MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

GA Russell · 03-15-2011, 02:57 PM

Thanks for that Forbes link, stranger!

By the way, I believe that Judge Doty's ruling a couple of weeks ago forbids the league from collecting that $4 billion television money while no games are played.

I see that the union now considers itself a "professional trade association". I wonder what the legal difference is between that and a union. That is to say, I wonder what legal rights and powers a professional trade association has, if any.

I would also like to learn more about the concept of a lockout. Does it prevent the teams from signing any contracts with players? Apparently the league will go ahead with its draft despite the lockout.

Again by the way, I will agree that fans would prefer to watch the players they are familiar with. But I think that many fans would be content with watching rookies (in effect college all-stars) if the teams paid the players good money. This reminds me of how popular the USFL was with rookies its first year. Obviously not as popular as the NFL, but much more popular than people expected.

In regard to the money, I don't think that the things the players are suing over are necessary for the success of the league. I think that the league could concede those issues and still do well.

I've never understood why the league, after conducting a draft, pays its rookies such huge amounts of money. I think the way to victory for the league would be to offer its veterans substantial pay increases while paying its rookies low wages.

As I understand it, the league needs a union because the league is a monopoly. But it doesn't have to be this union. I can imagine that the league could persuade many veterans to sign up with increased wages and benefits, with only the highest paid players not getting a better deal. That is to say, will a player turn down $3,000,000 a year because he had expected $4,000,000 a year?

The big stars have already been paid so much money that they don't need to ever play again. It may be best for the owners to just move on and create new stars.

All that being said, I completely support the players' position that if the owners are going to claim that they need the money, they need to open their books and prove it.

03-15-2011, 02:57 PM	#12
GA Russell What a weekend! Posts: 7,695 Karma: 31487351 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Device: Paperwhite, Kindles 10 & 4 and jetBook Lite	Thanks for that Forbes link, stranger! By the way, I believe that Judge Doty's ruling a couple of weeks ago forbids the league from collecting that $4 billion television money while no games are played. I see that the union now considers itself a "professional trade association". I wonder what the legal difference is between that and a union. That is to say, I wonder what legal rights and powers a professional trade association has, if any. I would also like to learn more about the concept of a lockout. Does it prevent the teams from signing any contracts with players? Apparently the league will go ahead with its draft despite the lockout. Again by the way, I will agree that fans would prefer to watch the players they are familiar with. But I think that many fans would be content with watching rookies (in effect college all-stars) if the teams paid the players good money. This reminds me of how popular the USFL was with rookies its first year. Obviously not as popular as the NFL, but much more popular than people expected. In regard to the money, I don't think that the things the players are suing over are necessary for the success of the league. I think that the league could concede those issues and still do well. I've never understood why the league, after conducting a draft, pays its rookies such huge amounts of money. I think the way to victory for the league would be to offer its veterans substantial pay increases while paying its rookies low wages. As I understand it, the league needs a union because the league is a monopoly. But it doesn't have to be this union. I can imagine that the league could persuade many veterans to sign up with increased wages and benefits, with only the highest paid players not getting a better deal. That is to say, will a player turn down $3,000,000 a year because he had expected $4,000,000 a year? The big stars have already been paid so much money that they don't need to ever play again. It may be best for the owners to just move on and create new stars. All that being said, I completely support the players' position that if the owners are going to claim that they need the money, they need to open their books and prove it. Last edited by GA Russell; 03-15-2011 at 02:59 PM.