Roger Goodell's interview with WXYZ

by j16941 on Apr 27, 2011 5:10 PM EDT

WXYZ is doing a Pre-Draft Lions Special tonight at 7pm eastern. Like many of us here, I won't be able to watch it, cause I don't live in the Detroit area.

I did find this video on WXYZ's website though, and thought I'd share it here cause it has some good bits.

I'd also like to ask, anyone who can watch the Special tonight, Please leave your thoughts about it in the comments. If I find anymore video after the special airs, I will link it below as well.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pride of Detroit or its writers. FanPosts are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable fans.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

here is a link to the whole article.

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/sports/get-ready-for-the-nfl-draft-with-channel-7%27s-lions-draft-special—-before-the-snap

"Lemme Tell you why I have confidence in the long term future of this team... It's #9, That's why I have confidence in the long term future of this Team." - Jim Schwartz

by j16941 on Apr 27, 2011 5:12 PM EDT reply actions

sounds like he was about to cry throw out the hole dam thing

RIP KURTIS CHAIVRE

by det32 on Apr 27, 2011 6:07 PM EDT reply actions

NO STAY

judge denies league request for a stay
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f861c6/article/judge-denies-league-request-for-stay-of-lockout-lift

what does a yooper say just before he goes in the ditch? "here, hold my beer"

by yooperlionfan on Apr 27, 2011 10:03 PM EDT reply actions

Intriguing

RIP Robyn Bailey 1961 - 2010. I love you mum.

by Hyperion Ecta on Apr 28, 2011 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions

I still don't think the players win with this situation.

Now the NFL gets to make whatever rules they want. Since there is no more labor union, the players cannot strike. If they reform the union, the owners can lock them out again. I think you are about to see the 18 game schedule go into effect.

by TuffLynx on Apr 28, 2011 2:13 AM EDT reply actions

BTW, the reason I say that...

is because it is a bargaining point that the players cannot claim to be in violation of anti-trust law. It is the type of thing the league can implement without the players being able to win a law suit over it. By implementing the 18 game schedule, the owners put the players into the position of having to give something in negotiations to get rid of it. If I were advising the owners this would go into the new rules for sure.

by TuffLynx on Apr 28, 2011 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions

word.

Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."

by CLF on Apr 28, 2011 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions

It is also notable...

that the judge refuted some of the things that the players tried to put into the ruling as well. She did not award the $1 billion escrow fund to the players. She specified that the NFL can still implement rules like franchise player tags in order to maintain competitive balance. She specifically said that free agency need not be fully open as the players contend. This definitely was not as big a victory for the players as they would like to make it sound. Especially since the owners will now get to go to appeals court where the judges have historically been more friendly to their viewpoint.

by TuffLynx on Apr 28, 2011 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Except...

The owners can’t just make whatever rules they want. The thing about the union/ownership and the CBA is it’s a mutually beneficial agreement. As soon as the NFL starts making whatever rules they want, insert the anti-trust suit.

by Mavyrk on Apr 28, 2011 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Insert lack of season if it gets that far.

… and its heading that way.

Like I predicted 2 months ago…. Appeals and the anti-trust suit will take ALOT longer than just negotiating a CBA.

Furthermore…IMHO the NFLPA is trying to grab full control of Free Agency, the implementation of(including the draft), for their own benefit, therefore creating, ironically, their own “labor monopoly” to control the dealings of the NFL.

So for me it comes down to this….

Do I, as a fan, want to see the NFL controlled and run by the Owners of the teams…. or do I want a NFL controlled by the Players’ Union.

I think you know the answer.

Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."

by CLF on Apr 28, 2011 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I hope...

the answer is the owners. I like football the way it is now. I don’t want the Cowboys being the Yankees of Football. The thought disgusts me.

by Alowicious on Apr 28, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions

That all depends on if the appeals court grants a stay of the ruling by Judge Nelson.

If the appeals court does not issue a stay, the season will continue and the games will be played. The only wildcard at this point would be the rules under which the season will be played.

by TuffLynx on Apr 28, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Sorry Mav, but you are wrong...

The ruling by Judge Nelson essentially recognizes that the union has disbanded. That means that the players cannot strike any longer without being considered and illegal “wildcat” strike. The NFL can make whatever rules they wish concerning the upcoming season because there is no union to legally oppose them now. Essentially we are back to the same dynamic that was in play before the NFLPA was founded.

The only concern that the league has to consider is how each rule would be defended in court if a player challenged it in litigation. Please note that Judge Nelson specifically pointed out in her ruling that the NFL is free to implement whatever rules they see fit including those that help maintain a competitive balance in the league.

Please note that Congress has granted the NFL an exemption from certain anti-trust rules already in the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. That legislation was specifically designed to overturn a previous ruling by the Supreme Court. It is quite possible for Congress to pass further legislation to exempt professional sports leagues from other forms of anti-trust action as well.

Nothing about this is clear cut in terms of the eventual outcome. But the current situation allows the NFL to immediately implement whatever rules they decide upon. Certainly, they must be willing to defend those rules in court. But if this is well thought out and well played in court by the league it could easily result in a breakup of player solidarity and new legal precedents that support the owners ability to run their own businesses.

In my opinion, the players are forcing a very dangerous game that is more likely to backfire on them than to help them in the long run.

by TuffLynx on Apr 28, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Except...

The Sports Broadcasting Act was specifically about its right to negotiate for TV contracts. That doesn’t give them “anti-trust exemption” (which only MLB has). Yes, they have an exemption from CERTAIN anti-trust laws, but that doesn’t give them the flier to enact every illegal restraint of trade they see fit.

The whole issue about anti-trust exemption has already gone to court (see the Needle case) and the NFL was not found to be exempt, whereas MLB has been found to be exempt and is the only sport to have done so. The NFL cannot simply do whatever they want because that leaves them open for anti-trust lawsuits. Almost everything the NFL does as a business is predicated upon the exemption that CBAs grant them.

Without a CBA, the NFL needs to tread lightly with regards to its restraints of trade and it is in their best interest to pursue setting forth a new CBA as soon as possible. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason, and the precedent has been set for years now – the NFL is 32 separate businesses working together. The players don’t need to strike (and didn’t in the first place, hence the lockout), they have legal merit and some very clear anti-trust laws on their side.

by Mavyrk on Apr 28, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

What I am saying is...

that I expect the NFL to get an exemption from Congress that is similar to what MLB got. It is just a matter of time.

by TuffLynx on Apr 28, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions

The issue inherent in that is

Congress didn’t give the exemption to the MLB, the Supreme Court did (Federal Baseball Club v National League, Toolson v New York Yankees, Flood v Kuhn.) Congress’s only action was to partially repeal antitrust exemption from MLB (see the Curt Flood Act) and therein act as a law-based exemption in outlining its specific exemptions (which inherently made it less exempt than it had been.)

Congress doesn’t pass specific laws that say specific companies get anti-trust status, the courts do (different branches of government, judicial vs legislative). The court already ruled on that matter against NFL during the Needle case ruling that it was 32 separate businesses and not 1 entity. The NFL has routinely lost antitrust cases through its entire existence.

The point needs to be made that Judge Nelson’s affidavit wasn’t a free license for the League to do what it wants, it was an order for the League to resume and continue its normal operations. As soon as the NFL starts going crazy, anti-trust suits will begin. Very likely until the new CBA is signed we’ll see a return to last year’s rules so that the league continues to tread lightly.

by Mavyrk on Apr 28, 2011 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions