NFL Lockout: Confident John Mara Says 'We're Still In May'
by Ed Valentine on May 19, 2011 5:12 PM EDT
in New York Giants News
Email
Print
New York Giants co-owner John Mara appeared on the Mike Lupica Show Thursday on ESPN Radio 1050 AM New York to discuss the NFL Lockout. Mara, like Chris Canty of the Giants and Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets, expressed confidence that a deal will be reached in time to save the 2011 season.
"We're still in May, and we still have some time to do this ... but in the meantime we've got players out there that do not have a team, we have OTAs and mini-camps that should be going on. We should be getting ready to play a football season.
"I'm still very confident that there will be a full season because we do have time and I know there's a willingness on our part to site down and get a deal done. We've got to get the same willingness out of the players to sit down and do that."
See more of what Mara had to say after the jump.
On why the owners hate the current deal:
"We made a mistake, no question about it, and we deserve criticism for making that mistake. The players themselves have acknowledged that they made a great deal back in 2006. There were a number of us, myself included, who didn't full understand what we were doing back in ‘06.
"We understood it pretty quickly within about a year."
My take: Truth is, this answer does not tell us anything about why the owners hate the deal. It just re-affirms what we already knew -- that they hate the 2006 deal.
On the owners as a group:
"At the end of the day we're businessmen who love football. We want to get a deal done that makes sense for our businesses and that's good for the game and allows the game to grow.
"There is a deal there to be made, a deal that would be fair to both sides and allow the game to continue to grow. We just have to sit down and get to it."
On his current level of frustration:
"I thought that we had a chance on that final day, March 11, to at least come close to a deal. I certainly expected, at the very least, a counter-offer from the players and instead we got their declaration that they were done, they were de-certified and they were going to court. That was very frustrating for me."
On his message for DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the de-certified NFLPA:
"My message is the same that our message has been throughout this process, and that is that the owners are ready, willing and able to sit down and negotiate a fair deal. We should be doing that right now instead of wasting all this time and money in court pursuing these litigation strategies. That is not going to get us anywhere. We need to be at the bargaining table."
My take: I think I wish Mara was the commissioner. His message was not substantially different than the one Roger Goodell has been delivering. In listening to the interview, though, I did not sense the edgy tone you can get with Goodell. Let's hope Mara, who is one of the owners' key negotiators, can help broker a deal that will make his confidence in an uninterrupted 2011 season a reality.
-- Mara also addressed the lockout Thursday in an essay he wrote for Giants.com
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Francesa
I guess I really don’t care about Francesa anymore. I gave up believing he was important, or credible, a long time ago.
by Ed Valentine on May 19, 2011 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.
-John Madden
Someone asked Francesa if we had the 15th pick this year
and he said " … yeah…"
that was on the Tuesday before the draft
He never corrected himself
It just underscores what I said elsewhere
Get rid of DeMoron and God(less).
Have a few smart, honest players and smart, honest owners. They have skin in the game.
The legal wranglings are all for show to draw attention to the ego starved few.
All the Giants should play like Mark Bavaro.
Tom Quinn Must Go!
On second thought, let's not blame players or coaches, they are not responsible. The unsupportive fans are to blame.
by UnknownJintsFan on May 19, 2011 6:35 PM EDT reply actions
Put
Payton & Eli in a room with Mara and Rooney and this mess would be knocked out in an hour.
and a bag of OREO's
Of course that is if there is a season.
by Flynner on May 19, 2011 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
All this is PR
It’s better PR than the players are doing. But anyone who negotiates through the press is not negotiation. He’s posturing to gain leverage through the media, and going around the other bargaining team.
What he’s really doing, in a pretty sophisticated way, is trying to put pressure on the player negotiators by speaking directly to rank and file players through the press to cause divisions and create pressure for concessions. The owners just gained some momentum in court and they’re trying to press their advantage. That’s it.
Now, there’s nothing inherently evil about that, it’s just the process. Both sides are doing it, and they’re doing it precisely because they’re not talking directly. If they start talking directly for real, trust me, no one will be giving quotes or doing media appearances.
