This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It wouldn't erase the lockout privileges at all; it would place a limit on them. Clearly the owners can't lock out a non-union workforce indefinitely. The court will not be interested in the question of who has leverage over whom; it will be interpreting the existing law and precedent.
There wouldn't be. Antitrust damages would be predicated only on antitrust violations.The court could easily find that enjoining the lockout was improper even if the lockout itself is illegal. It could find, in other words, that the proper remedy against an illegal lockout is not an injunction, but is instead an award of damages.
Yes. Of course, it's quite possible that lockouts were never meant to be useful as a leverage tool against non-unionized employees.
Right. I completely agree. It won't be indefinite. But, it won't be 6 months, either. Probably 12 months, and the players can choose whether or not they want to blow up the season or not.
So if the court upholds the owners right to lockout the players for 12 months, then the players can choose whether or not they want to blow up the season? You do understand how backwards that sounds?
It might sound backwards, but it isn't. The owners WANT to have a season, but, at least at this point (say) they want a new CBA more.The players, if they hold firm, WILL eventually prevail in the courts on the trust issues. They can choose to sit tight for a year without collecting pay, but instead collecting pay PLUS penalties in a year or so. Whether a season occurs really is more in the players' court than the owners.
Yeah, we could go round and round on this. The anti-trust suit, all you people have been telling me, isn't really what the players want...it's just their tactic for holding a gun to the owners' heads to get a better deal. You've all said that it's not what the players want, but it's the one ace they can play in hopes of getting the owners to chicken out and buckle to their demands. Up until this point, the players have used the litigation tactic as a means of scaring the owners, but it's not working because the law/courts are not terribly in favor of their side right now. So...They have a choice. Either they can, for the first time, actually sit down with the owners and bang out a new agreement, or they can blow up this entire game by actually following through with these anti-trust suits and mangling the league forever. This is on De Smith, Brees, Brady, all of them. They can either back down off their demands a little bit and settle on a deal to end the lockout...or they can take this thing through the courts, bust the season and ruin the game. I think the owners' offer is totally reasonable and with a little work to get more for the players, a deal can be had.
I mean, seriously, what a concept.
IMO, Wadsworth's point was right on the money.It makes no sense to say that if the owners are allowed to cancel the season, then it's the players who are responsible. To sound unsilly, I think one must concede, at a minimum, that it's the owners and the players who are responsible.
The six months idea came from the previous CBA, which said that the players couldn't file an antitrust suit until six months after it expired (so long as they were still unionized at its expiration). So it's not completely random.
Well. So, are you saying that any attempt to gain leverage automatically means you are being reasonable? If so, then I suppose I can see how you might feel this way.
Not
I've been lurking this thread since page 1, some very interesting posts intermixed between soccer and partisan talk. I've been noticing this pattern with your posts Colbalt that this whole affair is a game of right vs wrong, good vs evil. It's not. It's negotiations. In the end, a deal will be struck. Both sides will feel as if they won even though they both gave up some ground. When I read your posts, you make it seem as if the players need to take whatever the owners laid out ("bargain") and that the players wont budge .01%. This is real life, not a fiction novel.Keep lurking like I am. The thread has been great but some posters seem to be waiting for an outcome when they can say, "I told you so...." rather than discussing the merits of each side.Not
I never once said or even intimated that the players need to accept the owners' offer(s). They need to bargain and negotiate, which I don't feel they have been doing. What I expect will happen is that they will, indeed, sit down and bargain with the owners sooner rather than later. My point is and has been that they haven't been doing that, and if they use the anti-trust litigation and ride it through to completion if they don't get from the owners 100% of what they got on their last deal, then they are 100% in the wrong here. Bottom line, negotiations often have people looking for unrealistic outcomes. My only hope and wish for the players is that they take a break from their court drama for a minute or two and consider navigating the bargaining table with the owners. Short of doing that, they are in the wrong here. That's the reality, not fiction.
Cobalt is completely correct. The owners may not have made their best offer but the players have made no movement from the status quo. The players are satisfied with the previous CBA and have not made any offers public that would indicate that they are negotiating in good faith. Their first move to this point has been to decertify which opens the owners to significant risk to continue to operate the league and to litigate versus negotiate. This was exactly what I expected when the players hired a litigator to run the union. There can be no doubt that the economic climate that exists today is much different than when the last CBA was begun. You can be sure if the owners had gotten the better deal in the last CBA, the players would be talking work stoppage to initiate a more favorable deal. It is certain that the best course of action is to go back to the bargaining table for both sides.
Didn't the players make several attempts to negotiate prior to the lockout?IIRC, they said that they wanted to keep the current CBA. The owners said no.
I can't answer all of your questions but in general the owners seem interested in stalling whenever possible. They understand that the players are less prepared financially to deal with lost games so they are playing to their advantage. The longer it appears the lockout will last the more likely the players will be to accept a deal closer to what the owner wish. It's a solid strategy. I see this as the main reason for the NLRB argument. The previous CBA did allow for future de-cert but it also had conditions which I don't recall off the top of my head. The player did not meet these conditions so the owners are not allowing it without challenge.
It wasn't "in the future." It was "after the expiration of the express terms of this Agreement." The players disclaimed their union before the CBA's expiration. (They disclaimed again after its expiration, but it's the first disclaimer that allowed them to file the antitrust suit. Because just as the owners promised not to raise the sham defense after the CBA's expiration, the players promised not to file an antitrust suit immediately after its expiration. It appears to me that neither side is bound by those promises since the players disclaimed before the CBA expired. But it's a question that hasn't been resolved yet on appeal.)
If the 8th Circuit allows the lockout to remain in place, it will explain why. Its reason may be somewhat specific, like "the non-statutory labor exemption lasts for one business cycle," or it may be kind of vague, like "the non-statutory labor exemption lasts until collective bargaining efforts have run their due course, whenever that is; and in this case, we think the parties have some more collective bargaining left in them."
The players also made a different offer and the owners walked out so they have negotiated.http://www.scoresreport.com/2011/02/11/nfl-owners-walk-away-from-cba-negotiations/
Thanks Maurile, those pretty much answer my questions and clear up my confusion. If we knew the judges would offer a specific reason I'd almost prefer to wait for that decision so that player unions would have some expectations and guidance on how future de-certifications would be viewed by the courts. But I'd rather get football going ASAP so here's hoping the renewed negotiations lead to a quicker settlement.
Jeff I agree with you. I think both sides have not been totally up front. And it seems ridiculous to me that the Owners would say they deserve more of the pie because of upkeep being higher and then not showing the books on it. I mean why should the players have to just take their word on it. It would be like my boss saying I need to lower your wage, because the cost of running the business has doubled. And then I say to him show my how its doubled. And he says you just have to take my word at it. Cost has gone up. I can't let you have that much of the company revenue anymore. (That makes no sense at all.)
No, I do not believe that the players have ever offered any concessions to the existing CBA. As for the owners not wishing to give the players access to their books versus audited financial statements, there is not a private business that exists that would ever accept that as a condition of negotiating. The union leadership apparently believes their " big stick" is the anti-trust provisions in the law and wanted to get to the court as soon as possible. As for the 50 % of gross and the owners last offer, those are issues to be discussed and eventually decided within a new CBA. How was that too late in the game? It was only too late if the leadership had already decided to take their argument away from negotiation and to litigation.You may disagree with my conclusions but it does not mean they are incorrect.
So you don't agree that this happened?
I'm not saying that the owners had to open their books - I agree that no business should have to do that as part of a negotiation. The players offered an alternative to it by saying "let's just take 50% of the gross" so they don't have to see the books then (to figure out the profits on the gross / net).The owners' last proposal was 24-48 hours before the deadline to decertify. It really seems like that they were prepared to offer that deal but waited until the NFLPA was basically painted into a corner where they could not really read through and think through that offer in time to decide whether to file the lawsuits or not - so they filed to cover themselves. Had the owners offered that deal a week prior I think that it is possible a deal might have already been negotiated.
