Cba update must read

[g5jamz]

On Mike and Mike this morning...and interesting conversation got me thinking. Let's say there IS a lockout. Does the NFL still own the rights to the player's name. Madden games for instance. Wouldn't the NFL be using NFLPA's names on a product they have no agreement with? I guess it depends on the contract Madden has with the NFL, but if there was a clause for strike/lockout...if I were Brees, Feeley, etc...I'd be talking side deals with Madden and every other NFL endorsement product that uses the NFL player as the key selling point.

[riddel]

tv will file suit, owners will show due diligence to put "a product" on the field under the extreme duress of the striking players under the lies of their president.

The owners will win.

Contract or not. TV takes a gamble on rights of a product in hopes to make a profit. There are only so many topics they can whine about and being profitable is not one of them. It is not the responsibility of the NFL to make TV profitable.

If it is proven, and it should easily be, that the NFL has done all it can to remain profitable in effort to fulfill its contractual negotiations now and long term then TV is gonna be left holding the bag for every advertiser they have not secured through the 2011-12 season.

scabs is the key. get the players to strike, *** it. Who cares? open up the recruiting and training and see what you can field. If you are under contract for 2011-12, you are ineligible. A whole new market of advertisers opens up for TV to sell and IMO a surge of interest, excitement, and pride rocks the league and its fans.

It's official. You're a moron.

The TV contracts are not tied to the CBA. They could careless what the NFL owners and players conflicts are. If the NFL doesn't produce the product what the TV contracts specify, then the owners will not only repay the $4 billion, but also damages. The NFL is contractually obligated to fullfill the contract. Just because the money is guaranteed, doesn't mean that the owner can "try" and fullfill their contractual obligation and if it doesn't work out they get to walk away. You don't have a clue about a clue.....

[carolinarolls]

It's official. You're a moron.

The TV contracts are not tied to the CBA. They could careless what the NFL owners and players conflicts are. If the NFL doesn't produce the product what the TV contracts specify, then the owners will not only repay the $4 billion, but also damages. The NFL is contractually obligated to fullfill the contract. Just because the money is guaranteed, doesn't mean that the owner can "try" and fullfill their contractual obligation and if it doesn't work out they get to walk away. You don't have a clue about a clue.....

the CBA does not have to be tied to the TV contract to be valid.

The tv contract is post CBA relationship and therefore subject to its effects.

Don't completely lose all credibility here and act like a ****** moron. This is common sense and there is nowhere in any contract that specifies quality of product other than the "best quality" that they can deliver in accordance with the past deliveries.

Also there is most likely a gig of text of clauses concerning lockouts, CBA, and the like. This is already decided and the ones talking the risk are the networks. They are here to make a profit as a media outlet. They choose what they want that media to be.

You are dumber than I thought if you think the owners will take money with understanding that if their players strike they have to give it all back no questions asked and will gladly do so.

[riddel]

the CBA does not have to be tied to the TV contract to be valid.

The tv contract is post CBA relationship and therefore subject to its effects.

Don't completely lose all credibility here and act like a ****** moron. This is common sense and there is nowhere in any contract that specifies quality of product other than the "best quality" that they can deliver in accordance with the past deliveries.

Also there is most likely a gig of text of clauses concerning lockouts, CBA, and the like. This is already decided and the ones talking the risk are the networks. They are here to make a profit as a media outlet. They choose what they want that media to be.

You are dumber than I thought if you think the owners will take money with understanding that if their players strike they have to give it all back no questions asked and will gladly do so.

If you believe that the TV contracts guarantee $4 billion without specfically addressing a lockout or strike and by addressing I mean recovery options for the TV networks, then this means that you have never seen a contract in your life and that you prolly work in the sporting good department at Walmart. TV networks are larger than any NFL owner and they are not stupid enought to sign a CBA that makes their company economically unstable, like the NFL claims they did in 2006.

Again, Please tell me you're not stupid enough to believe that the TV networks will not sue and win every penny of the $4 billion in guaranteed money along with lost revenue, if the owners do not produce the product they are contractually obligated to produce. I really need to hear you say it so I can spit the rest of my coffee out....

[Happy Panther]

It's official. You're a moron.

The TV contracts are not tied to the CBA. They could careless what the NFL owners and players conflicts are. If the NFL doesn't produce the product what the TV contracts specify, then the owners will not only repay the $4 billion, but also damages.

Who knows what the TV contract specifies. The stations may have a case or maybe not.

However when the next TV deal comes around the stations will get their money back one way or the other.

[Happy Panther]

Q: The NFLPA says the NFL will receive $4 billion in television revenue in 2011 even if no games are played. The union is calling it “lockout insurance.” Is this accurate?

A: No. For decades, NFL network TV contracts have protected the league against the possibility that games might be lost for any of a variety of reasons, including work stoppages, natural disasters, and similar events. Any sums paid by the broadcast and cable television networks to the NFL during a work stoppage would have to be repaid with interest.

Here ya go

http://nfllabor.com/2010/06/19/qa-on-special-master-case-regarding-television-contracts/

[carolinarolls]

Here ya go

http://nfllabor.com/2010/06/19/qa-on-special-master-case-regarding-television-contracts/

good, as I stated there are likely gigs worth of text that address how this is handled. There is no insurance for the owners. They have to field a team to make sure there is no stoppage. They will easily do so if the players strike.

[riddel]

good, as I stated there are likely gigs worth of text that address how this is handled. There is no insurance for the owners. They have to field a team to make sure there is no stoppage. They will easily do so if the players strike.

Hey Moron, remove that foot from your mouth. I got coffee all over my desk right now, because of your stupidity.

[riddel]

good, as I stated there are likely gigs worth of text that address how this is handled. There is no insurance for the owners. They have to field a team to make sure there is no stoppage. They will easily do so if the players strike.

Wrong again. The owners can replace the players via lockout or strike. Too many of you guys just spout crap out and don't actually read or understand what you're talking about.

All this stuff is a finger click away, please google it and stop with the ignorance. I really don't want to sound like an arse, but this is ridiculous. You guys are pulling stuff out left and right and have no facts to back it up.

JEEEEZ!!!

[riddel]

This is what they tell you.....

Q: What do network television executives say?

A: The networks say they aren’t going to hand over large amounts of money to the NFL and tell the league to keep the money if games are not played. We would have to give it back and take reductions from future years.

“It’s not as if we are running a charity,” said FOX’s Ed Goren to the Sports Business Journal (3/29/10). “That money comes back…with interest.”

NBC’s Dick Ebersol said in the same SBJ story, “I have been around longer than anybody else, and I don’t remember a deal, certainly all the way back to the early 1980s, that this wasn’t in. This is not a new development.”

What they don't tell you is what happens once those time slots are not filled and the revenues are lost.....The TV Networks will not simply say "Oh well, we got our money back" The networks are partners with the NFL and if a partner screws up the revenues, then they get sued.

[Wither]

This thread is stupid.

[riddel]

Goodbye Steve Smith.....you will be greatly missed.