Federal judge in St. Paul orders NFL ...

Federal judge in St. Paul orders NFL lockout lifted

There are 20 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Apr 25, 2011, titled Federal judge in St. Paul orders NFL lockout lifted. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

This undated photo courtesy of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota shows U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Posers

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Apr 25, 2011
The NFL and now a Judge, what a bunch of posers, trying to make everyone think they'd sacrifice a multi-billion dollar season to make a point. I don't think so! However, what they are doing, is making gullible people think they would, thus comes the Viking stadium debate full steam ahead and the government will simply pick the pockets of us the tax payers to build a new stadium for a billionaire to the cheers of a minority known as the gullible, and to the dismay of the majority known as the intelligent responsible tax payers.
What A Joke

Perry, MI

#2 Apr 25, 2011
Players want to play, its the owners who have locked the doors. Now ordered to open said doors. I laugh at how it is said the court system is log jammed but according to NFL spokesperson, they will get "some sort of expedited court hearring to appeal, which means weeks and not a month or two," he said."

While taking a couple weeks or a couple months, the NFL would do better trying to get s deal in place with the players. Especially considering no matter how you slice it and dice it, its the players who make the NFL what it is and in the end, it's the fans who pay for the NFL! Owners merely benefit from the two! Greedy!
Buddy

Saint Paul, MN

#3 Apr 25, 2011
Roger Godell must be getting angry with these Minnesota Judges always favoring the players. Roger is getting angry!! The next person out of line will get a huge fine.
Goofy Minnesota Judges

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Apr 25, 2011
Another embarassing pro-union decision by the embarassing liberal judges that frequent Minnesota and Wisconsin.
For you idiots that are siding with the players just ask yourself if you want the baseball type of league where only the Yankees, Boston and few others regularly compete? Baseball is a great sport and fun to watch but it stinks with its lack of real competitiveness. Sure, once in awhile the small markets rise but not like football. Go and cheer for the players you goofballs.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#6 Apr 26, 2011
Small market teams compete just fine under the existing system. There is no need for a lockout and there never was. The sides can go back to the negotiating table now, like they should have years ago. Nobody needs to side with the owners or players, but there is no reason to side against the fans. The end of the lockout is a win for the fans. Let's play ball!
Gas

Geneva, NY

#8 Apr 26, 2011
For all you people who want McNabb must be you want the team distroyed because that's what he'll do he sucks
Paulski

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Apr 26, 2011
GBPfan wrote:
Small market teams compete just fine under the existing system. There is no need for a lockout and there never was. The sides can go back to the negotiating table now, like they should have years ago. Nobody needs to side with the owners or players, but there is no reason to side against the fans. The end of the lockout is a win for the fans. Let's play ball!
I disagree. Small Market teams compete just fine because of how revenue is shared in the NFL but not other sports. If you throw that away, the samll market teams will drop off just like the NBA and baseball.
clueless

Cleveland, OH

#10 Apr 26, 2011
I say let them all keep their money and sit out the whole year. All will see how the real people in the world live each day.
So What

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Apr 26, 2011
This whole scenario just proves both sides couldn't care less about the fans. I was hoping they'd take a year off and return for a season of no sellouts anywhere.
smartie

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Apr 26, 2011
With a middle name of Richard, I wouldn't trust this judge's ruling.
Fran

Los Angeles, CA

#13 Apr 26, 2011
"So now what?"

Now Zygi redeploys his minions to the state capitol where they continue to coerce and bribe the politicians to shove a tax increase, for his personal benefit, up the taxpayer's collective keester.

“Time to look to next year!”

Since: Jan 07

Detroit Lakes, MN

#14 Apr 26, 2011
Posers wrote:
The NFL and now a Judge, what a bunch of posers, trying to make everyone think they'd sacrifice a multi-billion dollar season to make a point. I don't think so! However, what they are doing, is making gullible people think they would, thus comes the Viking stadium debate full steam ahead and the government will simply pick the pockets of us the tax payers to build a new stadium for a billionaire to the cheers of a minority known as the gullible, and to the dismay of the majority known as the intelligent responsible tax payers.
That is why I left Minnesota when I was 18! Taxes are way to high in minn and this is just another example of how the state steals from its residents.

“Time to look to next year!”

