Intersting take on NFL Lockout.

BringTheWood · 03-24-2011, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

Correct, the owners DID NOT break the contract.

Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that. They exercised an option and thus the players did they same; The option to not be bent over and told what to do.

EDIT: Lyn, I am intrigued at how you suddenly call a ceasefire when basically every point you attempt to make is systematically broken down to mean nothing substantial. However, I am also tiring of this thread and am very much okay with agreeing to disagree, whether or not your post was directed at me, as I very clearly disagree with you.

Danno · 03-24-2011, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that.

The owners didn't weasle out of anything either.

BringTheWood · 03-24-2011, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

The owners didn't weasle out of anything either.

Actually, the CBA that was in place, would still be in place had it not been for the owners and the league opting out of it. Thus, the owners are responsible for there not being an active CBA, so yeah, they actually did.

Second, my usage of the colloquialism "Weaseled out of" does not dampen the previously stated fact, and is only a particular phrase that I decided to use because it fit the mood; My mood. It doesn't make the truth, or my obvious utterance thereof, subjective, or any less real.

The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not.

You call yourself a truth addict. Well, here's a freebie, so pull out your pipe and smoke it.

EDIT: Someone lock this thread. Perhaps if we want to continue in healthy debate we should start a thread elsewhere; Somewhere besides the Saints section of the boards.

saintfan · 03-24-2011, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not.

This is accurate. Clearly the previously existing CBA was hurting the owners bottom line. That's why the out clause was there...protection. To say they 'weaseled' out of it simply isn't accurate, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. That protection is weaseling, it's damn smart is what it is.

Yes, we could still be playing football had the owners not opted out...until the CBA expired in what, two years? We'd end up right here anyway, because at the end of the day, these two sides just cannot agree. Hell, even a professional mediator couldn't stop them from playing their little leverage game, and trust me, that's all it is. What we are seeing is as predictable as paying taxes. Every move each side makes might as well be scripted.

No. The owners didn't weasel. They performed as expected by using a perfectly valid exit from the current CBA. Now we're in court because the players wanted just that. Litigation. We can do it now or we can do it in a couple years, but in the end we're going to court.

BringTheWood · 03-25-2011, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

This is accurate. Clearly the previously existing CBA was hurting the owners bottom line. That's why the out clause was there...protection. To say they 'weaseled' out of it simply isn't accurate, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. That protection is weaseling, it's damn smart is what it is.

Yes, we could still be playing football had the owners not opted out...until the CBA expired in what, two years? We'd end up right here anyway, because at the end of the day, these two sides just cannot agree. Hell, even a professional mediator couldn't stop them from playing their little leverage game, and trust me, that's all it is. What we are seeing is as predictable as paying taxes. Every move each side makes might as well be scripted.

No. The owners didn't weasel. They performed as expected by using a perfectly valid exit from the current CBA. Now we're in court because the players wanted just that. Litigation. We can do it now or we can do it in a couple years, but in the end we're going to court.

Ok, no offense intended, but here goes...

Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president.

"Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball"
Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood.

That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it.

lynwood · 03-25-2011, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by BringTheWood

Ok, no offense intended, but here goes...

Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president.

"Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball"
Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood.

That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it.

Back in..

Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements.

I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to.

You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out?

You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion.

This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect.

BringTheWood · 03-25-2011, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by lynwood

Back in..

Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements.

I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to.

You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out?

You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion.

This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect.

1. I speak, or more accurately type, quite clearly, actually. While there is indeed bias present, as I have said SEVERAL times already, that does not diminish the truthfulness of the owners backing out, or the truthfulness of "Weaseling out of" being nothing more than a way of saying that. It's called an expression. Had I said, "The owners took a huge dump and then blew up a car" I would gladly submit that it had no place in this discussion.

2. I don't hate the owners or the players either. I don't hate anyone actually, and if you knew me you'd likely say I'm a pretty easy going person. I do hate the choice the owners made, however. You, and others, keep saying that the owners opted out as a perfectly legal contractual option. You are exactly right. Where you are wrong, is in thinking that I am questioning the legal clarity of the matter, or the "rights" they had to do what they did. You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners. Well, it isn't, as it is simply the players in turn exercising their own rights. Just because something is legal does not mean it goes without criticism. Again, the owners had the RIGHT to make a LEGAL contractual decision and abandon the previous CBA. I have the right to not like that, and come September I may not get to watch football on Sunday as a result.

