Comments on: Faine Passes On Freeman’s Workouts

By: tommy

tommy — Thu, 26 May 2011 03:41:26 +0000

68 is your IQ thomas

By: Fernando

Fernando — Thu, 26 May 2011 03:16:32 +0000

Cut him!!!!!!!!

By: MVPFreeman

MVPFreeman — Thu, 26 May 2011 01:53:25 +0000

That whay we have Zuutah , for when this Faine character gets lazy, LIKE HE IS NOW

By: Thomas 2.2

Thomas 2.2 — Thu, 26 May 2011 01:51:05 +0000

Agreed hawaiian. I cant wait to see if the bucs are legit or fraud. I think they are a 6-8 win team, I hope to be wrong. I hate this lockout crap too.

By: Hawaiian Buc

Hawaiian Buc — Thu, 26 May 2011 01:45:51 +0000

Yes, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have to lock the players out. Again, maybe that’s not what you were saying, but that’s what I gathered from what you said. Since the NFL imposed the lockout, individual teams must follow the NFL, meaning the Bucs must lockout their players too. I guess in that regard you could say the Glazers are just as culpable as the other owners. However, they are definitely not as active in the proceedings as the other owners, although admittedly that does not mean they are against the lockout. In fact, I would bet my house that they are for it, as are all the owners.

The more I learn about the lockout, the less sympathy I have for either side. I don’t really care who is to blame, I just want it to end. No offense, but I don’t think I can take arguing with you for a full year without any football to prove you wrong. And there is very little doubt the players will lose, they always do.

By: Thomas 2.2

Thomas 2.2 — Thu, 26 May 2011 01:30:22 +0000

The appellate courts have not substantively ruled yet hawaiian. The trial/lower court ruled in favor of the players that locking out a decertified union is unlawful. The nfl appealed and also asked for a temp stay (not effective) until the appellate rules to affirm or reverse the lower courts ruling. The stay was granted meaning the lower ct ruling is not yet effective, there is not yet a ruling that the lockout is lawful ( although that is coming soon).
The NFL imposed the work stoppage and the glazers are just as culpable as jerry jones.

I think that the players will lose in the end bc there is more of them with a lot to lose, they cant keep the solidarity. But the owners are greedy gluttons in my opinion- give these kids better long term benefits and more money- they are gladiators (except for GMC, jk).

By: Hawaiian Buc

Hawaiian Buc — Thu, 26 May 2011 01:01:46 +0000

Maybe I don’t understand your argument Thomas (if so, I apologize), but are you saying the owners currently don’t have to lock the players out? That is not true. The court of appeals have ruled against the players (and the judge’s original ruling for the players), which means the league is not in contempt by enforcing a lockout. I have no idea if they get fined, but I know it is a league-wide lockout. The coaches and GM’s are not allowed to have any contact with the players. I am sure there is some sort of penalty for breaking this rule.

As for how the Glazers feel, I would assume the owners are all pretty united on this. So I guess I agree with you in that regard (that doesn’t happen very often). I highly doubt any business owner would be happy to give in to the demands of their employees, thus making less money for themselves. However, I have searched the internet looking for any quotes from the Glazers regarding this lockout, and have found nothing. There are also no indications that they are active one way or the other in regards to the lockout. Like normal, they are very quiet.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 25 May 2011 23:37:43 +0000

No need to apologize Pete. Please continue.

By: Thomas 2.2

Thomas 2.2 — Wed, 25 May 2011 23:10:24 +0000

As for the insults, i apologize. However, your point was and is so outlandish that it required a strong admonission. The point about the team being young is somehow evidence that the glazers disagree with the league is just bogus.
That stuff is as meaningful as a drop of water in an ocean.

By: Thomas 2.2

Thomas 2.2 — Wed, 25 May 2011 22:47:29 +0000

Pete: all that sounds like an admission that your 50k a day argument is crap.

Point to one source that has said that the Glazers arent in full agreement with everything that the nfl has done and are doing. There are none, your suggestion to the contrary is baseless and you know it.
To try to compare the nfl to other businesses is absurd for many reasons: these playerssacrifice their bodies and livesfor a short period to earn $. The players r fine with the current deal, the owners want more

By: Bucbeliever

Bucbeliever — Wed, 25 May 2011 22:34:10 +0000

Actually Thomas, the point I was trying to make was just what you said…if it was so important in HS, how much more important in the NFL?

Kinda missed the point…

By: Pete Dutcher

Pete Dutcher — Wed, 25 May 2011 22:16:48 +0000

@Joe
Sorry, buddy…I’m just in a grouchy mood today. Shouldn’t have used that tone in my post.

Thomas 2.2 Says:

May 25th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Pete:

You dont have to impose a lockout to continue negotiating after the union decertified you idiot. You are clueless. After a trial court ruled that locking out a non-existent union was illegal, the nfl filed a motion for temporary injunction to avoid being bound by that ruling until an appellate ruling. The Only reason the players arent working, now, while cba negotiations continued is the owners, including the glazers, desire. Your 50k a day argument is irrelevant. Educate yourself before embarrassing yourself you clown.

Okay…I’m going to hold back the insults and handle this like an adult.

Thomas…did you ever consider that not all owners were in favor of the lockout?

Consider this…the teams with owners who have over-extended themselves are the ones that initiated all this. Owners like Jones, who has spent so much on a stadium that he’s hurting for it.

Just to play devils advocate, if there actually were some owners not in favor of a lockout…who do you think they’d be? Perhaps the ones that are set as far as the cap and profit margin?

Or perhaps one of the youngest teams in the NFL, knowing that time off will slow the development of their young players?

Assuming such situations exist, would they have a choice but to go along with a majority vote amongst all the owners?

Think it through, kid.

And while you are at it…stop refusing to hold the players accountable. Three times the owners have offered to step up to the table, and the players refused each time. They are the ones who decided to take this to the courts.

And they are the ones asking for much, much more than they deserve. The players get more than the owners. In any other business…does that happen?

Now, I know you love to insult and debate, and I know that nearly everyone here has a bad opinion of you. But here is a news flash, buddy:

I’m rubber…you’re glue…
(now we’re talking on your level)