Since: Jan 07

Detroit Lakes, MN

#15 Apr 26, 2011
Goofy Minnesota Judges wrote:
Another embarassing pro-union decision by the embarassing liberal judges that frequent Minnesota and Wisconsin.
For you idiots that are siding with the players just ask yourself if you want the baseball type of league where only the Yankees, Boston and few others regularly compete? Baseball is a great sport and fun to watch but it stinks with its lack of real competitiveness. Sure, once in awhile the small markets rise but not like football. Go and cheer for the players you goofballs.
I agree, and the Vikings are not going to be the Yankees!

“Time to look to next year!”

Since: Jan 07

Detroit Lakes, MN

#16 Apr 26, 2011
So What wrote:
This whole scenario just proves both sides couldn't care less about the fans. I was hoping they'd take a year off and return for a season of no sellouts anywhere.
The fans have all the power but we are to dumb to stay away and force changes to the syatem! Without us the NFL doesn't exist and the players who didn't finish their free college education can work at walmart..........

"blackouts" will let both side know who is the boss!
A Vkings fan

Stillwater, MN

#17 Apr 26, 2011
Goofy Minnesota Judges wrote:
Another embarassing pro-union decision by the embarassing liberal judges that frequent Minnesota and Wisconsin.
For you idiots that are siding with the players just ask yourself if you want the baseball type of league where only the Yankees, Boston and few others regularly compete? Baseball is a great sport and fun to watch but it stinks with its lack of real competitiveness. Sure, once in awhile the small markets rise but not like football. Go and cheer for the players you goofballs.
Goofy, you've managed to lose your focus several times over the course of a fairly short post -- it is awe-inspriing! Even more impressive may be that nothing you stated indicates that you have any clue about the entire situation here.

First, you seem to want to blast the judges as being liberal and making a "pro-union decision" in this case. If you had been paying attention, you would know that the only way this case was able to be filed is because there IS no union! The players' union decertified during this labor dispute -- if there were a union, the players would not have been able to file the lawsuit they did here. So, although the judge ruled in favor of the players (the employees)in this case against the owners (the employers), by definiton this cannot be a pro-UNION decision.

Second, you want to categorize anyone who agrees with the position of the players in this dispute as idiots. I'm not sure how that makes you feel better, unless you are one of the NFL team owners, and want to take the opportunity to anonymously tell us fans -- you know, the ones whose money actually allows you make the obscene profits that you do -- what you REALLY think of us. If so, well, it's not very gracious of you, but I hope it helped to get that off your chest. On the other hand, if you are simply one of htose people who always think that all employees are overpaid and should be satisfied with whatever their employer wants to pay them, I think you are misguided in your approach to this type of labor situation. I think that you are confusing this situation with one in which someone has put their money at risk in order to open a business, and in which they find their ability to earn a profit at risk due to overpaid employees. In that type of scenario, I tend to agree that the employer either needs to have the employees understand the need for them to take a lower pay, get different employees who will work for the lower pay, or have the business close due to losing money. The NFL owners, however, are billionaires who have purchased these franchises knowing that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to lose money, because of the structure of the league.(In the event you didn't know about these factors, this is accomplished through the revenue sharing among the teams, through the cost of the teams' stadiums being subsidized in part or total by taxpayers, and through the limit for player compensation as a percentage of revenue.) In the NFL, the ONLY WAY the owners' investments are at risk is if they kill the league. In addition to that, the league is magnificently profitable (a good thing, to be sure). So, there is no need -- other than ego or greed -- for the owners to try to force the employees to be paid less. While we are talking about amounts in the billions in revenues, the additional profit for each BILLIONAIRE owner would be a relatively small percentage of the profits they are already making each year. The upside for the owners of locking out the players and forcing them to accept a smaller piece of the pie is that the owners could each make additional profit each season, an the downside to the owners is that they cause the ONLY thing that could put their investment at risk. While the owners would certainly be in fine financial shape even if their investment in the NFL were to become worthless, it seems to me that putting an already highly-profitable investment at risk for the sake of greed is idiotic.

(to be continued)
A Vkings fan

Stillwater, MN

#18 Apr 26, 2011
Goofy Minnesota Judges wrote:
Another embarassing pro-union decision by the embarassing liberal judges that frequent Minnesota and Wisconsin.
For you idiots that are siding with the players just ask yourself if you want the baseball type of league where only the Yankees, Boston and few others regularly compete? Baseball is a great sport and fun to watch but it stinks with its lack of real competitiveness. Sure, once in awhile the small markets rise but not like football. Go and cheer for the players you goofballs.
(continued)

Third, this case has nothing to do with creating a baseball-type NFL. It was about preventing the owners from doing irreparable harm to the players by locking them out. It wasn't about changing the way the NFL shares its revenues among its teams, and it certainly wasn't about eliminating the salary cap system in place in the NFL. There is NO WAY this case would lead to a pre-salary cap NFL system!

