NFL lockout back on
Up to the minute Philadelphia sports news, Phillies, 76ers, Eagles, Flyers, college sports and more from Philly.com
NFL lockout back on
Jonathan Tamari
That screeching sound you just heard was NFL business once again coming to a halt.
A federal court has handed owners the decision they wanted, putting the lockout back in place and stopping the limited team activities that resumed Friday morning. That means no trades or free agency, and Kevin Kolb still isn't going anywhere. The lockout is back on at least until next week, when the three judge panel overseeing the NFL's appeal will decide on the league's request for a permanent stay -- one that could last into June.
The Eighth Circuit court of appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction that had been issued by Judge Susan Richard Nelson. Nelson's decision would have lifted the lockout, but the stay leaves it in place. The lockout could be on for weeks to come. The owners are seeking a longer stay that would last the length of their appeal of Nelson's decision -- probably leaving teh lockout in place four to six more weeks, at least, as the two sides await another court ruling.
Bottom line: no trades or free agency until sometime next week at the earliest, and perhaps not for longer than that.
Comments (14)
Greedy, greedy owners are killing this sport.— FKD215- ....along with greedy, greedy players— dmat
- Greedy owners are trying to change the terms of a mutually beneficial relationship with the players. The owners don't risk their health and future, no one goes to the stadium to watch the fat old men, and therefore, the owners need to take care of the golden goose.
Keep the current terms that benefits both parties and get back to the game.— Seed - Lets take a difference perspective. It is always referenced the players versus owners. Greed etc. How about from the fan's point of view? All the money the players and owners make is excessive and greedy. Cut the cost of tickets and NFL package etc. Lower salaries and profits. When will the millions be enough????? How about the fan that pays hard earned money from a real job??? True capitalism takes into consideration excessiveness. Give back to the fans and cut prices etc.— Wise_Owl
- Only the fans can lock out both the owners and players. Do we have the stomach for it?— johnny eagle
- "True capitalism takes into consideration excessiveness. ."
— Wise_Owl
Ummm yeah, no, Their is o consideration at all in Capitalism for anything other than profit. Thats it period.
— andyreidisfat - @dmat. Respectfully disagree. It's the owners who are locking out the players because they want a bigger % of the shared revenue without showing the players why.
When it comes to this dispute, the greed is 100% on the owners, not the players.— Reality Speaks - Greed is entirely on the owners? Capitalism takes into consideration excessiveness? Have you checked the price of gas? We are paying too much, for seats, for gas. For food. A few of us getting rich. Most of us staying afloat. Excess is heart of capitalism. All about profits and none of us are better for it. Boras and the boys would love to have Lurie money. The so-called new rules offered up would hurt the agents and they'll fight the owners all the way. Money, Money, Money. Crank up the Pink Floyd song.
Kind of disgusting. All of it.— retzlaff - Okay, Johnie Eagle. I'm in. National fan boycott of opening Sunday. So well organized it'll move the mountain of greed.— retzlaff
- I am getting to the point of not caring. Don't know about you guys but this is starting to make me sick. I can live without football.— JimSeitz
- I blame the players more than the players. Yes, both are greedy, who cares if one is more or less greedy than the other. But I still side with the owners because even though the owners want more money, how many players worked with the local city and state to build the lavish stadiums that they play in or the state of the art practice facilities? How many players made the deals with the networks so that the players can be on tv every weekend? How many players pay for the 1000's of workers every weekend on game day? Owners also pay for the players' charter flights, hotel, food, etc... on away games. Much of the money the owners "get" goes right back to the players. Whereas the players have basically one employee, their agent. We talk about the owners wanting an extra $1 Billion, which is a lot of money, but if you divide that by 32 teams, it's $31.25 million per team. How much do you think it costs to run a football team's operation? I'd guess much more than that. The only issues I side with the players are no 18 game schedule and their health benefits. The owners were willing to negotiate, but the players walked away. They were greedy. If the players didn't decertify and walk away, they'd be negotiating now.— awl
- haha, I meant "I blame the players more than the owners." Long day. By the way, the owners offering to show the books for the last 3-5 years is MORE than enough and makes perfect business sense than what the players are asking for. What exactly does the NFL finances from 2001 have ANYTHING to do with 2011? It's a completely different game and the finances from 2001 are meaningless for now. The players only demanded 10 years knowing that they wouldn't get it so that they have a reason to decertify. It was an offer they knew was ridiculous to expect. I'm tired of the players crying as if they're victims. If you want to work, get back to the table and negotiate!— awl
- @ awl. First off, all the expenses you mentioned are technically covered by the owners and the players, because the NFL is a shared revenue entity. In negotiations, when figuring out how to split the revenue pie, expenses costs are factored into that.
For example, in the last negotiations, it was determined that 1 billion would automatically go to the owners to cover expenses, then after that, it was an approximately 60/40 split between the 2 parties.
Now, the owners are saying they want even more of this money from the shared revenue pie...and no, the owners are NOT willing to show the players the books from the last 3-5 years, I think you misunderstand what the owners are willing to show. They're offering to show the bottom line numbers in regards to profits and losses, (and SELECTED audited statements). What the players want to see are the specific expenses that the owner's are incurring. For whatever reason though, the owners refuse to show this, which I find shady. What are they hiding? The players have a right to know why the owners are demanding that the players hand over an even greater percentage of their share of the revenue.
To put that in perspective, even the NBA gives full accessibility to their books, and David Stern himself criticized the NFL for refusing to open up the books. Yes, David Stern...
And if you're tired of the players crying victim, how do you feel about owners like Jeffery Lurie sending out letterS to their season-ticker holders crying "victim"? Or, Goodell's relentless PR smear against the players to the media, basically stating that the players want to ruin the NFL?
But I agree with you in this; get back to the table and negotiate...the owners open up the books, and then all parties can get down to brass tax.— Reality Speaks - ...by the way, if the 2001 - 2005 books really don't have "ANYTHING" to do with today, then what is the big deal with the owners just showing them? Again, what is it that they don't want the players to see? It's just ridiculous to me.— Reality Speaks
Popular Posts
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners:
Powered By:
