Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nfllabor

    Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal
    By DAVE CAMPBELL, AP Sports Writer
    19 minutes ago


    MINNEAPOLIS (AP)—In this epic NFL game, the players have an early lead on the owners.

    U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered an immediate end to the lockout Monday, siding with the players in their fight with the owners over how to divide the $9 billion business.

    Nelson granted a request for a preliminary injunction to lift the two-month lockout, saying she was swayed by the players’ argument that the NFL’s first work stoppage since 1987 is hurting their careers.


    NFL commissioner Roger Goodell leaves the federal courthouse in Minneapolis last week.

    (AP)
    The plaintiffs “have made a strong showing that allowing the League to continue their ‘lockout’ is presently inflicting, and will continue to inflict, irreparable harm upon them, particularly when weighed against the lack of any real injury that would be imposed on the NFL by issuing the preliminary injunction,” Nelson wrote.

    AP - Apr 19, 11:38 am EDT 1 of 7 NFL Gallery The NFL said it would ask Nelson to put her order on hold with a stay so it can pursue an expedited appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

    “We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the league said. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”

    Said Jim Quinn, an attorney for the players: “They better act quickly, because as of right now there’s no stay and, presumably, players could sign with teams. There are no guidelines as of right now, so they have to put something in place quickly.

    “It is their league: They can put it whatever they decide. If they put in something not restrictive to the players and fair to the players, that is fine. If not, we will litigate.”

    If the injunction is upheld, the NFL must resume business, although under what guidelines is uncertain.

    It could invoke the 2010 rules for free agency, meaning players would need six seasons of service before becoming unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire; previously, it was four years. The requirement for unrestricted free agents would be four years rather than the three years before 2010. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much— or as little—as they wanted.

    Also, the NFL would need to determine what or if offseason workouts can be held while the appeal is being heard.

    Clearly, it’s complicated.

    The NFL has even argued to Nelson that stopping the lockout would open all 32 teams up to additional antitrust claims simply for working together to solve the labor dispute. Antitrust claims carry triple damages for any harm proven, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.

    At the hearing before Nelson on April 6, the crux of the argument from NFL lawyer David Boies was that the court shouldn’t have control of a conflict that grew out of a labor dispute. Boies even tried to lighten the mood by telling her, “No lawyer ever wants to stand in front of a judge and say, ‘You don’t have jurisdiction.”’

    The owners, in support of their argument, pointed to their pending unfair labor charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board that the players didn’t negotiate in good faith.

    Nelson disagreed—and threw cold water on that hope, too.

    “Although the NFL has filed a charge here, the NLRB has yet to issue any complaint and, in this court’s considered judgment, it is likely that the Board will dismiss the charge,” she wrote in her ruling.

    Owners imposed the lockout after talks broke down March 11 and the players disbanded their union. A group of players filed the injunction request along with a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the league.

    Nelson rejected the league’s prediction that the NLRB would see the union’s breakup as temporary, thus supporting the assertion that the dissolution was purely a tactical move.

    “There is no legal support for any requirement that a disclaimer be permanent,” Nelson wrote. “Employees have the right not only to organize as a union but also to refrain from such representation and, as relevant here, to ‘de-unionize.”’

    Nelson also stated that the so-called decertification was legitimate because of “serious consequences” for the players.

    “This court need not resolve the debate about whether their motive was influenced by the expectation of this litigation,” she wrote, calling that question irrelevant as long as the union followed through on the breakup.

    Nelson heard arguments on the injunction at a hearing on April 6 and ordered the two sides to resume mediation while she was considering her decision. The owners and players, who failed to reach consensus after 16 days of mediated talks earlier this year, met over four days with a federal magistrate but did not announce any progress on solving the impasse.

    They are not scheduled to meet again until May 16, four days after another judge holds a hearing on whether players should get damages in their related fight with owners over some $4 billion in broadcast revenue.

    And now comes Nelson’s decision to lift the injunction.

    “(T)he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales,” she wrote. “And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football—who have a strong investment in the 2011 season—is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation.”

    With appeals expected, the fight seems likely to drag on through the spring and, possibly, into the summer. The closer it gets to August, when training camps and the preseason get into full swing, the more likely it becomes that regular season games will be lost.

    The NFL is going forward with the draft, which begins Thursday night.

    Dolphins alternate player representative John Denney(notes) said he didn’t think the ruling was the end of the dispute.

    “Right now we got what we wanted, but it may be temporary,” he said. “We’ll have to let the judicial process play out.”

    And the antitrust lawsuit is pending, too, with lead plaintiffs that include MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes) and Peyton Manning(notes). The suit has been combined with two other similar claims from retirees, former players and rookies-to-be, with Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller the lead plaintiff in that group.

    Osi Umenyiora(notes), the New York Giants defensive end and one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “win for the players and for the fans” in a statement.

    “The lockout is bad for everyone, and players will continue to fight it,” Umenyiora said. “We hope that this will bring us one step closer to playing the game we love.”