See, this is a great example of the differences in both sides of the argument here. Most the bold is your opinion on what happened from a view negative of the owners. Someone with a view more negative of the players could say that the owners couldn't believe that the players would actually go to court to try to "kill" the current NFL model so they made a decent offer at the very end as a final gesture but the players were represented by a lawyer that was hell bent on litigation so they ignored the offer and called it the worst offer in the history of sports, which is almost certainly a ridiculous exaggeration. See how that works Jeff?
No, I don't actually. If the owners were willing to make that proposal all along then why did they wait until the last minute?You're also reading into my viewpoint. I could care less on who is "right" or "wrong". From a negotiations standpoint, I understand that when an outside constraint gets involved (such as a deadline) motivations manifest themselves. Waiting until that time in a negotiation is not a tactic that ingratiates yourself towards the other side.See, this is a great example of the differences in both sides of the argument here. Most the bold is your opinion on what happened from a view negative of the owners. Someone with a view more negative of the players could say that the owners couldn't believe that the players would actually go to court to try to "kill" the current NFL model so they made a decent offer at the very end as a final gesture but the players were represented by a lawyer that was hell bent on litigation so they ignored the offer and called it the worst offer in the history of sports, which is almost certainly a ridiculous exaggeration. See how that works Jeff?
He couldn't really do that. Once the players disclaimed the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith had no right or authority to continue negotiations on their behalf. (I agree that he could have cut out he "worst offer of all time" stuff.)'Jeff Pasquino said:
If that's the case, how could they meet last week. Does this mean no negotiations until the players re-certify?
This whole point of "showing the books" is a non-starter. The main reason is that there's no conceivable, demonstable financial position that would convince the players "Damn ... they really DO need more money". All that would happen is that the players would start looking at the details and fire back by saying "Well ... quit spending money on this, and this". Sure, there's probably some fat on the owners' books. But why should players be the ones to have final say-so over what stays/goes on the owners' balance sheets?'jacobo_moses said:
Sure it makes sense. Happens every day. Except instead of the give-and-take between you and the boss, the boss just lays you off with little explanation. Maybe you can get off the lay-off list by taking a lesser package. Maybe you can't. Try asking to "see the books": "Do you really have to reduce my pay?" "Hey, one of the other laid-off guys will take this package if you won't".
I'm pretty sure I read that the talks last week are "settlement" talks related to the law suits that have been filed, rather than as negotiations between the NFL and the NFLPA.
The players can negotiate with the owners through their counsel in the antitrust action. (And DeMaurice Smith eventually joined the litigation team, so he can now participate in the negotiations; but he couldn't immediately after the disclaimer.)
Fair enough and for the record, I certainly think the owners offer was part of a negotiating ploy. But the statement by Smith and the refusal of the players to negotiate since then make me think the players are "more wrong", if you will.'Jeff Pasquino said:No, I don't actually. If the owners were willing to make that proposal all along then why did they wait until the last minute?You're also reading into my viewpoint. I could care less on who is "right" or "wrong". From a negotiations standpoint, I understand that when an outside constraint gets involved (such as a deadline) motivations manifest themselves. Waiting until that time in a negotiation is not a tactic that ingratiates yourself towards the other side.'ConstruxBoy said:See, this is a great example of the differences in both sides of the argument here. Most the bold is your opinion on what happened from a view negative of the owners. Someone with a view more negative of the players could say that the owners couldn't believe that the players would actually go to court to try to "kill" the current NFL model so they made a decent offer at the very end as a final gesture but the players were represented by a lawyer that was hell bent on litigation so they ignored the offer and called it the worst offer in the history of sports, which is almost certainly a ridiculous exaggeration. See how that works Jeff?'Jeff Pasquino said:
Imagine you are in a real estate deal where you have 60 days to evaluate a property. Days 1-58 you haven't communicated with the seller that there might be any issues at all, but on Day 59 you bring up something that will be an issue and cause you to back out of the deal. That event may be easily resolved on Day 11 but much harder on Day 59.
