Skip to content

Shut down option likely will be officially shut down next week

NFL-Lockout-Miami-Gardens-250x200 Getty Images

Earlier this week, before the Eighth Circuit provided a strong hint that Judge Nelson’s order lifting the lockout will be dropped like a proverbial hot potato, chatter remained regarding whether a decision by the Eighth Circuit to affirm Judge Nelson’s ruling would result in the league shutting down all operations.  But as Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports pointed out earlier today, there’s still a chance that the players will prevail, and that the lockout will be lifted.

Thus, if the shutdown option remains on the table, the league in theory could decide to pursue that approach.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the teams will be told at ownership meetings next week that shutting down definitely isn’t an option.  Presumably, the goal will be to get the teams to quit talking privately about the possibility.

Either way, shutting down is definitely something that won’t happen, for a wide variety of reasons.  Despite the fact that it was under consideration, we’re told that it was never serious consideration or even moderate consideration.  Frankly, we think that merely talking about the possibility made the billionaires who are very used to getting their way and who recently haven’t been feel a little bit better about a situation that they simply haven’t been able to control.

Permalink 63 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
63 Responses to “Shut down option likely will be officially shut down next week”
  1. hoobsher says: May 18, 2011 7:25 PM

    only a group of people as greedy as the nfl owners could possibly think to SHUT DOWN AN ENTIRE SPORTS LEAGUE because they couldnt get their way.

    friggin babies.

  2. willycents says: May 18, 2011 7:26 PM

    will be told at ownership meetings next week that shutting down definitely isn’t an option
    —————————————
    and precisely who is going to tell the 32 owners what to do and what they cannot do??? Some secretary?

    By a 25 -7 vote the owners shut down the league

  3. duanethomas says: May 18, 2011 7:32 PM

    No one except the most extreme anti-player pro-owners slags that are on here took that as a real possibility.

  4. geo1113 says: May 18, 2011 7:37 PM

    Frankly, we think that merely talking about the possibility made the billionaires who are very used to getting their way and who recently haven’t been feel a little bit better about a situation that they simply haven’t been able to control.
    _________________

    Or they are businessmen who consider and analyze every option.

  5. kyleortonsarm says: May 18, 2011 7:39 PM

    Go ahead, shut it down. Teach those players who take out $500,000 loans at 23% interest a lesson.

  6. txchief says: May 18, 2011 7:49 PM

    The contention that the NFL will not consider a shutdown of business operations is absolutely ridiculous. It would be unimaginable for the teams to open their doors and start paying players who are suing them and will dedicate their paychecks to further an unending stream of lawsuits.

    For the courts to force a business to operate against its’ will and best interests would harken the end of privately owned businesses (and control of personal property) in this country. However, there are probably some who read the posts on this forum that may think that such an outcome would be a good thing.

  7. TIM says: May 18, 2011 7:49 PM

    Anyone with any sense at all would have said that the sham decertification of the union was not a viable option for the union,since even the most brain dead Judge would see through the phoney tactic. But for no apparent reason the ambulance chaser walked out of negotiations where the owners had compromised on nearly every issue,without the union even making one counter offer. Everyone knew the union would re-form once they got whatever the liberal Judge would hand them. It was a total sham !!!
    So ,why couldn’t the owners pull the same garbage if something unforseen happens and they don’t win the court decision(which they WILL win,it’s in the bag).
    The owners could easily “go out of business” and then re-form their business and offer $500 a week for any football player who wants to play for them. They could do the same that the union already did and maybe they could even go to a Minnesota Judge and say “you agreed when the union did it,so of course you must uphold our right to do the same, :) .
    The real point is that the Ambulance chaser has failed and the players should fire him and get an NFL vet in there to make a fair deal,before the owners decide to play hard ball.

  8. joey49er says: May 18, 2011 7:57 PM

    Dont feel sorry for the greedy players!!!!their living it up.vacationing!wheres their love for the game? just remember its the game not the players!!! just look 49ers went on with out joe montana,packers went on without favre, its about the game!!! half of these players would not even get a 50.000 dollar job a year if it was not for the nfl…

  9. RussianBreadMaker says: May 18, 2011 7:57 PM

    < Pro Owners

  10. diamonddave13 says: May 18, 2011 8:01 PM

    Nice to see the PFT Comment Board Pro-Owners gestapo is out in force for this post. I’ve always wondered what it was like to be blissfully ignorant…

    The owners arent going to be your friend or give you free tickets if your posts here are pro-ownership. They dont care about you, me or the game we both enjoy. Wake up…

  11. commandercornpone says: May 18, 2011 8:13 PM

    they can still say that the teams as previously constituted wont be playing. hire scabs. call the teams that play what they want to call them.

    the replacement players will play for significantly less.

  12. realitypolice says: May 18, 2011 8:17 PM

    It was never under consideration.

    Someone made up the rumor, or at the very least put it out there as baseless speculation and when the league found out about it, they decided to let it float out there for a while to both gauge public reaction and put more pressure on the players before squashing it.

    The logistics and possible risks of a shutdown would have made it potential financial suicide for the league.

    It simply made no sense, and the owners didn’t get where they are by being as stupid as that.

  13. commoncents says: May 18, 2011 8:28 PM

    Take your skirts off and negotiate PA, you bunch of drama queens.

  14. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 8:30 PM

    kyleortonsarm says:
    Go ahead, shut it down. Teach those players who take out $500,000 loans at 23% interest a lesson.

    That’s the problem with a lot of the pro-owner folks here. They’d be willing to not only cut their nose right off their faces out of spite, but their ears and the rest of the skin as well.

    All in the interest of “teaching someone a lesson”. Not very smart.

    Shutting down was never even a remote possibility.

  15. TIM says: May 18, 2011 8:33 PM

    Good to see you Common !!!

  16. easyeddie says: May 18, 2011 8:34 PM

    Read Silver’s piece is you want a few laughs.

  17. bronco1st says: May 18, 2011 8:38 PM

    Yeah right, 32 teams shut down, the ones making a ton (Dallas) along with those who claim to barely make it (Colts). All 32 – just shut down -right? Then let them try to say they are 32 different entities, 32 different businesses that compete and therefore beyond anti-trust laws. Please do fools, shut down!

  18. TIM says: May 18, 2011 8:46 PM

    Tommy:
    Of course the shutting down of the League was never a real option. But if we are only looking at logic and what should be reality then in a logical and reality based World the union would never have been taken seriously when they said they were going to decertify.
    The League leaking that they were possibly considering shutting down of the League was just their way of pointing out how rediculous it was when the union did it.
    The decetification was a total sham and we all know it (and the owners know it and were just pointing that out in their own sneaky way).

    The main thing to focus on is that the League has said from day one that sooner or later the union will need to come to the negotiationg table and take negotiating seriously (which the union has not done yet).
    Now that the union has LOST their frivilous court cases it is now time to negotiate a fair deal with the owners,like the owners have been trying to do from day one ,when the opted out of the horrible deal they made in the last CBA (as was allowed in a clause in the last CBA).
    If Gene Upshaw or any NFL veteran was in charge of the union,instead of the ambulance chaser,who only knows how to go to court and knows nothing else about the NFL or about negotiating a fair deal,there would already be a fair deal signed 2 months ago,no doubt !

  19. kremis says: May 18, 2011 8:47 PM

    You who are against the owners obviously never owned a business. The owners put up their money to buy the team and why should they not do what they want. The players are employees. If they don’t like what they are paid, get another job! That’s how the real world works. And if theowners put out an inferior product they will lose money. ThAt’s why they will pay just what they need to keep fan interest. The owners don’t need to apologize for being rich. God bless them! They create jobs and more wealth!

  20. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 8:52 PM

    commandercornpone says:
    the replacement players will play for significantly less.

    Maybe, but not in the NFL.

    Why?

    It is illegal for the owners to use replacement players during a lockout

  21. realitypolice says: May 18, 2011 9:00 PM

    @txchief and @TIM:

    Yes, the idea of shutting the league down makes sense if you have absolutely no comprehension whatsoever how large corporations operate or how contract law works in the US or bankruptcy law for that matter.

    You can’t just shut a business down and open it up a week later and be free of all of your obligations and set up whatever business you want.

    First of all, if your business owes anyone any money at all, which most franchise do either through stadium financing, vendor credit obligations, or simply money borrowed to buy the franchise itself, you can’t shut down operations without making good with these creditors, either by paying them or liquidating all assets through bankruptcy.

    If a corporation with credit obligations wants to shut down and re-open, they can only do so by going through bankruptcy court. And they have to able to show hardship. If they can’t, they can only shut down permanently, with their assets liquidated to meet credit obligations.