But what this type of thing does do is put some PR out there so that if a deal doesn’t get done, fans and media will blame the players. Smith is trying to get fans and media to blame the owners, he’s just much less smooth about it.
ESPN NFC East blog pretty much agrees with me
Link:
This is the league’s party line — that they never intended to lock out the players and that it was the players who blew up negotiations when they decertified the union and filed suit March 11. But it’s not honest. The players believe the NFL has been planning to lock them out for more than two years. They have evidence, which has been seen by judges in the TV money case that’s still pending in U.S. District Court, that proves this.
There is little doubt that the league’s strategy all along was a lockout, which is why the owners engaged in no serious talks until a couple of weeks before that March 11 deadline. They can act aghast and upset that the players walked away and sued, and that act plays well among a public that’s inclined to disdain lawsuits, but they’re not being 100 percent honest if they say the lockout was a “last resort” they imposed only after the decertification. The players decertified and sued because they knew they were about to be locked out and they believed that was the only way they could fend off the lockout.
But the owners and the league are smart to put Mara out front on this. He’s universally liked and respected. So when he’s the one spouting the party line, people might be inclined to think that’s not what they’re getting. Or that the NFL’s party line has more merit than that of the players. But in the end, this is just more of the same rhetoric. And whether the owners like it or not, nothing’s going to change on any of this until all of the court cases are won and lost and each side takes stock of how much leverage it has left.
".... a deal fair to both sides."
Translation: they give up money without us having to open our books. I like the Maras, certainly a heckuva lot more than some of their brethren in the owner fraternity, but let’s face it, he’s just repeating the company line.
I don’t like D. Smith, and I tend to side with owners, but it’s hard to do so this time. Joe Posnanksi of SI had a great column last month. He said:
“At this point, the feeling had to be that Goodell knew what he was doing. The NFL is on some kind of crazy winning streak when it comes to building the game — pro football just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Heck, the NFL DRAFT is now one of the biggest sporting events on the calendar. And that’s just a bunch of people in a room writing names on index cards. The league seems invulnerable to harm, and destined only to get richer and more popular and more powerful. On top of that, Goodell just embodies confidence and certainty. If the league officials figured that this was the time to take a bunch of money away from the players, hey, who could argue with their record?
Still, there were signs early on that things were not going as planned. In sports’ work stoppages, at least in my view, the majority of Americans automatically tend to side with the owners … or anyway they tend to side AGAINST the players. I think the reasons for this are involved and complicated and worthy of a 10,000-word post of their own. But generally people seem to get angrier at the players that they know than the silhouettes of the owners that they don’t.
But not in this case. Oh, sure, there were plenty who blamed the players, almost out of habit. More than usual, though, seemed to realize that the players were not really asking for anything. It was the owners shrieking that the system was irreparably broken, that they needed more money, that they needed to add games, that they were in big trouble. And when the players asked them to open the books and actually PROVE that they were in any sort of trouble at all, well, suddenly crickets chirped."
My take: if the owners got overextended with their fancy stadiums, that’s their fault. Are any of them actually losing money; or is it they’re just not making as much as they used to? Of course, we don’t know, because they won’t tell us….which speaks volumes. (Digression: were any fans clamoring for sports palaces? Is there anyone other than me who doesn’t need all the extra BS….just good sightlines, reasonably priced beer and food, enough bathrooms so you don’t miss a lot of the game when the beer has its usual effect?)
If the players stay united and refuse to fold/panic (a big if….by no means an assured thing if Judge Doty doesn’t release cash to them and the low to mid level players aren’t getting checks for a few months), this could end up spectacularly bad for the owners…..and the fans.
+1
and it’s happening all over. My executive class peers/friends make bad bets and when they fail, they expect to be bailed out by others.
They say they believe in competition and capitalism but what they really want is to gamble with house money while other people pic up the tab for their screw ups.
And there’s not much of anywhere that they’re not getting away with it. So, since that’s what they can get away with, it’s rational, on a purely self interested basis, for them to do it and keep pushing the edges. And it will keep happening until regular people start to see through it and force different outcomes.
I’m all for personal responsibility. I just think it should apply across the board. But meanwhile, there’s a lot of money to be made by socializing the losses and privatizing the profits, and by making workers pay for management’s bad bets.
