Could a strike resemble the one in the 80's?

**myfavoriteboxer** · 01-31-2011, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by RAVENOUS52

as long as the cost isn't passed on to the customers

**AirFlacco** · 01-31-2011, 04:22 AM

The owners might be locking the players out but there are tons of rumors and stories that
REPLACEMENTS will strike again if there is one. Rumor has it the NFL will sign UFL and CFL
players plus anyone available that will be interested just like before.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/pro...f-2011-lockout

As far as replacement teams,the NFL had strike insurance in the 80s that paid for the teams in case of a strike. That's what broke the union's back. I don't know if they have that now but the NFL is so much wealthier now
it might not need it. The owners can just start fielding teams, really easy..

The Nations Bank lent the NFL the money for the insurance the last replacement teams. I think the insurer was
Loyds of London. The bank which is now Bank of America was located in Charlotte and lent them
the money on the condition that the NFL would give Charlotte an expansion team when they expanded.

There's a good movie about this called THE REPLACEMENTS starring Gene Hackman and it was filmed in
Bmore at the stadium. My nephews and I were extras in the movie. The funniest scene was when the
cheer leaders did a mock lesbian scene on the side lines to distract the other teams players. It worked. LOL

http://www.cinemasense.com/Reviews/replacements.htm

Anyway, the strike came and went and after several years the bank wanted a team
but the owners didn't want to expand to 32 teams. They kept dragging their feet.
Finally around 1995 they expanded and Charlotte got the first team.

We knew that would happen and was sure we'd get the second team. Jacksonville
was so sure we were getting it because we had the most money on the table for
a public funded stadium they withdrew their bid. Tags went to JAX and pleaded with
them to re-enter the derby. He said I'm going to have to give Baltimore the ball if
you drop out. That's when JAX knew they had the second team. I'll never forget
Schaeffer sitting there crying that night but Herb Belgrade was approached by
the Rams and said you'll be hearing from us.

The contacted Bmore about moving here and everyone thought for sure we had the
Rams but St Louis wanted a team too, so much so they went ahead and built a new
stadium, unlike us. The legislature wouldn't release the money until a team was
secured so the Rams moved to St Louis.

The new guv, Glendenning instructed Moag, Belgrade's successor to send letters to
every club saying the money for the stadium would be pulled off the table in 30 days
unless someone claimed it. Moag heard from three teams - the Browns, Tampa and
Arizona. Moag wanted the Browns because they were the best team and Modell was
the best owner and he was the only owner who could run over Tags and Jack Kent
Cooke, owner of the Skins who claimed Bmore as his territory.

To sweeten the pot for Cooke, the guv promised to build the roads into the new stadium
the was building.

Now, it looks like giving teams to those cities was the worse mistake in NFL history
and it's keeping Tags from being elected into the HOF. A lot of Ravens fans went to
Charlotte and got tickets at the door. There's always tons of empty seats there.

JAX has been rumored to be the next team to move to LA. They covered thousands of
upper deck seats because they can't sell them. The entire problem with the Sun Belt
where Tags wanted to go is that no one there was born there. Everyone is a transplant
via their companies or retirement. The south east is well, SEC country for college
football.

The right thing to do would be to put teams in ST Louis and Balimore. That way
neither LA or Cleveland would have lost teams but Tags never did the right
thing. LA, the second largest market in the country is still void of a team.

All that has to do with replacement teams and old Irsay fielded one of the best. LOL.

**ravensnhokies** · 01-31-2011, 11:39 AM

I personally think this lockout will last well into the season. New guy, Smith has come in all guns blazing and is not going to cave in. Until the players start losing game checks, I just don't think we will see any real 'progress'. People joke but there is a lot of truth to this, that the group that stops the strikes/lockouts are the wives. When Player X tells his wife that she can't get her 3rd Louis Vuitton purse or matching diamond studded Rolex b/c they need to cut back, the Wife doesn't take too kindly to the new situation.

Adding to the AirFlacco's Replacements comments, the film is loosely based on the Cowboys - Redskins Monday Nite Football game in 1987. The Cowboys had a bunch of their starters cross the picket line like Danny White, Tony Dorsett, and Randy White while the Redskins fielded a complete team of scabs. Miraculously, the Skins defeated the Cowpokes 13-7. Probably the biggest upset in NFL history (my opinion). http://www.pro-football-reference.co...8710190dal.htm

**HoustonRaven** · 01-31-2011, 11:52 AM

Completely disagree, hokies.

And for the reason you mentioned in your first paragraph.

The players do not have 1/10 of the funds in reserve that the owners have been able to amass. Both sides knew this was coming and both sides were under advisement to save their money just in case it was protracted well into the season.