    So shutting down would only be THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE for teams that owe no money to anyone.

    And even these franchises would be faced with having to renegotiate all contracts- not just with players, but with the TV networks.

    What kind of TV deal would you expect the league to get if they missed a year and/or tried to come back with scabs?

    They would lose billions.

    It’s funny, though not really surprising, that the most vociferous “pro-business” owner suck ups on here really don’t understand anything about business at all.

  22. TIM says: May 18, 2011 9:02 PM

    But Tommy:
    You are overlooking the fact that IF the owners shut down business and then re-opened under a new name ,then there would be NO lockout in their new business.
    I don’t think this will happen,but then I didn’t think the union would be so stupid to decertify either,but they did.
    And let’s remember that there was no lockout until the union walked out of the negotiations and “went on strike” and then went to court.
    IN RESPONSE to the union actions,the owners then locked out the people who were suing them,as any resonable employer would do.

  23. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 9:12 PM

    kremis says:
    The owners put up their money to buy the team and why should they not do what they want.

    I agree 100%, and that’s what the players are fighting for.

    For example, if Jerry Jones wants his business to pay $700 M a year on football players, he should be allowed to.

    See? You really don’t want the owners to do whatever they want. You said it, but you didn’t mean it.

  24. beatnik25 says: May 18, 2011 9:17 PM

    This article clearly shows how bias this website is of the Players.

  25. realitypolice says: May 18, 2011 9:23 PM

    kremis says:
    May 18, 2011 8:47 PM
    You who are against the owners obviously never owned a business. The owners put up their money to buy the team and why should they not do what they want. The players are employees. If they don’t like what they are paid, get another job! That’s how the real world works. And if theowners put out an inferior product they will lose money. ThAt’s why they will pay just what they need to keep fan interest. The owners don’t need to apologize for being rich. God bless them! They create jobs and more wealth!
    ==========================

    Actually, most of the pro-owner posters on here have shown a remarkable ignorance as to how businesses in the United States operate. So I would have to believe that a great majority of them also don’t own businesses.

    And I am not “pro-player/anti-owner”. I actually bear no grudge toward either side. Both are using strategies they believe in an attempt to gain leverage in a negotiation. As distasteful as I find their tactics, I understand their motives.

    And no, the players are not employees in the traditional sense. In the words of the owners- and in fact, as they share revenues- they are partners. The players, if you to compare them to their “real life” equivalent, are independent contractors, negotiating agreements with teams to provide their services for a set period of time for set compensation.

    While the CBA provides guidelines, each player negotiates his own individual contract, unique in length and terms from his fellow sub-contractors/teammates.

    They are also different from traditional employees in that they can’t really be replaced. Just as there are a finite number of teams for these players to contract with, there is a finite number of players capable of providing the level of play necessary to sustain the NFL product at it’s current level of popularity.

    I have been a business owner, and I am now an independent contractor. I “support” neither the owners or the players. The only reason I lean somewhat towards the owners is that I believe that the players made a huge mistake in hiring a litigator to lead them.

    Because one thing ANY businessman can agree on is this: Everything goes to hell once the lawyers get involved.

  26. mick730 says: May 18, 2011 9:26 PM

    The NHL shut down and their lead attorney, Batterman, is now part of the NFL’s legal team.

    Silver is just another media type who knows that he has to pander to the players so that they won’t boycott him after this is all over. He has no access to any sources amongst the 32 owners. He put this out there because I’m sure there are several NFL players who are in full scale panic.

    The whole shut down arguement is now probably moot however, as the 8th circuit, as David Boice predicted, will side with the NFL against the sham decertification of the NFLPA. The lockout will stay in place and the union will be forced to negotiate a fair CBA.

    The concept will be the same. The players who by various independent sources, have been attempting to borrow money for two months now, not just the one who borrowed 500k at 23%, will be screaming for a deal. The 400 plus free agents that currently have no team, no contract and no signing bonuses will be the first to come after Smith and the union leadership. Then, as the season approaches, with no start of the league year, no workout bonuses, no reporting bonuses, the rest of the players will be screaming for a deal. By mid August, there will be a new CBA.

    By allowing the lockout to stay in place, the NFL doesn’t need to shut down.

  27. mick730 says: May 18, 2011 9:28 PM

    “They dont care about you, me or the game we both enjoy. Wake up…”

    Grow up. Why should any of the 32 owners, or anybody else outside of your family and friends, care about you.