/end editorial
Future headlines include
NFL Lockout: Confident John Mara Says ’We’re Still In June’
NFL Lockout: John Mara Says ’We’re In July’
NFL Lockout: John Mara Says " Screw It I’m Off to the Bahamas, Mara Out’
Screw you John! and Screw you Smith
Of course that is if there is a season.
"willingness to get a deal done"
because they hate the old deal that THEY cut. there’s no crying in deal cutting. the only corollary you can draw is comparing the debilitating deals that the unions struck with the big auto companies. does anyone see any NFL owners shutting up the shop because they are losing money?
the owners are scum. Mara is the best of a rotten bunch. the players should hold out because each day that goes by makes them look more the victim and the owners more the greedy b*stards. those kids risk their lives EVERY play while the owners bemoan the “bad” deals they cut.
fckers
I still don't think the Owners are in the right
But if Mara’s saying this, DeMaurice Smith is really a bum. Super bum
Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.
-John Madden
why negotiate with these babies
they cut a bad deal, now they are locking the players out. does anyone think that the players are living high on the hog? compare arod’s contract to the most expensive football contract. arod can get a hangnail or a “strained oblique” and still make near 30mm a year. football players literally break their necks for fractions of that.
Yes
does anyone think that the players are living high on the hog?
Yes I do. Even practice squad players get more than some teachers
Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.
-John Madden
will here's a news flash
they will always be paid more than teachers. that is unfortunately not a useful comparison. more appropriately, compare them to baseball players, basketball players, etc. and compare that to how much the owners make off their sweat. still don’t know that because the owners won’t open the books. why would they want to show how much they ACTUALLY make?
sorry, but the comparison to teachers is spurious.
Why should the owners open their books?
They are private citizens and are under absolutely no obligation to divulge their revenues. We all know they are wicked rich so nobody should be surprised. The players aren’t fighting for lower ticket prices or reduced prices of food at games so they don’t give a shit about the fans.
Football players only play 16 games a year while baseball players play 162 and basketball players play 82. So, your argument demanding a comparison between sports is fatally flawed.
how much the owners make off their sweat
Come on, 112…nobody is forcing these guys to play in this league. The “oppressed athlete” doesn’t exist.
sigh...
in good faith negotiations
you put your cards on the table. everyone knows how much the athletes make, the bosses get to sit idle with this key bit of information. and why is it you dont think they are divulging this information? simple, because they are making more money then king midas. the players aren’t in charge of food prices, they are in charge of getting the best deal for themselves because the #s tell us they will be out of this game YOUNG.
fatal flaw? how many 162 game baseball players or 82 game basketball players have had broken necks due to their profession? how many of them die at 53? how many of them SHOOT THEMSELVES in the chest so they preserve the concussion ridden brains for science?
this is entertainment sure, but potentially fatal entertainment
it's not even about good faith, in some sense
It’s about whether contracts are worth the paper they are printed on.
A contract is legally binding. If one party to a contract gets to break it at will, then it’s not a contract, and they’re breaking the law.
It’s not about who is a saint or more “deserving” on one side or another.
But, if one party to a contract is indeed a monopoly, then that monopoly will be able to break contracts at will because other parties to the contract have no place else to go, by definition, and the law recognizes that monopolies are illegal, except in rare cases when the law grants specific exemptions. But historically, monopolies do three things: they lead to bad social outcomes, the screw exploit their customers and workers, and they prevent anyone from competing with them. And that’s why the law says monopolies are bad and are illegal.
I’ve had dishonest business partners, and when they show they are lying cheats I don’t do business with them anymore. I might even choose to sue. But I go on to other business ventures. There is no other competitive business partner for the players, at least, that’s their argument. And they’re making it in the only place they can: in the court.
I think I've been through this with you before AJ
The antitrust suit is a joke. It is a pure tactic. The players benefit every bit as much as the owners by the NFL being a monopoly. That is because, according to the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the existence of the NFL itself is an antitrust violation. The only way the NFL could comply with antitrust law would be to allow anyone who wanted to enter a team in the league to do so. Either all sports leagues need to be exempt from antitrust law, or we can just ship that industry overseas as well. IF THE NFL DID NOT VIOLATE ANTITRUST LAW BY LIMITING COMPETITION, THE PLAYERS WOULDN’T HAVE ANY LEAGUE IN WHICH TO PLAY.
