mick-true the owners don’t have to make players partners in that sense. I’m not positive it’s a good idea for the SPORT at all to do that. I am just thinking that if the players are so into that idea (and I think that they may be since the NFLPA* likes to emphasize that word a bunch) that they are allowing it to be the basis of all their their main litigating points that perhaps there is a solution that could work for both sides.

  32. well7765 says: May 9, 2011 12:18 PM

    Seeing as how everyone on here today is pro owner, I’m probably going to get killed for this, but here it goes. Also, I’m neither pro player nor owners, both are greedy bastards and could get a deal done if they wanted.

    That said, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about this. The argument that the owners should be able to sue the players for their endorsement money doesn’t even make sense. The owners entered into an agreement with the players that said they would split 50% (or whatever it is exactly) of the revenue after their billion dollar cut. They didn’t say they would give the players exactly x amount of dollars, they said a certain percent of revenue. That means that if they intentionally take less money just so they can be more financially secure enforcing a lockout, they are not maximizing revenue in good faith. The money in the tv contracts is split between the owners and players, while player endorsement money has nothing to do with the owners, so how could the owners sue for it? Also, it has been reported that the owners renegotiated the tv contracts to include lockout insurance clause only within the last few years. It has never been done before, so clearly it was for this reason.

    Last, the ruling on this has huge repercussions with leverage. Do you really think Jerry Jones isn’t sweating thinking about paying the mortgage on his BILLION dollar stadium without getting his TV money? I agree that when it comes down to it, the players will have to be able to withstand losing paychecks as well for it to actually work, but at least this puts them on a level playing field. If they rule in favor of the players on this, then both sides have to worry about how to get through the season with no income, instead of just the players while the owners get paid money to televise games that don’t exist.

  33. clintonportisheadd says: May 9, 2011 12:25 PM

    hail2tharedskins says: May 9, 2011 11:49 AM

    clintonportishead,

    Maybe you should read what the article is about. The palyers are trying to introduce all commerical contracts, that would mean more than just the recently negotiated tv contracts. That is why I expressly said introducing these other contracts could backfire as it would complicate the ruling that was made expressly as it related to the renegotiated tv contracts. Why is it that you are so quick to attack my post that you don’t even bother to read my post or the article it is in response to???

    ————————

    I read it. And no Attorney worth his law degree enters ANYTHING into evidence without knowing what it is. They never ask a witness a question unless they know what the answer will be.

    Your thinking that they will enter evidence without looking at it and having it “backfire” on them is silly. And given that the TV deal was indeed “new and improved” to include lockout language its more likely than not that the other contracts also were similarly “spruced up” in the same way.

  34. mick730 says: May 9, 2011 12:30 PM

    CKL, you are correct, but if that was the case, the Packers franchise would be SOL. The Packers are a nonprofit corporation; as shareholders we get no dividends and our stock cannot be sold nor does it have a marketable, tradeable value. In the franchise charter, the team cannot be sold. If the team becomes insolvent for whatever reason, all the assets are to be sold and the net proceeds donated to the local VFW chapter.

    So, in real terms, there is no way for the Packers to make this present group of players, or any group of players in the future, partners in the franchise.

  35. FinFan68 says: May 9, 2011 12:53 PM

    Per Kaplan, “[a]lmost all NFL contracts with sponsors” contain provisions guaranteeing payment in the event of a lockout.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Does it actually say “lockout” or is that just a slanted statement? If it says “work stoppage” or some other description, that can include a “strike” which by definition would be done by the players. The issue seems to be that the owners did not “get all they could have gotten”. To me that is different from the owners stashing money to use against the players. Since the TV contracts were signed while there was an active CBA, wouldn’t that mean that the monies earned via those contracts are still subject to the revenue sharing percentages outlined in that CBA? I would think that the players would be owed whatever their percentage is. I could be off base but I would think that the contracts would need to be redone or a new CBA takes effect before the players’ percentage could be adjusted or denied.
    Just a quick question for those adamantly supporting the players on this issue:
    What is the difference between what the league did with the TV contracts and what the NFLPA did with the video game licenses? They pretty much cut the historical players out completely in order for the current players to make more money now. If you support the players’ side on both of these issues then you are a hypocrite and have no desire to listen to the other side of the argument.