    This is a business. The owners aren’t here to hold your hand and make you feel good about yourself.

    And one more thing, I’ absolutely certain that the owners of these multi-million dollar franchises care about their business a whole heck of a lot more than you do.

    Again, grow up.

  28. txchief says: May 18, 2011 9:30 PM

    @realitypolice:

    I do understand business. I own more than one. I did not say that it would be easy to shut down the league. There would be much pain, but the possibility of endless lawsuits could leave many owners with no other choice. Your comments reflect the perspective of a socialist union member or fifth rate immigration law attorney. You’re even more idiotic than your words reflect if you believe that the NFL owners have signed personal guarantees on the stadiums, media contracts and other facilities.

  29. TIM says: May 18, 2011 9:34 PM

    Reality police:
    Obviously you don’t get it.
    We know the owners are not really thinking of shutting down the League. It would be stupid ,just as stupid as the sham shut down of the union .
    Now you get it ? Glad I could help.

  30. wigwam101 says: May 18, 2011 9:35 PM

    “IF the owners shut down business and then re-opened under a new name ,then there would be NO lockout in their new business.”

    If that’s true, that’s what they ought to do. Re-form the teams under new names and a create a new league.

  31. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 9:35 PM

    realitypolice says:
    The only reason I lean somewhat towards the owners is that I believe that the players made a huge mistake in hiring a litigator to lead them.

    Excellent post and I agree with almost all of it.

    It just bears mentioning that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Lead Counsel Jeffrey Pash are also lawyers that both have extensive backgrounds in litigation.

  32. whatswiththehate says: May 18, 2011 9:41 PM

    kremis says:May 18, 2011 8:47 PM

    “You who are against the owners obviously never owned a business. The owners put up their money to buy the team and why should they not do what they want. The players are employees. If they don’t like what they are paid, get another job! That’s how the real world works. And if theowners put out an inferior product they will lose money. ThAt’s why they will pay just what they need to keep fan interest. The owners don’t need to apologize for being rich. God bless them! They create jobs and more wealth!”
    —————-
    This is where you’re wrong. Too many of you see these athletes as objects and not who they really are. Some of you are so downright jealous of these athletes wealth, mostly because the sports media have dumb you down, that you don’t realize that there is a reason why these athletes get paid the money that they do.

    These athletes are more like musicians than store clerks…They are THE business and a lot of people depend on them. From their agents, to their endorsers, to you the fans, even to the owners..Yes, you can replace them but you simply replacing one with another just as talented athlete who isn’t going to work for nothing.

    The last time I check, the company I work for will go on with or without me. I sincerely doubt the NFL will go on without the players. Unless you enjoy watching grass grow in a stadium and a bunch of suited up old men and their family sitting in a booth while your ass sit in the cold staring at an empty stadium.

    And by the way, you won’t even get the cheerleaders to entertain you cause they don’t exist with the players.

  33. duanethomas says: May 18, 2011 9:45 PM

    Please stop trying to reason with the pro-owner Stans. They don’t get it and will never get it, even when presented with facts. They equate their job or the mom and pop shop on the corner with The NFL and players. If they don’t the world becomes a scary place, where everything they believed in is gone. Let them hold on to their fantasy life and see them as entertainment. Shutting down the league, starting over at $ 500.00 a week, new names, etc……..isn’t it laughable?

  34. willycents says: May 18, 2011 9:55 PM

    @tommy and all those screaming anti trust if the league shuts down, and those saying the teams cannot because of owing money, etc.
    A point to ponder. IF the NFL(a non profit corporation) were to shut down, leaving the 32 independent corporations(as the players wish to see it) with no season schedule, no playing rules, no game officials, no tv contracts. Exactly what the hell do you think they would do? No product sales(games)=no income=close the doors temporarily until the anti trust lawsuit is resolved.
    Please tommy, in all your wisdom, tell me how the NFL shutting down as a corporation separate from the 32 independent teams is anti trust. By your logic, if GM shuts down, all its suppliers can be sued for anti trust if they shut down by their emplyees and sub contractors.
    Please refute my comparison here logically

  35. nflfan101 says: May 18, 2011 9:56 PM

    I do not know whether or not a shutdown is feasible, but, if I was an owner, I would not take any option of of the table. Every option from no rules and no minimum pay to shutdown would be considered.

    Folks, D. Smith just wants to litigate and transfer millions of dollars, $$$, from the players to himself and his lawyer buddies.

