Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

In the event of a lockout and replacement players


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#16 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,260 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:32 AM

Really? Which one looks more greedy? One is running a business the other is a employee.


the ones who opted out of the CBA and then drew down syndrome pie charts about how they need to take money back from their employees.

most people in the world are employees. most employees are treated like poo. you're not going to get sympathy from an American public who is currently being trampled on by treating employees like poo.

#17 CosmoGirl

CosmoGirl

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 03:52 AM

For the last damn time, if there is a lockout then there can't be replacement workers because the owners lock the building up and won't let anyone in the building. There can only be replacements if the players strike (aka- refuse to come to work).



In my conversation with Jerry Richardson, he said that the players in the league aren't the only people who can play. He basically said that there would be replacement players.

What I want to know is if we can sue him as PSL owners for having to pay for and buy tickets to see an inferior product on the field.

#18 Nicbsbll2

Nicbsbll2

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,523 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:21 AM

In my conversation with Jerry Richardson, he said that the players in the league aren't the only people who can play. He basically said that there would be replacement players.

What I want to know is if we can sue him as PSL owners for having to pay for and buy tickets to see an inferior product on the field.


Sorry, but no. If the owners choose to lock out the players, then you have a willing workforce that's under contract, so you can not bring in replacements.

If the union decides to strike, then you have an unwilling workforce, which means you have the right to bring in replacements since your workforce refuses to actually work.

#19 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:20 PM

If they play with scabs I won't watch a single game. I would not celebrate any win, even if it were the Superbowl.

#20 Lumps

Lumps

    Jase is butthurt

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,544 posts
  • LocationSouth Charlotte

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:27 PM

tommy jone type talent

come back home jake!

#21 DOMOMAN

DOMOMAN

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • LocationDenmark

Posted 13 February 2011 - 05:07 AM

Can't wait to see the glorious return of JaMarcus Russell

#22 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 13 February 2011 - 05:55 AM

hey the redskins have one of those kinds of wins (though it was a players' strike)

that lombardi doesn't look any less shiny than the other two


2 1982 & 1987

And the Lombardi those years was a little tarnished. Only 9 games were played in '82 and '87 was the year of the replacement players where the Skins were the only team that brought in an entire Semi-pro team (Chesapeake Bay Neptunes) as replacements.

#23 DC Amp

DC Amp

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,417 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 13 February 2011 - 06:01 AM

Just a note about the 1987 season..

Many of the league's owners had anticipated a strike and had put replacements on standby for $1,000 per game.
However, the NFLPA failed to set up a strike fund to cover lost salaries. Fearing that the owners would cut off their annuities, 89 players crossed the picket line.

Among the most prominent players to immediately cross the line were New York Jets defensive end Mark Gastineau and Dallas Cowboys defensive tackle Randy White. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Joe Montana and Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Steve Largent later joined the replacement players and other strikebreakers.

#24 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 13 February 2011 - 07:42 AM

Just stop with the stupidity!

If the owners lock out the NFLPA there will be no replacement players, there will be no football.

If the NFLPA decides to strike against the owners, the owners then have the option to find someone willing to work and therefore, can hire replacements.

You can't have it both ways. The owners cannot lock out players, then hire replacement players.

Oh, and just for the record, the NFLPA as well as the owners had the ability opt out of the current CBA if at some point they felt the current CBA was no longer viable. It's not something unique the owners had available to them, the players could have opted out as well if there was something about the CBA they didn't like.

#25 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,048 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 14 February 2011 - 10:12 AM

I don't have the quote but when all this got started, Goodell said we wouldn't have replacement players this year. He said it didn't really work in the 80s and they wouldn't be going down that route this time.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com