Fourth, the strategy of the NFL, with its salary cap, its drafting approach, and its rotating schedules each year was designed to promote "parity" throughout the league. It is not an aberration when a "small-market" team is successful (consider the success of the Viking over the decades, and of the Packers this past season); further, the thing that dooms teams to mediocrity have nothing to do with their market size, but EVERYTHING to do with poor decisions by the individual franchise owners and poor personnel decisions. Again, we can point to Green Bay and Minnesota to illustrate these points. As a Vikings fan, it pains me to see a divisional opponent in a much stronger position than my Vikings, but I see that the Packers have been working to stock their team with good players and to try to retain their good core of players for several years; barring injuries, I expect them to be successful again this season, and probably beyond. The Vikings, on the other hand, have traded in one profit-oriented owner for another, who have made bad football decisions by hiring a string of clueless and egotistical coaches; these poor choices as coaches have made more bad football decisions, and have put the team in a position of being years away from being truly competitive in the NFL. Neither the Vikings nor the Packers situations can be "blamed" on being "small-market" teams.

Fifth, you tell us to "Go and cheer for the players you goofballs." When I watch NFL games, that's what I do; I wasn't aware of behaving like a "goofball" when I do that. I must assume that you spend your Sunday afternoons during the NFL season cheering for the owners -- and I will have to admit that I never considered that avenue to enjoying the NFL game-day action. I'm curious, though -- how do you manage that, since the owners don't get as much on-camera time as the players do during the games?
A Vkings fan

Stillwater, MN

#19 Apr 26, 2011
Goofy Minnesota Judges wrote:
Another embarassing pro-union decision by the embarassing liberal judges that frequent Minnesota and Wisconsin.
For you idiots that are siding with the players just ask yourself if you want the baseball type of league where only the Yankees, Boston and few others regularly compete? Baseball is a great sport and fun to watch but it stinks with its lack of real competitiveness. Sure, once in awhile the small markets rise but not like football. Go and cheer for the players you goofballs.
Goofy, you've managed to lose your focus several times over the course of a fairly short post -- it is awe-inspriing! Even more impressive may be that nothing you stated indicates that you have any clue about the entire situation here.

First, you seem to want to blast the judges as being liberal and making a "pro-union decision" in this case. If you had been paying attention, you would know that the only way this case was able to be filed is because there IS no union! The players' union decertified during this labor dispute -- if there were a union, the players would not have been able to file the lawsuit they did here. So, although the judge ruled in favor of the players (the employees) in this case against the owners (the employers), by definition this cannot be a pro-UNION decision.

Second, you want to categorize anyone who agrees with the position of the players in this dispute as idiots. I'm not sure how that makes you feel better, unless you are one of the NFL team owners, and want to take the opportunity to anonymously tell us fans -- you know, the ones whose money actually allows you make the obscene profits that you do -- what you REALLY think of us. If so, well, it's not very gracious of you, but I hope it helped to get that off your chest. On the other hand, if you are simply one of those people who always think that all employees are overpaid and should be satisfied with whatever their employer wants to pay them, I think you are misguided in your approach to this type of labor situation. I think that you are confusing this situation with one in which someone has put their money at risk in order to open a business, and in which they find their ability to earn a profit at risk due to overpaid employees. In that type of scenario, I tend to agree that the employer either needs to have the employees understand the need for them to take a lower pay, get different employees who will work for the lower pay, or have the business close due to losing money. The NFL owners, however, are billionaires who have purchased these franchises knowing that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to lose money, because of the structure of the league.(In the event you didn't know about these factors, this is accomplished through the revenue sharing among the teams, through the cost of the teams' stadiums being subsidized in part or total by taxpayers, and through the limit for player compensation as a percentage of revenue.) In the NFL, the ONLY WAY the owners' investments are at risk is if they kill the league. In addition to that, the league is magnificently profitable (a good thing, to be sure). So, there is no need -- other than ego or greed -- for the owners to try to force the employees to be paid less. While we are talking about amounts in the billions in revenues, the additional profit for each BILLIONAIRE owner would be a relatively small percentage of the profits they are already making each year. The upside for the owners of locking out the players and forcing them to accept a smaller piece of the pie is that the owners could each make additional profit each season, an the downside to the owners is that they cause the ONLY thing that could put their investment at risk. While the owners would certainly be in fine financial shape even if their investment in the NFL were to become worthless, it seems to me that putting an already highly-profitable investment at risk for the sake of greed is idiotic.