    As for the players, what do they really want other than to keep the old CBA which the owners cannot and will not do?

    Why can’t they (owners and players) tweak the old CBA by reducing the player’s portion and decreasing the restricted agent period or get rid of it so that players would reach free agency (and their big payday) quicker?

    Why can’t the players give a little and gain a little?

    FACT: D. Smith walked out of CBA negotiations, decertified the union, had certain players file suit, and then did not attend at least one court ordered mediation session.

    If fans, players, and PFT employees really want football, then they need to tell D. Smith to get his butt into negotiations.

  36. willycents says: May 18, 2011 10:04 PM

    tommyf15 says:May 18, 2011 8:52 PM

    commandercornpone says:
    the replacement players will play for significantly less.

    Maybe, but not in the NFL.

    Why?

    It is illegal for the owners to use replacement players during a lockout
    ———————————————-

    You cannot legally lock out a non-union workforce.
    Are you admitting that you guys are still a union?

    just asking

  37. lostsok says: May 18, 2011 10:20 PM

    It would be heart-breaking to see the league shut down…but it would also be hilarious. I would LOVE to see Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder act like BMOC when their suddenly hit with literally hundreds of law suits. Everybody from each employee with a contract (player or management), DirecTV and the networks, ticket holders…all of them….would sue.

    I would guess they would be in bankruptcy court within six months.

    And how long before cities, such as Dallas, use eminent domain to take the NAME of their franchise?

    While tragic…it would be freaking HILARIOUS to see these rich d-bags get their hats handed to them. It would be almost worth it.

  38. nflfan101 says: May 18, 2011 10:22 PM

    realitypolice says: May 18, 2011 9:23 PM

    Actually, most of the pro-owner posters on here have shown a remarkable ignorance as to how businesses in the United States operate.

    And no, the players are not employees in the traditional sense. In the words of the owners- and in fact, as they share revenues- they are partners. The players, if you to compare them to their “real life” equivalent, are independent contractors, negotiating agreements with teams to provide their services for a set period of time for set compensation.

    They are also different from traditional employees in that they can’t really be replaced. Just as there are a finite number of teams for these players to contract with, there is a finite number of players capable of providing the level of play necessary to sustain the NFL product at it’s current level of popularity.
    ———————————–

    I don’t know if any of the so called “pro-owner” posters are business owners or not and you may be the most successful poster here, but you are wrong about the players.

    Just like every other employee, players are employees who negotiate their own deal with each team subject to the union agreement (CBA). In fact, unless it is a big business with a large number of employees doing the exact same job, whenever an employer is hiring a new employee, the employer will ask the prospective employee how much $$ they expect to be paid and then make a deal.

    Further, teams control when the players practice and play. Teams supply the tools with which players work and control how they do their jobs. There is not a single aspect in the team – player relationship that would lead any court to determine that a player is anything other than an employee.

    Also, players can and are replaced. Sometimes, the new player/employee is not as good as the old player/employee. Sometimes, they are better. But players can be replaced.

    Finally, fans are loyal to teams, not players. There may be a great player on my team and I may wear his jersey, but let him go to a new team and I hope that my team crushes him every time that we play him and I do not wear his jersey.

    FACT: D. Smith walked out of CBA negotiations, decertified the union, had certain players file suit, and then did not attend at least one court ordered mediation session.

    If fans, players, and PFT employees really want football, then they need to tell D. Smith to get his butt into negotiations.

  39. vendictar says: May 18, 2011 10:39 PM

    hoobsher says:

    “only a group of people as greedy as the nfl owners could possibly think to SHUT DOWN AN ENTIRE SPORTS LEAGUE because they couldnt get their way.”
    ————-

    Oh, you mean the exact same thing the players did when they went on strike? If the players have the right to strike, the owners have the right to lockout.

    The players sit there and act like the lockout is unfair when they have pulled the same trick before, and that is ridiculous to me.

  40. realitypolice says: May 18, 2011 10:43 PM

    txchief says:
    May 18, 2011 9:30 PM
    @realitypolice:

    I do understand business. I own more than one. I did not say that it would be easy to shut down the league. There would be much pain, but the possibility of endless lawsuits could leave many owners with no other choice. Your comments reflect the perspective of a socialist union member or fifth rate immigration law attorney. You’re even more idiotic than your words reflect if you believe that the NFL owners have signed personal guarantees on the stadiums, media contracts and other facilities.

