I really think the Players are going to get crushed if no deal by 9/1

[QUOTE=Fezzik;43529]I don't think Hollywood is a good example.........people pay to watch certain actors.........[/QUOTE] Not sure it's possible for me to disagree more. I have never and would never pay to see an actor, but would pay to see an athlete. Have the Cavs drawn the same attendance this year as last year? How did the Oilers draw after they traded Wayne Gretzky? Meanwhile, the Wizard of Oz flopped when Shirley Temple was replaced by then some little known actress and big named Buddy Ebsen had to be replaced by a little known actor. Well okay, the American Film Institute voted it the 10th greatest movie in history, but it was otherwise a flop once they lost their marquee actor and actress. I remember seeing the Braves and Dodgers play in back to back nights. Fernando Valenzuela pitched one game against I don't remember. The other game was I don't remember against I don't remember. But I can recall one day they were scalping tickets. The other day I was there with 3,000 of my best friends. I remember Kevin Costner being the top drawing actor around. Then he came out with Waterworld. Nobody paid to see him.

[QUOTE=rexd;43570] I remember Kevin Costner being the top drawing actor around. Then he came out with Waterworld. Nobody paid to see him.[/QUOTE] HAHAHA - that movie sucked

[QUOTE=Cizzle;43563]ESPN.com on today's argument in St. Louis: "[The 8th Circuit] did not issue an immediate decision and Judge Kermit Bye smiled as he told the attorneys before they left the courtroom: 'We wouldn't be all that hurt if you go out and settle that case.'" When the judge says something like that, it's usually a signal that parts of the decision are not going to be favorable to both sides. In other words, "Be careful what you wish for, because we may take the decision to places neither side wants to go. The best way for everyone to be happy here is for you guys to settle, because our decision is likley going to dissapoint both of you in some respect." Courts do this all of the time.[/QUOTE] So, trying to read between the lines, I will guess that the court is leaning toward overturning Judge Nelson's decision on the grounds that the decertification is, [U]at this time[/U], not valid; by doing this they would not be ruling on the Norris-LaGuardia issue. I would further guess that the court would imply that, with the passage of additional time, they could forsee the decertification becoming valid (but would need input from the NLRB). Then, if the decert is valid, then they would have to address the Norris-LaGuardia issue (and they will not hint at which way they are leaning, although we can assume they are leaning toward backing the NFL). The bottom line is that they are saying get to the negotiation table, because if you want us to choose a side it is going to take time and it is going to fuck the 2011 season.

No one kills a deal faster than "Mr. Lawyerman" All the NFL revenues are already going to the lawyers

[QUOTE=Fezzik;43637]All the NFL revenues are already going to the lawyers[/QUOTE] Yea/// I'm happy when they negotiate w/o laywers + I hate De Smith!