My point is that the owners offered that counter-deal at the last minute. That's what happened. The players had to make a decision regarding filing a lawsuit shortly thereafter (even if there wasn't a counter-deal proposed) and they filed.
Now, should the players have continued to negotiate on that counter-deal and proposed another counter? I think they should have. De.Smith on the courthouse steps speaking derisively about that offer did no one any favors (including himself). A more calm and collected NFLPA leader would have took the offer under advisement, released a statement regarding the need to file the suits in a timely manner while offering to continue negotiations regarding that offer.
Yet again -the owners are not your bosses, the players are not you and your coworkers. The two situations are NOT equitable in any way. Please for the love of all things football stop falling into this trap folks. It's. Not. The. Same. Thing.
If you the owners really wanted to get a deal done they would have had full disclosure. Players and Owners both can't move forward without the other. You have to have Stadiums and an Organization to play for. And yet you have to have exciting players that fans will want to pay to see. 
Addressing me or jacobo? I agree with you, and was pointing out where jacobo's comparison broke down.
I agree it isn't the exact same thing, but it isn't as different as you might think. While the players are very uniquely talented, many of them believe they aren't replaceable. Ultimately, every single one of them IS. They are the employees. Very uniquely talented employees, but employees nonetheless. Because of their unique talent they have the ability to form a union and negotiate very favorable terms, but they are NOT partners.In the same sense...because they are different situations...I still contend that trying to apply traditional labor/anti-trust law to them is a bit nonsensical.
Well, we can quibble on how replaceable they are - because if you replace them with crap, that 9 billion? It ain't gonna be there for long. Maybe they can replace the players with young kids out of college, but they'd be cutting their nose to spite their face and it would take a while for it to grow back, IMO. I've asked before and I ask again - do you go to see Bob Kraft or Tom Brady? I mean you root for the team but if the sport was no good and not enjoyable to watch you wouldn't do that. And all the television revenue and all the jersey sales and all that would be gone.
How does workforce attrition compare in the NFL to the average Fortune 500 company?
If the proposed offer was a step in the right direction for a deal to be made, why did the union choose to decertify? Are you telling me that another extention of the CBA would not have been acceptable to the owners? The players seem to believe that the owners have been gearing up for this lockout for some time. That may even be true. However, the union seems to have had litigation as their primary objective as well. IMO, the union has believed from the beginning that they could win issues in court that would they would be unable to achieve through negotiations. Neither side is completely right or completely wrong. A negotiated CBA gives each side some things that they desire while not getting everything they want as opposed to a lawsuit which usually means one side wins and the other loses. IMO, the players are the one who is putting the very successful business model at risk by taking this through the court. Do not forget what the 8th Circuit judges recommended. Negotiate a settlement because neither party may like our decision.'Jeff Pasquino said:
That doesn't sound inaccurate to you? I've never met a client whose primary objective was litigation.
Another way to say the same thing is that the players believed that the owners were obstinately violating their legal rights.
If we're going to blame the players for the lockout, I think it's only fair to blame the owners for the litigation.
No that does not sound inaccurate to me. I have seen no indication that the players wish to bargain in good faith, only a rush to the courts. No, it is not that the owners were violating their rights, just that the players felt they could get more money through the courts than through negotiation.I don't blame the players for the lockout. I blame the players for not negotiating in good faith for a new CBA which created the need for a lockout. If the owners continued operating outside of a CBA they put themselves at considerable risk of financial loss.If litigation was not their primary objective, then why could an extention of the CBA not be agreed to if the players and owners positions were moving closer together.That doesn't sound inaccurate to you? I've never met a client whose primary objective was litigation.Another way to say the same thing is that the players believed that the owners were obstinately violating their legal rights.If we're going to blame the players for the lockout, I think it's only fair to blame the owners for the litigation.