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

    No, you don’t own multiple businesses. Lawn mowing and lemonade stands don’t count.

    Your clumsy insults about me being a socialist and a “fifth rate immigration law attorney” and a “socialist union member” (WTF- LOLOLOL) give you away.

    No one with even a rudimentary (look it up) understanding of business would get that impression from my comments.

    “Personal guarantees” on the stadiums? What the hell are you talking about?

    No business person lays out their own cash to buy franchises or build stadiums. They all have creditors.

    Please- you are way out of your element here.

  41. nflrocks says: May 18, 2011 10:44 PM

    Hey I had season tickets for 30 years… That did not stop them for first asking for 15K per seat to keep my tickets… Then when they could not sell those they lowered it to 7.5K….

    I have no love for the owners….. While corporations get a 50% tax break on the luxury boxes and tickets I lose mine…….

    Keep your tickets and your games…. Who’s got 30K for seats and $140 a ticket per game and you also have to buy the 2 preseason games……..

    I am already really missing football, but if the fans never went to anymore games it would serve them right…..

    We pay way way way to much for sporting events in this country…….. It is way out of wack….

    And then we subsidize the corporations that take our seats….

    Its all fixed…….

  42. txchief says: May 18, 2011 10:45 PM

    I think it is pretty obvious that there are many playa shills or playas themselves spewing propaganda here. The playas are paranoid that there are league or team employees posting here. Unfortunately for them, there is no such conspiracy.

  43. realitypolice says: May 18, 2011 10:48 PM

    TIM says:
    May 18, 2011 9:34 PM
    Reality police:
    Obviously you don’t get it.
    We know the owners are not really thinking of shutting down the League. It would be stupid ,just as stupid as the sham shut down of the union .
    Now you get it ? Glad I could help.
    ============================

    You’re a liar. From your original post:

    “The owners could easily “go out of business” and then re-form their business and offer $500 a week for any football player who wants to play for them.”

    Are you now denying saying this? I wouldn’t blame you. It was really stupid.

  44. willycents says: May 18, 2011 10:51 PM

    lostsok says:May 18, 2011 10:20 PM

    and it would be equally as gratifying to see the players in bankruptcy court in one mont if there was no league/teams to pay them.
    as for the shutdown of the league..Good luck as a contracter suing the owners, I am certain that there is wording in every contract covering the owners butt, and probably in the corporation documents covering his butt.
    as for your emminent domain theory, I severely doubt any court would grant emminent domain over a freaking name. Sounds to me like you are just another ill informed individual as far as contract law works.

  45. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 10:57 PM

    Please tommy, in all your wisdom, tell me how the NFL shutting down as a corporation separate from the 32 independent teams is anti trust.

    What is the NFL if not for the 32 teams?

    However, under your scenario if the NFL were to say it’s “out of business”, new leagues financed by the television networks would spring up immediately. They’d be negotiating with the established teams to join the competing leagues.

    It would probably be a really cool thing to see.

  46. hawkdawg88 says: May 18, 2011 11:00 PM

    That Silver article is a real stretch. The Doty issue is real, and it remains to be seen how much the inevitable appeal of that decision will reduce the leverage the players gain from it. The individual lawsuit thing is grasping at straws. The notion that oral argument, or even a brief from Olson, will sway an 8th Circuit panel, given the briefing below, and given that the owners have Boies, who is every bit the equal of Olson, is pretty far-fectched.

    It really seems like the guy is trying to convince himself, or more likely buck up the players, to believe the owners don’t have the upper hand. But they do. And it will in all likelihood strengthen in the next few weeks.

    I do agree with him that now is a very good time to do a deal for all concerned. I’m afraid that the players don’t really get that yet, however. And I’m not convinced the owners do, either. It might be that both sides have to bleed to get a deal done.

  47. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 11:01 PM

    willycents says:
    You cannot legally lock out a non-union workforce.
    Are you admitting that you guys are still a union?

    The players have stated in no uncertain terms that they no longer wish to be a union.

  48. msclemons67 says: May 18, 2011 11:03 PM

    I’m not sure how anyone could “support” either side. I’m slightly less disgusted with the owners at this point but that doesn’t mean I “support” them. Neither side deserves my support.

    These millionaires and billionaires can’t put their egos aside to work out a deal. Thousands of people depend on the NFL for their livelihood and these rich jackasses can’t figure out how to divide a 9 BILLION dollar pie. Screw them all.

