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!

     

Possibility of Replacements?


blackcatgrowl

Recommended Posts

The replacements would be because the regular players are on strike. If there's no strike, there's no replacements.

I guess you're not seeing the point...

The players have no formal mechanism to strike without the Union. If they re-certify the union, they risk being found guilty of improper barganing while being investigated by the Labor board, and having their cases thrown out that are currently in courts. It's a catch 22 for them.

So if they have no way of organizing a strike, they probably won't, because there's no way to guarantee no one will cross the picket lines.

The owners agreed on a new CBA pending the ratification by the NFLPA. If the players reject the deal, then there is NOTHING to stop the owners from lifting the lockout, based on the grounds that it was an agreement among clubs, then saying "We have a deal among ourselves as owners. If you come to work, you abide by that deal."

Then if the players don't show up, the owners can say they are in breach of contract, and start hiring replacements.

This is a complicated matter and is not just a simple "Players no strike. Replacements no come."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view this as...

The NFL is open for business. The owners of the business have opened the doors, you can come in and buy as much chicken and bizkits as you'd like.

The question is, will the employees show up on Monday to fry the chicken and run the registers?

The follow up, then, if they don't show up will the owners fire them and hire new employees, try to appease the current employees, or close the stores back up?

Call them a union or disgruntled workers. Call them replacements or scabs or whatever. Really what it boils down to is the players either show up or not. If they do, yay. If not, what then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really what it boils down to is the players either show up or not. If they do, yay. If not, what then?

Well, ya, that's sort of the question I'm posing... it's a "what if".

What if the owners say "screw you non-unionized workers, we're hiring new people". Is the chaos surrounding the resolution of this issue strong enough to enable that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners pretty much just showed the players that they are not their intellectual peers. They sent the players a huge Hallmark card that read "On your special day.....fug You Very Much.". The players are in a very small corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no official union, but that doesn't mean there's no union. They've been behaving an awful lot like a union ever since the officially decertified.

Right, but you cannot organize a strike without the presence of a union. The word union means a group. Not trying to be disrespectful because I know your point, but a strike is action taken by the workers, collectively bound and strengthened by the union. Without a union, there is no strength to fight the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...