The owners listened and amassed a war chest into the hundreds of millions. The players did not, in spite of Dee Smith screaming it from the hill tops the second he took over.

And all labor negotiations are basically like this one. The labor union screams that the sky is falling, that it's war, etc. It's posturing and nothing more. Dee Smith more than anyone knows his fiscal limitations but has to put on a good face for the rank and file members. The media is more than willing to go with the hysteria as it suits their needs and gets people to read their stories, watch their coverage, etc.

There is also an NLRB legal element here. There is only so much, legally, the league and Goodell can say while the NFLPA is free to say whatever they want.

If this lockout goes into the pre-season, I'd be extremely shocked. The players simply cannot afford it.

**Mista T** · 01-31-2011, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

The owners might be locking the players out but there are tons of rumors and stories that
REPLACEMENTS will strike again if there is one.

Trap: I think that you are confused. Replacement players would be non-union scabs. How/why would scabs strike? These are non-unionized guys looking for jobs, not unionized greedy NFLPA prima donnas who would be content to sit out part of the season. I guess that any group of football players -- unionized or non-unionized -- could theoretically call a strike, but I couldn't envision AFL, CFL, UFL players signing NFL contracts as replacement plaers, only to turn around and strike.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-31-2011, 12:03 PM

Andrew Brandt has put together a very informative series on the whole issue here ...

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ffootball.html

**Jeremiah W** · 01-31-2011, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Completely disagree, hokies.

And for the reason you mentioned in your first paragraph.

The players do not have 1/10 of the funds in reserve that the owners have been able to amass. Both sides knew this was coming and both sides were under advisement to save their money just in case it was protracted well into the season.

The owners listened and amassed a war chest into the hundreds of millions. The players did not, in spite of Dee Smith screaming it from the hill tops the second he took over.

And all labor negotiations are basically like this one. The labor union screams that the sky is falling, that it's war, etc. It's posturing and nothing more. Dee Smith more than anyone knows his fiscal limitations but has to put on a good face for the rank and file members. The media is more than willing to go with the hysteria as it suits their needs and gets people to read their stories, watch their coverage, etc.

There is also an NLRB legal element here. There is only so much, legally, the league and Goodell can say while the NFLPA is free to say whatever they want.

If this lockout goes into the pre-season, I'd be extremely shocked. The players simply cannot afford it.

I think the current CBA has put enough cash in the players pockets to last them a year if need be.

Here is a series on the CBA negotiations from an expert.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...-part-six.html

**HoustonRaven** · 01-31-2011, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

I think the current CBA has put enough cash in the players pockets to last them a year if need be.

Here is a series on the CBA negotiations from an expert.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...-part-six.html

Quite the contradiction you made, as usual.

You say it will last well into the year yet you link to a guy (the same guy I already linked to earlier) who has been saying since December that the deals will get done relatively quickly.

Did you even read those articles before you posted them?

**Jeremiah W** · 01-31-2011, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Quite the contradiction you made, as usual.

You say it will last well into the year yet you link to a guy (the same guy I already linked to earlier) who has been saying since December that the deals will get done relatively quickly.

Did you even read those articles before you posted them?

I was just responding to your notion that the players will go broke before training camp. The owners want to take back a lot of money because they feel the players are getting too much. I think that is more of a contradiction than what I said.

I have no idea how it is going to play out, but it does not look nearly as one sided as you make it seem. There are moves the players can make. I read the articles.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-31-2011, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

I was just responding to your notion that the players will go broke before training camp

That's not what I said.

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

The owners want to take back a lot of money because they feel the players are getting too much

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

There are moves the players can make. I read the articles.

If you had read the articles (and by your statement's quoted here, its very obvious you have not), what are their "moves"?

**Mista T** · 01-31-2011, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

I think the current CBA has put enough cash in the players pockets to last them a year if need be.

Although the current CBA probably should have done so, most articles I have read state the exact opposite. Think about it: most Americans lost a portion of their individual wealth during the Great Recession. Football players are no exception.

**Jeremiah W** · 01-31-2011, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

If this lockout goes into the pre-season, I'd be extremely shocked. The players simply cannot afford it.

I do not know what else you could have meant.

Even after reading the article by the expert, I am not an expert. If you want to know about decertification, labor laws and law suits, ask Brandt.

I would also be suprised if a lockout lasts into the season, but it is because both sides have plenty of leverage, but also a lot to lose.

The owners may have a big war chest thanks to the tv contracts, but I can not see the networks just letting them keep that money if they do not give them the games they paid for.