The players know that the owners will lose the antitrust suit. An icicle would have a better chance of surviving in hell than the owners’ chances of winning the suit. What the players want to do is to get the judges to lift the lockout and order football to go on while the antitrust suit works its way through the courts. If that happens, the owners will have no choice but to cave in to every player demand in order to get a CBA, because, by law, a union cannot sue their employer for antitrust violations. That is why the players had to decertify in order to bring the suit in the first place.
My point is, antitrust law is very complicated and most people would not understand it if it were explained to them 10 times in 10 different ways. DeMaurice Smith certainly isn’t going to explain it to you, because if he did, you would understand what a POS he is. If you believe that these sports leagues are not unique associations that merit antitrust exemptions, then you believe that they should not exist. The players are taking advantage of law that should not be applicable here.
step 1
players and owners make a deal.
step 2: owner decide later they don’t like the deal, and need to void the contract unilaterally, arguing they can’t afford it anymore
step 3: players say, ok, let’s talk. We’re open to letting you off the hook for your contract. Just show us what the problem is with your finances.
step 4: owners refuse.
OK, so let’s say you have a mortgage. You got the loan based on your income a few years ago, but now you tell the bank your income has changed, you want to renegotiate the terms of your loan.
Bank says, ok, let us see your income, let’s work out a plan based on your actual income now. We’re open to that, just show us what your finances are now. After all, if we’re going to let you off the hook and not just take your house away, we need to know what you can pay and need to know you’re not bullshitting us.
You say, no, I won’t do that.
Can you blame the bank for telling you to come back when you’re ready to show you’re not full of shit and open your books?
Same scenario, more or less. The players are the bank in this analogy, the owners the ones crying poverty and wanting to break a contract.
Now, the bank (the players) are under no obligation to let anyone break a signed deal. If they’re willing to be flexible, that’s an accommodation. Maybe it’s a matter of enlightened self-interest (better to get some money than no money if your counterparty goes bankrupt), but if you don’t verify the details, then you are basically saying your partner can break any contract they ever make with you just because they want to.
Would you make a deal like that? Would you just do business and plan you life with a business partner whose contracts with you mean whatever your partner wants them to mean at any time?
No, you wouldn’t. And that’s the players position. They’re saying, if you won’t prove you have a real need, then you’re just acting like a monopoly and trying to force a change because you have no competition. And they are making that argument in the only place they can – in court.
And the owners are saying, go screw yourself. We wont open our books and we’re so broke we think we can outlast you through a prolonged work stoppage because we have more money to carry us through (that’s how broke we are, we can go without any revenue for a year or more, and do it longer than you can).
Didn't the existing CBA expire...well they decertified prior to expiration of the CBA
You make it sound like the players were letting the owners off the hook early and they weren’t. If the CBA expired then it was gone and your bank analogy doesn’t work. They wouldn’t be breaking a signed deal…there would be no deal any longer. That’s when the owners said they aren’t willing to give them a deal like the one that just expired…
So, if I met all of my contractual obligations of my mortgage and paid off my house then the contact is complete. Now, if I want to buy a new house and I go to the same bank that I used before and they won’t give me as low of an interest rate due to “the economy” then I have absolutely no grounds to force them to show me their profits so I can determine that they are much more profitable then years ago and I should be given a better deal because they are making more money than they were when I signed my first contract with them.
You make it sound like the players are bending over backwards to cut the owners a break and that is the farthest thing from the truth. Both sides are looking out for their own bottom line so to the players aren’t modern day Robin Hoods who only want to get more form the rich to spread amongst the poor.
sigh...
you're right about the CBA being expired
so my analogy is flawed on that front.
So it’s really a new contract negotiation where one party says, hey, you need to take a cut in your revenue share because we can’t afford to give as much of a share as we did last time.
And the players say, ok, let’s talk about that. But show us what you are making so we can work out a fair split.