  36. endzonezombie says: May 9, 2011 12:55 PM

    I wonder if we will see MN courts take retribution against the NFL for appealing their lockout case to the 8th Circuit. The behind the scenes drama that may exist in the judicial system is the liberal MN labor court vs. the conservative St. Louis 8th Circuit pro-business court. Is it any wonder that players and owners disagree when judicial court systems reflect the same divide? A big part of the non-negotiation strategy must be based up lawyers projectiing the decisions courts will make. Are there any posters here who are supporting the future of the NFL decided by lawyers and judges?

  37. xxxfixxxerxxx says: May 9, 2011 1:04 PM

    Me thinks Dee Smith couldn’t deliver results in the time frame he promised and they’re trying to get mo’ money, but it might be a little to late.

    This is what they players wanted, the quick fix is not always the right one.

  38. tommyf15 says: May 9, 2011 1:04 PM

    well7765 says:
    May 9, 2011 12:18 PM
    The argument that the owners should be able to sue the players for their endorsement money doesn’t even make sense.

    A lot of the pro-owner stuff here doesn’t make sense. Much of it is just testosterone fueled gibberish.

    Which isn’t to say that every pro-owner argument is gibberish- a lot of the folks on the owners side make reasonable points and presentations. But all of the suggestions that one side attempt crazy and illegal schemes to stick it to other are all pro-owner.

  39. hail2tharedskins says: May 9, 2011 1:28 PM

    clintonportishead,

    You sound really ignorant. First, you attack my post and completely ignore the point it was making and now your defense is its still baseless becasue lawyers never make mistakes… I can see talking to you will be about as productive as banging my head against a brick wall, so I will leave this discussion with you alone. However, I will mention that I couldn’t be too far off with my reading of the situation since Dan Kaplan just got off PFT Live where he agreed with my view that if Doty over reaches with a damages award it could very well be reduced by the appeals court (which I mentioned hours earlier). So, whether my read on introducing those additional contracts was a bad move or not, clearly my reading of the legal system is lot better than you give me credit for and infinitely better than your comprehension since you think lawyers never make mistakes on introducing material into cases. I bet you have no idea how stupid that statement actually makes you look, I suggest you go ask any attorney even the best in their fields if they know of lawyers that have made mistakes and even if they have made a mistake or two in the past – you will be shocked with the response you get and how little you really know. (and fyi, the popular saying you were trying to repeat is that ‘lawyers should not ask questions that they don’t know the answer to’ NOT ‘lawyers do not ask questions they don’t know answers to’. It happens ever day!)

  40. oldbyrd says: May 9, 2011 2:06 PM

    DOTY>>>> Are you kidding. How does a communist get to make these Marxist decesions????

  41. rcali says: May 9, 2011 2:13 PM

    Yep, deal should be done any day now. College football on Sundays is fine with me for now.

  42. FinFan68 says: May 9, 2011 2:37 PM

    tommyf15 says:
    May 9, 2011 1:04 PM

    But all of the suggestions that one side attempt crazy and illegal schemes to stick it to other are all pro-owner.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    Except, of course, for the one that has actually happened. :)

  43. thefiesty1 says: May 9, 2011 2:59 PM

    More and more! The greedy players just keep pushing for more instead of accepting the offer made by the owners and play football. It’s obvious the players don’t want to play.

  44. tommyf15 says: May 9, 2011 3:07 PM

    @ FinFan68:

    I genuinely don’t know what you’re referring to. Can you expand on your comment?

  45. FinFan68 says: May 9, 2011 4:34 PM

    @tommyf15:
    I was referring to the “decertification” followed by the anti-trust suit. Just a joke aimed at your assessment that “all of the suggestions that one side attempt crazy and illegal schemes to stick it to other are all pro-owner”. I have seen numerous ridiculous and vindictive suggestions from both sides. To say that they are ALL “pro-owner” is disingenuous.

  46. tommyf15 says: May 9, 2011 5:14 PM

    @ FinFan68:

    1. A decertification by a union is completely legal.

    2. I honestly have not seen a single post where a person wants the players to do something illegal or vindictive, while I have seen scores of pro-owner posts doing exactly that.

  47. FinFan68 says: May 9, 2011 5:57 PM

    @tommyf15:
    You are correct that decertification is legal except when its purpose is to gain leverage. If they are using it to gain leverage, then it is a “sham” regardlesss of whether the owners can argue that fact in court. If they are not using it to gain leverage, then they must be truly attacking the issues outlined in the anti-trust litigation. Both examples can’t coexist, but both have been cited by the players as rationale for their actions. As for the crazy/vindictive posts…look a little harder. You may not remember any, but they are there.

Leave a Reply

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