March 1, 201115 yr comment_89419 http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/28/news/compa...in&hpt=Sbin Mad L There is no way that all the owners can afford to allow any games to be cancelled including preseason this year. Some of the small market teams cannot stand tall like the big market teams and that includes the Bears because they are a family owned operation as well as the Steelers and 49ers. Report
March 1, 201115 yr Author comment_89439 No side wants to take a hit. I just think it's interesting fodder considering there's not a lot of info on this CBA fiasco. Mad L There is no way that all the owners can afford to allow any games to be cancelled including preseason this year. Some of the small market teams cannot stand tall like the big market teams and that includes the Bears because they are a family owned operation as well as the Steelers and 49ers. Report
March 2, 201115 yr comment_89470 A judge just ruled against the basis for most of this article. Report
March 2, 201115 yr comment_89476 A judge just ruled against the basis for most of this article. Yeah, hopefully the owners will have to knuckle under (or at least negotiate with the union in good faith instead of just stonewalling them) if they can't count on the TV money coming in. They've still got their $900 million lockout fund, but losing $4 billion in TV revenue would hurt them immensely. Report
March 2, 201115 yr Author comment_89479 Good - a fairer fight means a better chance of earlier resolution I think... Yeah, hopefully the owners will have to knuckle under (or at least negotiate with the union in good faith instead of just stonewalling them) if they can't count on the TV money coming in. They've still got their $900 million lockout fund, but losing $4 billion in TV revenue would hurt them immensely. Report
March 2, 201115 yr comment_89480 Yeah, hopefully the owners will have to knuckle under (or at least negotiate with the union in good faith instead of just stonewalling them) if they can't count on the TV money coming in. They've still got their $900 million lockout fund, but losing $4 billion in TV revenue would hurt them immensely. I'm not sure that's what would happen given this judge's ruling. The actual penalty may be a fine for dealing in bad faith. I'm not certain the judge will throw out only that portion of the TV contract. We need a lawyer here... Report
March 2, 201115 yr comment_89495 I'm not sure that's what would happen given this judge's ruling. The actual penalty may be a fine for dealing in bad faith. I'm not certain the judge will throw out only that portion of the TV contract. We need a lawyer here... It's not certain what the judge will do, but from reading that article it sounds like the union's asking for an injunction that would place the TV deal funds in escrow, where the NFL couldn't touch them, until the lockout ends. Generally, to get injunctive relief you have to show that damages would be inadequate - the prototype case for an injunction is one where the damages are both very large and very hard to accurately measure/predict. It seems like, in very general terms, the damages that the players would suffer in the event of a lockout could qualify - it's hard to measure just how badly it would impact any given player's career to have a year with no football, but it's pretty clear that the players as a whole would suffer a major loss. I'm not a lawyer, though, just a law student. Does anybody on this forum do contracts or sports law? I'd be interested to know the particulars here. Report
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.