The owners say no, they won’t do that. And if they are not actually a monopoly, they are in their rights. That’s the point of contention for the courts now.
Your example breaks down also, because you can go to another bank for a loan. There is more than one mortgage lender out there. (Ok, the big banks may act like an oligopoly, but that’s a separate discussion, and anyway, you can try to go to a credit union for a loan, whatever).
But there is no other national professional football league out there. The NFL divides up franchises for cities and controls its product like a single entity. Or at least, that’s what the players say, and that’s what the court fight is about: who is right on the law in that dispute.
I don’t mean to say the players are reasonable on all fronts, but I do think they have a reasonable dispute over the monopoly question, and I do think they are reasonable to ask for verification when they are asked to take less of a revenue share than they had before based purely on trust – especially when the league only appears, from the outside, to be becoming more popular and profitable.
We can argue ethics or we can argue legality...
I agree that the owners should, from an ethical stand point, open their books and back up their reasoning behind their claims. They don’t have any legal obligation to do that though.
You say there are no other professional football leagues out there but there are…UFL, Arena Football, UIFL..now these players from the NFL can go play on those teams. Can they not? The only difference between the NFL and the UFL is that the players in the UFL don’t get paid millions of dollars per year BUT it is still professional football. You can’t accuse the NFL of being a monopoly just because the other leagues don’t pay nearly as well. If all the NFL players walked over to the UFL then I would watch the UFL this year and the NFL would lose.
sigh...
well, that's the legal question
and it’s in the hands of the courts.
But legally, the threshhold for showing that something is a monopoly is not that no other alternatives exist, but that a single entity effectively controls the entire industry and engages in anti competitive behavior.
"monopoly" versus "monopsony"
From wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. (This is in contrast to a monopsony which relates to a single entity’s control over a market to purchase a good or service, and contrasted with oligopoly where a few entities exert considerable influence over an industry)1[clarification needed] Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.2 The verb “monopolise” refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition.
A monopoly must be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market.
The argument has always been the teams within the NFL are ruled by the NFL therefore creating
monopoly-like conditions within the NFL. The NFL’s argument has always been that they need to mandate specific conditions that apply to all teams to ensure the league remains competitiveness within the league.
The NFL is NOT a monopoly outside of itself. The other leagues aren’t as successful not because of anything the NFL does to inhibit their growth or stamp out their very existence but because the NFL is so extremely successful. You can’t punish the NFL because they are so good at providing us the sport we love so much. Why would anyone want to found a company in a system that rewards your success by punishing you for being the best at what you do?
sigh...
that's irrelevant
some industries, by their nature and structure, and the costs of establishing long term viability, naturally tend to produce monopolies. Pro football is one of them.
And pro football has taken active steps to destroy competitive leagues from emerging.
It is a monopoly, and the players actually like it that way. Both sides benefit from the extra money that monopoly power can extract. The players just don’t want a cut in their share.
That’s really all this is about. And if they are forced by the monopoly to take a cut, then they are threatening to blow the lid off the monopoly itself. It’s a big game of chicken.
Ahh....
So what you’re saying is that as a fan I should be happy with either the owner’s position, or the player’s position, or both, because both are happily working to screw me over by extracting more money than they should reasonably expect to by using their monopolistic powers.
It also appears that you’re finally getting around to saying that this fight is about too greedy groups, both of whom wants to insure their continued wealth, which, while accurate, is what most of us have been saying from day one.
And obviously the players aren’t being forced by monopoly or anything else to take less, as they haven’t agreed to do so, aren’t working as football players and can always persue the jobs of warehouse loaders, truck drivers and insurance salesmen that await them if they don’t want to play for the NFL or a lesser league.
Your summation is “it’s all a big game of chicken”. I agree with you on this, and as a fan, it’s of little difference to me if it’s the owner’s hen or the players rooster who craps on me, I’m getting nothing but crap out of the whole smelly affair.
there's nothing here to make a fan happy
So I’m not saying any fan should be happy about any of this.
Personally, I think both groups are self-interested, and greed is part of that. I think, if it comes down to trusting motives, I have less trust of the owners because they are not willing to back up their claim that they can’t afford the old contract style from before.
