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.

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.

There is a certain connotation inferred by using the expression "weaseled out". Either you get that or you don't. My money says you do - just be man enough to confess it.

Regardless of what you think, it was a perfectly legitimate method for exiting the current CBA. It's what contracts are for.

And, weaseled out, backed out, exited from, choose whichever you like. If we weren't doing this now, we'd be doing it 2 years from now. This was coming. The owners want to make as much as they can. So do the players. And so, we head to court. This is what the players have been prepping for.

Some say the owners used the TV deal to ready themselves for this. Pretty obvious that they did just that. The players Union - well, the former players union, has been preaching to the players for the better part of 2 seasons to save their money, because they knew before they walked into the negotiating room they were going to court. There wasn't a damn thing the owners could negotiate with the players on unless and until they open their books. You can believe that....or not I suppose, but actions were taken by both sides preliminary to any negotiation.

This was headed to the courtroom the moment this CBA was signed, and that is no more the fault of the owners than the players. That's people being people. The truth is the owners effed up. They caved in. They shouldn't have. It was a huge mistake. The owners were forced to give up 7 million in salary cap, agree to revenue sharing between the teams and had to give the players a cool billion to get them to agree to the extension. That's what it took to make that deal happen. I took a HUGH chunk of money away from the owners.

So, they figure they can recoup some of that by going to 18 games. The players already got their extra billion plus another 7 million in salary cap AND revenue sharing which guaranteed each team could participate in a price war. But they used the sweatshop argument insisting two more games would jeopardize careers.

You may recall that extension was a last minute thing. The owners didn't want to do it. They HAD to do it otherwise guess what? The players were going to strike...again. So the owners said, okay, we'll do it, but we want an out clause so we can renegotiate. The players accepted this knowing full well they'd go to court before they negotiated a damn thing.

That's not speculation. That's certifiable history. You use the term 'weaseled' irresponsibly in my opinion, and a few of us here called you on it, that's all. The owner's had their hand forced by an over-zealous Union. The owners are now asking for some of that back...not all of it mind you...just some, and the players have refused to negotiate in good faith unless the owners open their books.

I see both sides. If I were a player I wouldn't want to give back a dime. If I were an owner I would want to recoup some of what I lost in the last agreement because maybe I feel like I'd been taken advantage of and held hostage by a powerful Union that took more than it's fair share.

I know it's not as simple as the mean old owners weaseling their way out of being fair to the poor downtrodden elite NFL athlete. Nothing could be further from the truth.

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.
.