    I just hope there is a way to ensure both sides lose.

  49. jokendave says: May 18, 2011 11:29 PM

    Why doesn’t the NFL just shut it down? Then the will say goodbye to any revenue next season. Do they think it would be easy to open it back up? I don’t think so. Like I said if players don’t like what they make, go into the private sector and take their boss’s to court. See what happens when they dont understand what their job entails. They get the boot with no hearing. Its getting old folk’s.

  50. jbcommonsense says: May 18, 2011 11:34 PM

    Oh please… the owners never were going to shut the league down. The pro-owner posters speak admiringly of what wonderful businessmen the owners are [what idiot could fail at running an NFL franchise]; We-e-e-ell wonderful businessmen do not kill their business. Football is a lucrative money-machine, and the only thing that can ruin it is if the owners piss all over the public’s good will by shutting the league down.

  51. snnyjcbs says: May 18, 2011 11:46 PM

    Feeling better?, they are Dancing a Jig. Tell Silver the Owners Win in June so the players better start getting use to that.

    The Owners will be able to Lock the Players Out as long as it takes. If they were smart they would dump that Chump they have running the show and get a person that does not wear his emotions on his sleeve that can sit down and hammer out a deal.

  52. jasonfinfan says: May 19, 2011 12:00 AM

    This whole lockout situation screams of politics.Democrat judge makes a decision, Republicans stick it to the democrats.

    Did anyone expect any thing different when you heard there were 2 rep judges on the eigth circuit? Its garbage that you can already tell an outcome by whos in what court.

    Democrats and Republicans are no better then bloods and Crips. While the constituents Continue to get lured into either side.

    Im sure our founding fathers envisioned a government run by 2 groups who hate each others guts and vote soley on party lines instead of individual beliefs.

  53. poopstainparty says: May 19, 2011 2:05 AM

    Derrrrr Socialism

  54. poopstainparty says: May 19, 2011 2:06 AM

    You betcha!

  55. poopstainparty says: May 19, 2011 2:09 AM

    He used my name? In the streets?

  56. poopstainparty says: May 19, 2011 2:10 AM

    He call me a punk?

  57. hedleykow says: May 19, 2011 2:10 AM

    @ reality police:

    Good stuff, bro!

  58. childressrulz says: May 19, 2011 2:22 AM

    Go Players! (They are partners with the NFL and the NFL should treat them as such.)

  59. deeppurple23 says: May 19, 2011 8:27 AM

    I have no problem with the players wanting at least the same deal they have been playing under for 5 years now. It’s interesting the teams in financial trouble are pushing the lockout. Maybe those owners should sell their team. Because if they can’t make money in the NFL, then what are they doing?

    Additionally, NFL players live shorter lives than any other group (53 yrs), if that’s not an indication that they should get a little more out of this deal than I don’t know what is.

    Personally, I hope the lock out continues. I can stop watching the NFL, the wife will be happier. I can watch the UFL, less games and most of that league will probably be NFL guys anyway.

    The owners should be freakin’ out that there is not more outrage one way or another.

  60. diamonddave13 says: May 19, 2011 8:27 AM

    You’re right @mick730, I should just “grow up” and think about the owners and how much they’re suffering right now. Take a second to read the post…my point is that the owners do not “care” about the game or the people that make their businesses successful.

    It must be nice with the gestapo…all rainbows, sunshine and the money of rich, white men.

  61. mrfrostyj says: May 19, 2011 8:58 AM

    I have this erie feeling that the “pro owners” posters with their legal jargon are the actual owners with actual players repsonding to these articles. I mean some of these comments as far as a fans standpoint make absolutely NO SENSE! What “small business owner” gives a flying rats behind about union laws especially corporate?”

    No wonder a deal isn’t being ironed out. The two sides are too busy out posting each other on this website.

    Until they get their little squabble over how to spend MY money solved, I’ll go ahead and give it to the Lingerie Football League instead.

  62. roadwash says: May 19, 2011 9:22 AM

    BLAH BLAH BLAH…..please get this fixed owners/players. I am so tired of listening to all the enlightened people.

  63. CKL says: May 19, 2011 3:20 PM

    tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 9:35 PM

    It just bears mentioning that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Lead Counsel Jeffrey Pash are also lawyers that both have extensive backgrounds in litigation.
    _______________________________
    Roger Goodell is NOT a lawyer.

Leave a Reply

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