3. To specifically answer the question posed, I would side against, or at the very least be objected to, the players, were they the ones to have made this decision, and caused this whole mess. Alas, they did not, the owners did.

4. When I use words like selfish; Or when I use phrases that are insinuating a selfish act, I am being subjective. You see, selfishness, unlike the truth, is actually subjective. Selfishness is entirely up to the perception of the person. You probably don't see the owners stance and actions as selfish, or that in this country there are more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world, all the while certain countries and groups of people are starving and have no homes, as selfish. I, however, do see this as selfish. That is me being subjective. I would like to add that I was calling a decision they made selfish in response to saintfan calling it a smart one. His opinion of it being smart is also subjective.

I leave this for you to stew over as well. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals.

Think about how NOLA could, and likely will be affected by this. That pisses me off.

5. It is a take sides issue, so correct again. No sarcasm, I mean it, and we are in 100% agreement. Such is the nature of human beings, when presented with sides to take.

03-24-2011, 04:48 PM	#1
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Danno Correct, the owners DID NOT break the contract. Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that. They exercised an option and thus the players did they same; The option to not be bent over and told what to do. EDIT: Lyn, I am intrigued at how you suddenly call a ceasefire when basically every point you attempt to make is systematically broken down to mean nothing substantial. However, I am also tiring of this thread and am very much okay with agreeing to disagree, whether or not your post was directed at me, as I very clearly disagree with you.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-24-2011, 05:15 PM	#2
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,751	Originally Posted by BringTheWood Good thing I never said break, and instead said "opt out". The owners weaseled out of something they agreed to, simple as that. The owners didn't weasle out of anything either.

03-24-2011, 10:39 PM	#3
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Danno The owners didn't weasle out of anything either. Actually, the CBA that was in place, would still be in place had it not been for the owners and the league opting out of it. Thus, the owners are responsible for there not being an active CBA, so yeah, they actually did. Second, my usage of the colloquialism "Weaseled out of" does not dampen the previously stated fact, and is only a particular phrase that I decided to use because it fit the mood; My mood. It doesn't make the truth, or my obvious utterance thereof, subjective, or any less real. The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not. You call yourself a truth addict. Well, here's a freebie, so pull out your pipe and smoke it. EDIT: Someone lock this thread. Perhaps if we want to continue in healthy debate we should start a thread elsewhere; Somewhere besides the Saints section of the boards.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-24-2011, 11:51 PM	#4
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by BringTheWood The owners had agreed to a contract. The players had agreed to a contract. There was a clause that allowed for the owners to opt out. The owners opted out. The league, the owners, the players, and most importantly the fans, would not be in the mess we are in had they not. This is accurate. Clearly the previously existing CBA was hurting the owners bottom line. That's why the out clause was there...protection. To say they 'weaseled' out of it simply isn't accurate, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. That protection is weaseling, it's damn smart is what it is. Yes, we could still be playing football had the owners not opted out...until the CBA expired in what, two years? We'd end up right here anyway, because at the end of the day, these two sides just cannot agree. Hell, even a professional mediator couldn't stop them from playing their little leverage game, and trust me, that's all it is. What we are seeing is as predictable as paying taxes. Every move each side makes might as well be scripted. No. The owners didn't weasel. They performed as expected by using a perfectly valid exit from the current CBA. Now we're in court because the players wanted just that. Litigation. We can do it now or we can do it in a couple years, but in the end we're going to court.
	C'mon Man... Last edited by saintfan; 03-24-2011 at 11:53 PM..

03-25-2011, 01:03 AM	#5
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by saintfan This is accurate. Clearly the previously existing CBA was hurting the owners bottom line. That's why the out clause was there...protection. To say they 'weaseled' out of it simply isn't accurate, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. That protection is weaseling, it's damn smart is what it is. Yes, we could still be playing football had the owners not opted out...until the CBA expired in what, two years? We'd end up right here anyway, because at the end of the day, these two sides just cannot agree. Hell, even a professional mediator couldn't stop them from playing their little leverage game, and trust me, that's all it is. What we are seeing is as predictable as paying taxes. Every move each side makes might as well be scripted. No. The owners didn't weasel. They performed as expected by using a perfectly valid exit from the current CBA. Now we're in court because the players wanted just that. Litigation. We can do it now or we can do it in a couple years, but in the end we're going to court. Ok, no offense intended, but here goes... Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president. "Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball" Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood. That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165