to be continued
Bob Roberts

Butler, PA

#20 Apr 26, 2011
A Vkings fan wrote:
<quoted text>
(continued)
Third, this case has nothing to do with creating a baseball-type NFL. It was about preventing the owners from doing irreparable harm to the players by locking them out. It wasn't about changing the way the NFL shares its revenues among its teams, and it certainly wasn't about eliminating the salary cap system in place in the NFL. There is NO WAY this case would lead to a pre-salary cap NFL system!
Fourth, the strategy of the NFL, with its salary cap, its drafting approach, and its rotating schedules each year was designed to promote "parity" throughout the league. It is not an aberration when a "small-market" team is successful (consider the success of the Viking over the decades, and of the Packers this past season); further, the thing that dooms teams to mediocrity have nothing to do with their market size, but EVERYTHING to do with poor decisions by the individual franchise owners and poor personnel decisions. Again, we can point to Green Bay and Minnesota to illustrate these points. As a Vikings fan, it pains me to see a divisional opponent in a much stronger position than my Vikings, but I see that the Packers have been working to stock their team with good players and to try to retain their good core of players for several years; barring injuries, I expect them to be successful again this season, and probably beyond. The Vikings, on the other hand, have traded in one profit-oriented owner for another, who have made bad football decisions by hiring a string of clueless and egotistical coaches; these poor choices as coaches have made more bad football decisions, and have put the team in a position of being years away from being truly competitive in the NFL. Neither the Vikings nor the Packers situations can be "blamed" on being "small-market" teams.
Fifth, you tell us to "Go and cheer for the players you goofballs." When I watch NFL games, that's what I do; I wasn't aware of behaving like a "goofball" when I do that. I must assume that you spend your Sunday afternoons during the NFL season cheering for the owners -- and I will have to admit that I never considered that avenue to enjoying the NFL game-day action. I'm curious, though -- how do you manage that, since the owners don't get as much on-camera time as the players do during the games?
nice kick to the shins a vikings fan! but i fear the knuckle dragger doesn't have the ability to digest a comprehensive argument. i predict a 20 word rebuttal at best.
YouAreGreedy

Scottsdale, AZ

#21 Apr 26, 2011
What A Joke wrote:
Players want to play, its the owners who have locked the doors. Now ordered to open said doors. I laugh at how it is said the court system is log jammed but according to NFL spokesperson, they will get "some sort of expedited court hearring to appeal, which means weeks and not a month or two," he said."
While taking a couple weeks or a couple months, the NFL would do better trying to get s deal in place with the players. Especially considering no matter how you slice it and dice it, its the players who make the NFL what it is and in the end, it's the fans who pay for the NFL! Owners merely benefit from the two! Greedy!
It's the fans that are the greedy one! You won't pay triple the current ticket price for seat at the games and would instead let seats go empty. You woould not buy more NFL brand merchandise if they double the price. No enough of you buy expensive cable packages to help pay the excessive salaries. You oppose paying new taxes to pay for expensive stadiums. If you did all of those things (or just sent the NFL, the owners, and the players, ever increasing checks each week) then there would be no reason to stike.

You too are greedy!
clueless

Cleveland, OH

#22 Apr 27, 2011
A Vkings fan - You neeed to get a job, you write too much....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brian Robison Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Brian Robison keeps belief in Vikings going int... May '17 Keep phartz 4
News Vikings DE Danielle Hunter one of the 'Top 25 u... (Jan '17) Feb '17 MeasurablePharts 9
News So how far behind are the Vikings at offensive ... (Jan '16) Jan '16 Fart news 2
News Vikings Excited About Develeopment Of DE Scott ... (May '15) Jun '15 Spielman 24
News Vikings rookie LB Barr making big impression (Oct '14) Oct '14 Spieltard 3
News Vikings' Brian Robison wonders if players 'chec... (Oct '14) Oct '14 Ian 2
News Demise of a defense: Heyday is over for Tampa 2 (Sep '14) Sep '14 Josh McDaniels 1
More from around the web