So for me, at the end of the day, I don’t need eitehr side to be a hero, and both can be partly right, but one side could be more right, and have a more valid complaint, than the other.
For me, that balance of who has the more valid beef is on the player side. And I have been open about my perspective on this being highly influenced by lots of business board room experience of my own. In that sense, I’m a traitor to my suit wearing class, even as I sit here wearing a suit.
;-)
I don’t even think it’s unclear that the NFL is a monopoly, the question in the end is how regulated it may end up being, or what kind of anti-trust exemptions may apply. They already have a limited anti-trust exemption to be able to negotiate a league wide TV deal, but they lost the American Needle case. The NFL does not have baseball’s full out anti-trust exemption.
They players are being coerced to take less by being locked out. They have not chosen to avoid work. The league is doing that. And the players are suffering financial harm in the process.
As far as the game of chicken, yes, that’s the negotiation dynamic going on. But that by itself doesn’t say anything about who’s in the right at the end of the day or not.
But no matter what, the fans are getting screwed. Even if things go back to where they were, fans are screwed, unless someone wants to argue that PSL’s are good for fans.
I'm firmly in the "a pox on both your houses camp"
And one could just as easily ask why the players why they can’t do with less, as the owners why they need to give less. What less would we be talking? Less bling, fewer Bentleys, etc.
Now obviously that’s avoiding that not all players are making superstar money, but in the same way that it can be argued that if the owners can’t pay more, they’ve been foolish with their money, one could argue that many players have equally been foolish with theirs.
But at the end of the day, football is a sport, and an amusement, and not a necessity. Yes, even league minimum is far higher than the average teacher will make this year, or the average journalist, or the average armed forces salary. Supposedly the players earned their college degrees and should have the ability to find jobs outside of football, and have the same chances of success as any other college graduates of their respective ages.
Nobody is forced to play football, and the nation will not fail based on whether we have a 2011 season or not. It still looks like the two sides of the greed coin, neither of which puts forth an attractive face (the commisisoner or Smith), and both of whom seem determined to cut of their noses to spite their faces.
I remain in the " a pox on both houses" camp.
Football is entertainment
how we let a society determine football is a 9 billion dollar commodity considering nothing tangible comes from it is beyond me, but that’s neither here nor there.
And there’s more players in Football than baseball/hockey/basketball, so there’s more money spent overall on players than others due to the sheer amount of players
Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.
-John Madden
Mara for commish!
Just get it done. I don’t care. I’m not ignorant, I see both sides. In the end, there’s enough pie for everyone to go home fat and happy (and hopefully safer for the players’ sake). I’m confident it will get done… not because I have faith in mankind or any similar delusions… I just figure eventually they’ll realize how much dough they’ll piss away by forfeiting a season and suck it up and get it done. The egos of Smith and Goodell are not helping matters, greater good people, I know it’s a tough concept, but suck it up and get the preseason underway.
That pretty much says it all...
ultimately it’s going to be the fans and peripheral businesses that get hurt the most.
Just do this thing…
sigh...
Screw both parties for signing that damned CBA before.
Both knew this was going to happen. Both made preparations for it and knew EXACTLY what to do.
While this CBA was under effect, couldn’t they have at least had some negotiations about the future plans? Or changed it then and there to be fair?
For this, I give a massive middle finger to both parties, so f### you.
Creator of the NFC East Eternal Threads
Proud resident of BBV, BGN, MTD
by BigBlueIntervention on May 20, 2011 1:36 AM EDT reply actions
Right...they both knew...BUT...
are you saying that the owners should NEVER give the players a great deal.again just because once they got this last one they refused to go back a normal CBA? I think the players that gained under the last CBA should be happy they played in the league under that CBA but that doesn’t mean that every player from now on should feel entitled to the same deal.
sigh...
Theyl'l get a deal done
Right before the start of the season. The bargaining leverage and ‘hardball’ is far more important then whatever revenue is ultimately generated from minicamp, training camp, and other preseason festivities. The on-the-fells product will suffer, and we, as fans, should hold the NFL accountable.
this is what it sounds like when the birds cry
by pataroons on May 20, 2011 10:51 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Big Blue View
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Get Your Giants' Gear
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
