Judge Nelson to rule in couple weeks

[Fiz]

people on here abuse semantics on a near-constant basis.

It's a lazy way to make yourself feel smart. Typically it's considered poor form to argue semantics, especially when what you're arguing has legal and historical precedent. If I wanted to continue that argument, I would have him list things declared monopolies that fit the strictest definition. I guess

I Microsoft wasnt in fact a monopoly because apple existed, or Boeing wasn't originally a monopoly because other airlines and plane builders existed.

However I neither want to continue that or think he's capable of constructing an interesting response so I'm gonna vote drunk.

[RealisticFan]

If the NFL are 32 teams that operate in 32 different markets and allow all of the 32 different teams to acquire revenues in one of the 32 different markets in only six months out of a year of service while allowing the players when entering the NFL to CHOOSE the career path of their choice.

Also while in the non-operating six months exist the option of alternatives for employment in other venues if they choose, unless bound by lawful contract that were negotiated in good faith with lawful consideration, then the regulatory commission would find have to find that collusion would have to exist for it to not hold water. The players do not have to play for the NFL in order to play football and make a living playing football.

Otherwise, it is not a monopoly or monopolistic competition, but in fact a Oligopoly instead. Which is still not a monopoly.

The railroad regulation was a complete clusterfudge ask any economist and they will agree. That is why railroad revenues are increasing after lifting the regulations that bound them for thirty plus years.

Regulation is only necessary when one alternative cannot compete. And um....if that is the case then there are alternatives.

[RealisticFan]

It's a lazy way to make yourself feel smart. Typically it's considered poor form to argue semantics, especially when what you're arguing has legal and historical precedent. If I wanted to continue that argument, I would have him list things declared monopolies that fit the strictest definition. I guess

I Microsoft wasnt in fact a monopoly because apple existed, or Boeing wasn't originally a monopoly because other airlines and plane builders existed.

However I neither want to continue that or think he's capable of constructing an interesting response so I'm gonna vote drunk.

Microsoft had a legitimate argument as well as Boeing. There is a really good reason as to why the Microsoft case took eight years to settle. Internet Explorer and Windows Media player. If you can do it better than every one else is that your fault?

Truth is that the NFL has a really, really good case, and the players have to run to Minnesota in order to have a chance. Since the precedent is based on English common law and a liberal judge that will see one side of the case they are praying that she will have pity. If I were the NFL I would hope that it goes to the Court of Appeals, but that would mean no NFL football in the near future.

Edit: Semantics????? Is that what law is all about???????or not???? Geez man!

[CarolinaVeins]

I hope judge is a NFL fan. Or has a NFL fan husband/bf that can pound her out real good and persuade her decision

[RealisticFan]

Here is a a good read.

http://www.trcb.com/finance/economics/oligopoly-competition-among-the-few-235.htm

[thunderraiden]

I don't know that either side ever really engaged in meaningful negotiations without separate ulterior motives.

Owners ultimate motive was obviously to get their last deal they offered which was obviously in the middle ground. Yea it was crappier than the players current deal... but wasn't the owners current deal crappier than the one before 2006?

[mountainpantherfan]

I'm not trying to be unbiased. I support the owners. Not the players, not the media and not the fans (who really are the worst of the entire group). So my opinion is biased.

The courts and NLRB will eventually rule in favor of the players. Just like me, they are very biased as well and will do anything and everything to support all unions and their collective cause. That's just the way it is and the owners (and to a much lesser degree myself) have to just deal with it.

In the past, the way to deal with it was collective bargaining. In a lot of ways, the owners paid the players the right to hold a draft, place restrictions on free agency and place a salary cap on each team. The owners had a business model that was agaisnt the law and for almost 20 years they were willing to pay for the right to use that business model. And it proved to be a very, very successful model. So successful that its now become, in the opinion of the owners, too successful.

Many people, not just on this message board, have quoted Jerry Richardson's comment of "...we are going to take back our league..." in connection with the owner wanting to get a better deal than the one they had with the old CBA. But in the last couple of weeks we have learned the owners aren't looking to get a better deal but to basicly change the composition of the deal. With revenues continuing to rapidly grow each year, the owners are brining in more and more money but their "take" remains the same due to the CBA basing the players pay on a percentage. Investors and brokers don't look at revenue lines when making decisions about investments or loans. They look at if the company shows a consistant increase in profits, showing the company is growing in profitability.

This is where the league and the NFLPA see no compromise. The players want a percentage of the revenue and the owners want players to agree to a set amount based on projections. This set amount would be gaurenteed if the revenues don't meet expectations but the owners would be able to show profitablity if the expectation is exceeded. But the players want to make a percentage, perferably 50% of all revenue and they don't see why they should care about the owners's issues with profitablity.

In a lot of ways, it isn't the players place to worry about team profitabiltiy. The players are looking out for their best interest and their best interest only. And so in that, I find no fault with the player's position. Remember, the owners are technically breaking labor laws so they are in many ways at the mercy of the players to continue their business model. But that is where this issue changes from what most people thought going into this labor dispute.

When Jerry Richardson said "...we are taking back our league..." he was also saying that the current business model may not be acceptable anymore and the preconcieved notions that the league will sacrafice money in order to gain the right to have a draft and a salary cap may no longer apply.

In my opinion, the league has tried to change their business model within the confines of collective bargaining and have made some impressive concessions in order to achieve this. And ultimently, I think the league wants a new CBA no matter what because they feel a CBA is the only way to ensure labor peace. However, I also think the owners are willing to go outside of collective bargaining and completely break down the current business model in order to achieve the new model and a CBA with that new model as the basis later on.

This is my take and my opinion. I am biased but it's not because I'm some convervative, capitalism or bust big business supportor. Actually, when it comes to the two sides I hate big business just as much as I hate the unions. But I do support smart business. And to me these owners have proven for the past 20 years that they are good at doing business. If they really feel that the old model isn't working and a new one is needed, I'm going to trust that they are going to know better than some ameture hack on a message board (me). It just makes sense for long term success.