Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NFL Files with NLRB


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#16 Panther17

Panther17

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:41 PM

The NFLPA has no control over a lockout. The NFL owners are the only ones that control that. The NFLPA can strike if they do not agree to the final terms of the new CBA, but there is no new CBA, so that's not an option yet either.


Not entirely correct. A new CBA doesn't need to be agreed upon for the players to strike. The owners can declare an impasse after March 3rd. Then impose the last offer on the table before the impasse on the players. Work under that impasse next season or the players can strike if they don't agree with the forced impasse on them. At least according to talking heads, that is possible. I'm no lawyer.

#17 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:55 PM

Not entirely correct. A new CBA doesn't need to be agreed upon for the players to strike. The owners can declare an impasse after March 3rd. Then impose the last offer on the table before the impasse on the players. Work under that impasse next season or the players can strike if they don't agree with the forced impasse on them. At least according to talking heads, that is possible. I'm no lawyer.


An impasse is a stalemate that occurs in negotiations between union and management over the terms and conditions of employment. Impasses are often resolved through mediation or arbitration. The owners are not going to agree to an impasse that allows workers to continue working under the conditions of the old CBA agreement. They have made this VERY clear. They will lockout or force the new CBA through and force a player strike. Nothing is accomplished by allowing the old CBA to stay in place while negotiations take place to avoid a lockout or strike. This is not a real option. This may work for a factory where production can't stop or else economic losses will bankrupt the company, so they work through impasses, this is the NFL and the pockets are deep. A stop work will take place if a new agreement is not agreed on.

#18 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:11 PM

Okay Riddel we get it. You are pro union and support the players. Got it.

#19 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:17 PM

Okay Riddel we get it. You are pro union and support the players. Got it.


I'm not pro union and I don't support the players....I'm pro NFL football and I support the fans interest to see the best product on the field....GOD knows we pay enough to see it....why should we have to watch a subpar product? I could careless what ends up happening as long as the two parties clear it up and get the product back on the field so I can enjoy my football.....

The owners are screwing this thing up and Richardson is the ring leader....that's my only point.

#20 tondi

tondi

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:41 PM

If the players made less maybe it wouldn't cost so much to go to a game or to watch games on cable/satellite TV. Higher player salaries will certainly result in both of those things being more expensive. If you don't like paying out the wazoo to watch football you should be on the side of the owners in this mess.

#21 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,476 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:54 PM

They will not buy into the owners BS and they will uncover any boulwarism and surface bargaining tactics.

This is really going to get interesting...not like the NFL draft interesting, but interesting all the same.


So you say things like this but still maintain you aren't on either side and just want the best product? Come on dude, it's clear what you think of the owners.

Don't you think that Smith would have engaged in litigation if he had as solid a case as you think and had the backing of the players? Do you really think he hasn't thought of these things yet? Considering the big decertification ordeal he had going, I don't think he's afraid of litigation to get the players what they want.

#22 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:10 PM

If the players made less maybe it wouldn't cost so much to go to a game or to watch games on cable/satellite TV. Higher player salaries will certainly result in both of those things being more expensive. If you don't like paying out the wazoo to watch football you should be on the side of the owners in this mess.


Neither the players or owners control the cost of ticket prices. The market dictates the price of tickets. The players could play for $1, but if the market dictates fans will pay $39 for an upper level seat, then the seat will cost $39.

Supply and demand.

#23 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:15 PM

So you say things like this but still maintain you aren't on either side and just want the best product? Come on dude, it's clear what you think of the owners.

Don't you think that Smith would have engaged in litigation if he had as solid a case as you think and had the backing of the players? Do you really think he hasn't thought of these things yet? Considering the big decertification ordeal he had going, I don't think he's afraid of litigation to get the players what they want.



Here is what I think. The players are represented by an idiot and they are not nearly as organized or united as the owners. The owners know this and they are going to bully their way through as long as the players union will allow it. I truely believe the owners made a mistake involving the NLRB at this point, because this will draw attention to both sides actions and the owners have not bargained in good faith. Now that the NLRB is involved this process is doomed to take it's course and we will be lucky to see any football in 2011.

It's a mess. That's what I think.

#24 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,476 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:28 PM

It's a mess. That's what I think.


Now that I agree with.

I am not convinced the owners haven't bargained in good faith. We'll see.

#25 carolinarolls

carolinarolls

    Mel's brother Del

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,283 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:53 PM

scabs, scabs, bring out yer scabs

#26 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 09:00 PM

I'm not pro union and I don't support the players....I'm pro NFL football and I support the fans interest to see the best product on the field....GOD knows we pay enough to see it....why should we have to watch a subpar product? I could careless what ends up happening as long as the two parties clear it up and get the product back on the field so I can enjoy my football.....

The owners are screwing this thing up and Richardson is the ring leader....that's my only point.


No, thats you opinion. Just like every other comment on here. You're not an expert, even though you try to present yourself as one.

You and Happy Panther both think that your opinion in some way to better than anyone else. Thats fine, you wouldn't be the first on here to take that type of position. Just understand I come on here to have good conversations with other fans, not just listen to someone say I'm right over and over again without actually trying to have a conversation. TheyHateMe and I took two different points of view but respected each other.

Funny, how this entire thread is about how some of you think JR is such an asshole for being condensending yet this entire thread, thats the only stance you've taken.

Have fun, I'm out of this conversation.

#27 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 10:15 PM

Neither the players or owners control the cost of ticket prices. The market dictates the price of tickets. The players could play for $1, but if the market dictates fans will pay $39 for an upper level seat, then the seat will cost $39.

Supply and demand.


Supply and demand would actually exist if it were within a free market vacuum. However, it is pretty clear that the free market doesn't exist in this case (or just about any other if you want to look down the barrel of this POVs logical and practical end). If it WERE an actual free market, then there would be alternatives to the NFL and there would be competing unions for said services.

That doesn't exist, so the usual maxims of supply and demand do not translate 1 for 1 as you suggest. If the NFLPA is allowed to bully the NFL into an unsustainable business model, then the only way to recoup costs is to pass it on to the customers.

This is precisely what happened in ATL when Arthur Blank took a HUGE hit at the ticket booth to get people in the stands his first year. He wanted to keep doing it, but he would have been out of business LONG ago if he continued on that course.

This isn't the ivory tower of academia here... this is the real world. The owners in the NFL haven't gotten to where they've gotten without an understanding of how the real business world works. They are simply trying to apply their practical real world acumen to the NFL business model in a modified fashion to see the league's continued success. If that process is hijacked by a legal dispute by the employees, the NFL will die a faster death than what Detroit has been rescued from... unless of course, we compell the American public to subsidize the NFL. God knows what will happen then.

#28 Jaxel

Jaxel

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:07 PM

Not the Owners fault the players are represented poorly. I just know that I've never seen a company pay out 60% of it's profit to employee's.

#29 csx

csx

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,918 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:15 PM

Not the Owners fault the players are represented poorly. I just know that I've never seen a company pay out 60% of it's profit to employee's.


Revenue, not profit.

#30 Jaxel

Jaxel

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:25 PM

Thanks for the correction.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.