03-25-2011, 07:49 AM	#6
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by BringTheWood Ok, no offense intended, but here goes... Clearly you guys are not comprehending what I mean by "Weaseling out of". When I mentioned the term colloquialism I was trying to point out that it wasn't to be taken literally, as it essentially means 'slang'. To be VERY specific, it was >MY< way of saying that they had gone away from the current CBA; My way because I all but hate the owners at this point in time, and so I made a stab at their integrity. Much to the same effect, some would call Bill Clinton a philandering president, while I call him a great president, but neither title diminishes or changes the fact that he was, indeed, a president. "Weaseled out of" - WEEZ-ULD-OWT-UV. To get away from. To leave. To quit something. "Jimmy weaseled out of his commitment to coed softball" Taken from the BlackAndGold.com dictionary, Bound To Piss Someone Off Edition, by BringTheWood. That aside, I can't disagree that it was a smart decision, from a purely selfish and economic standpoint. It is, however, proving to be a very taxing and otherwise not-smart decision in just about every other facet. The players hate it, the fans hate it, and Betty White hates it. Back in.. Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements. I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to. You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out? You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion. This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect.

03-25-2011, 10:29 AM	#7
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165	Originally Posted by lynwood Back in.. Clearly no one is comprehending what you mean because you are not speaking clearly about facts but injecting your bias towards the owners in your statements. I do not hate the players or like the owners, I respect the process and the RIGHTS of ownership. I'm more upset about blame going towards the owners for a clause that was writen into teh CBA that BOTH parties signed and agreed to. You blame the Owners for being the ones to use the opt-out clause..I wonder what you would say if the players used the opt-out? You call it a selfish stand point they have. If it wasn't billions of dollars in play it wouldn't really matter. A business decision is just that weather it's 1000 bucks or 1 billion. This is a take sides issue in some aspect. I side with an Owner no matter how much money is in play to make their own business decisions on a product THEY own. I might lose out in the end if it ruins the product but it is their decision to do so. And that I respect. 1. I speak, or more accurately type, quite clearly, actually. While there is indeed bias present, as I have said SEVERAL times already, that does not diminish the truthfulness of the owners backing out, or the truthfulness of "Weaseling out of" being nothing more than a way of saying that. It's called an expression. Had I said, "The owners took a huge dump and then blew up a car" I would gladly submit that it had no place in this discussion. 2. I don't hate the owners or the players either. I don't hate anyone actually, and if you knew me you'd likely say I'm a pretty easy going person. I do hate the choice the owners made, however. You, and others, keep saying that the owners opted out as a perfectly legal contractual option. You are exactly right. Where you are wrong, is in thinking that I am questioning the legal clarity of the matter, or the "rights" they had to do what they did. You particularly like speaking about how not being able to screw people over, just because you're the rich guy behind a franchise, is somehow infringing on the rights of the owners. Well, it isn't, as it is simply the players in turn exercising their own rights. Just because something is legal does not mean it goes without criticism. Again, the owners had the RIGHT to make a LEGAL contractual decision and abandon the previous CBA. I have the right to not like that, and come September I may not get to watch football on Sunday as a result. 3. To specifically answer the question posed, I would side against, or at the very least be objected to, the players, were they the ones to have made this decision, and caused this whole mess. Alas, they did not, the owners did. 4. When I use words like selfish; Or when I use phrases that are insinuating a selfish act, I am being subjective. You see, selfishness, unlike the truth, is actually subjective. Selfishness is entirely up to the perception of the person. You probably don't see the owners stance and actions as selfish, or that in this country there are more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world, all the while certain countries and groups of people are starving and have no homes, as selfish. I, however, do see this as selfish. That is me being subjective. I would like to add that I was calling a decision they made selfish in response to saintfan calling it a smart one. His opinion of it being smart is also subjective. I leave this for you to stew over as well. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals. Think about how NOLA could, and likely will be affected by this. That pisses me off. 5. It is a take sides issue, so correct again. No sarcasm, I mean it, and we are in 100% agreement. Such is the nature of human beings, when presented with sides to take.
BringTheWood 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 165