I could be totally wrong, but I think they HAD to decertify AND file by a certain day regardless of initial extension. So as I understand it, they didn't have a choice. If they were going to ever decertify it had to be then, and if they didn't the owners pretty much had them over a barrel.
Litigation is always a means to an end; it is not the end in itself. Sometimes it is the best available means, sometimes it isn't. In this case, you've correctly identified what it's a means to: gaining favorable terms by enforcing their legal rights that they could not gain by asking the owners nicely.
Get more money how? Courts don't give litigants money randomly. They give monetary damages for rights violations.
Good. It sounded here like you did. (Cobalt characterized a continued lockout as the players blowing up the season, and it seemed like you agreed with him. My apologies if I misunderstood.)
Financial loss for what? (For antitrust damages — i.e., for violating the players' legal rights?)
Because the players believed that litigation was the best available means for achieving their primary objective. They believed it because the negotiations were going nowhere.
Can I add something here as well - the players are not asking for MORE money. They are - at worst - asking for status quo. If they are to give up and take less (which - I mean how often has THAT happened with a union) they want to have a good reason for it when by all outside looks, the NFL is rolling in dough.(EDITED because I quoted the qrong quote....)
From the perspective of the Leadership of the players, the closer they got to missing paychecks then the closer they got to losing their solidarity. The owners knew this is as well which is why they waited to begin negotiations for a new CBA despite opting out of it 2 years ago. Now with all the legal proceedings, we are looking at a possible decision from the courts sometime in late June or early July and the players' Leadership initiated the proceedings in early March. An extension of CBA negotiations benefited the owners much more than the Leadership of the players who were up against a financial time constraint that the owners have imposed as they knew their members will start to cave as soon as the paychecks stop. Why would the players' Leadership agree to continue negotiations when the other side is using a ploy against them, Time, that cannot be defended? If Time is on your side then you are in a good position. Furthermore, the CBA benefits the owners more than the players and that played out in the negotiations from the '90s. The players may not be partners but they are pretty close. Ultimately, I think this is a big pizzing match between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in the ownership group. When the last CBA was set up, there was plenty of money to go around as the Nation's Economy was flourishing and any concerns an owner may have were offset by profits. Now those owners want to point to the economic turmoil of the last few years and say they are losing money. Unfortunately, the League they are involved in has seen an increase in revenue in spite of the Economy they are in and now expect their "partners"/players to be willing to accept a decrease in their revenue because of the Economy even though it has yet to affect the overall revenue of the NFL.I can see that based upon possible economic forecast that at some point relatively soon the revenue split needs to be adjusted but isn't that what the next CBA after this one is supposed to do? Aren't these CBAs set up for 5-7 years because of economic changes? I have a difficult time hearing the owners position when they are worried about possible financial implications in the future that will be dealt with in the next CBA around 2017 when their profits are rising in 2011 and what they are basing their argument on is what may or may not happen economically.No that does not sound inaccurate to me. I have seen no indication that the players wish to bargain in good faith, only a rush to the courts. No, it is not that the owners were violating their rights, just that the players felt they could get more money through the courts than through negotiation.I don't blame the players for the lockout. I blame the players for not negotiating in good faith for a new CBA which created the need for a lockout. If the owners continued operating outside of a CBA they put themselves at considerable risk of financial loss.If litigation was not their primary objective, then why could an extention of the CBA not be agreed to if the players and owners positions were moving closer together.That doesn't sound inaccurate to you? I've never met a client whose primary objective was litigation.Another way to say the same thing is that the players believed that the owners were obstinately violating their legal rights.If we're going to blame the players for the lockout, I think it's only fair to blame the owners for the litigation.