    AP Sports Writers Barry Wilner and Steven Wine contributed to this report.

  • #2
    Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

    Peyton Manning is a FA if the appeal doesnt work plus 500 more players. Thats what Chris Mort said on SC.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
      Peyton Manning is a FA if the appeal doesnt work plus 500 more players. Thats what Chris Mort said on SC.
      Odds of Peyton leaving? I'd say very, very, very, very, very, very minimal.
      Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

        Maybe I don't understand the whole situation, but how can a Judge do this? Are Owners not able to run their teams as they see fit. It was their option to opt out of the current CBA. Under what law can a judge force private entities to run their business in a manner they do not wish to do so?
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          Maybe I don't understand the whole situation, but how can a Judge do this? Are Owners not able to run their teams as they see fit. It was their option to opt out of the current CBA. Under what law can a judge force private entities to run their business in a manner they do not wish to do so?
          I believe it has to do with the contracts that the players have. They are entitled to the pay for doing the work, as per the contract. The judge basically ruled that, for the moment, the employer cannot lock out a contracted employee who has not violated the contract.


          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

            Roger Goodell wrote the Op-Ed piece for the WSJ

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...html#printMode

            Football's Future If the Players Win
            There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams..Article Comments (177) more in Opinion ».
            EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
            .Twitter
            LinkedIn
            + More close MySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookFarkViadeoOrkut Text
            By ROGER GOODELL
            Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.

            For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

            What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

            For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.

            For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.

            Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.

            View Full Image

            Getty Images

            Small-market teams like the Buffalo Bills would suffer.
            .Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.

            In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

            Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.

            Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

            • No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

            • No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

            • No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

            • No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

            • No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

            • No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

            • No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

            • No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

            Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.

            In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.

            Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

            Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

            Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

            These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

            Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

              Originally posted by kester99 View Post
              I believe it has to do with the contracts that the players have. They are entitled to the pay for doing the work, as per the contract. The judge basically ruled that, for the moment, the employer cannot lock out a contracted employee who has not violated the contract.
              So factories can't lay off their staff for a couple of months then either?

              The NFL is privately owned, if they want to shut their doors, then they can shut their doors. I don't see the legal grounding on this either.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                So factories can't lay off their staff for a couple of months then either?

                The NFL is privately owned, if they want to shut their doors, then they can shut their doors. I don't see the legal grounding on this either.
                I think it goes like this:
                The NFL has players under contract (which the contract is a key point). Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (second key point). So if the owners want to lock the players out then they are effectively canceling the contracts and thus making the players all free agents.

                I don't think the judge is telling the NFL they can't have a lockout as much telling them if they do the above is the result.

                Once the above happens now you have to worry about the solidarity of the owners. Does playing for NE start looking good to Manning? Does playing for Miami start looking good to Brady? Do teams start pursuing players once thought locked up to other teams? Do the Giants see an opportunity to spend like drunken sailors and super-stock their team? What about a group of owners breaking away from the NFL for their own football league with their own interests more at the forefront and a bevy of stars to make a play for? IOW- it becomes chaos.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                  The article in the Pacer forum explains it a little better. It's because the union decertified.

                  Which still doesn't make any sense, because that means the NFL should be able to negiotate with individual players. Once they recertify their union, then the lockout can just become active again.

                  Basically their just chasing their tail in a circle, from what I can make out of all this.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    So factories can't lay off their staff for a couple of months then either?

                    The NFL is privately owned, if they want to shut their doors, then they can shut their doors. I don't see the legal grounding on this either.
                    The lock out is not because the business is closing its doors. It's being used as a bargaining ploy. Yes. You're right. If they want to go out of business, they can. But if they're planning on staying in business, then they are being required to play fair with their employees under contract.

                    If that hypothetical factory wants to lay off staff, they can. But if I have a contract with you, neither one of us can unilaterally cancel it or modify it.
                    Last edited by kester99; 04-26-2011, 06:02 PM.


                    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                      Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                      Odds of Peyton leaving? I'd say very, very, very, very, very, very minimal.
                      Ya but it is intersting he is a FA that is pretty cool. The bigger point is their is a record amount of FA's right now which is pretty cool. Sidney Rice to the Bears and about 5 good O-line men

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                        Friday 8am all the rules will be released for next season and the lockout will be officaly over.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                          Now the Lockout is back on this stuff is crazy...

                          I know Peyton is getting tired of this, cant the individual owners just allow the players to used the facilities if they like?
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                            Originally posted by Really? View Post
                            Now the Lockout is back on this stuff is crazy...

                            I know Peyton is getting tired of this, cant the individual owners just allow the players to used the facilities if they like?


                            Well considering he's an FA he really can't practice? Can he? I mean he was tagged but does that go into effect.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Well considering he's an FA he really can't practice? Can he? I mean he was tagged but does that go into effect.
                              Not sure but from what I hear he as at the facility the day that they let players come in.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X