Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

In the event of a lockout and replacement players


HSCBandit07

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...