Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[David Dodds]

Why would the appeals court grant a stay?Let's say the United Auto Workers decertified so there is no CBA. Could Ford then lockout all the workers and use the courts to make them be union employees (even though no union exists)? This is exactly what the NFL is trying to argue. The owners lost on merit. They are going to lose on appeal. To grant an emergency stay, the appeals court has to think the NFL has a chance to win the appeal. They also have to believe that irreparable harm would happen if the league has to open. Unfortunately for the NFL, their arguments for irreparable harm would have them operating business like every other one in the country (ie not in violation of anti-trust laws). Without an anti-trust exception from Congress, their is no basis to the owner's claims. Whether it be a day or a week, NFL 2011 is on.

It could simply grant a stay because they want time to review the case and think that no action should be taken until then. It is at the whim of the court on what they do here. No one really knows what they will do until they tell us.

The appeals court would need to grant the stay as she has already said no. The appeals court can't get to the real case until June 13th. Do you really think they are going to stop everything they are doing to grant a stay here? I sure don't based on the merits of the case. This decision isn't likely to get overturned on appeal and unless the appeals court thinks that decision is imminent, I don't see any justification to grant the stay. No stay and June 13th is too long to stall. It's over for now. The owners get to set the 2011 rules and we will take it from there.

 

[David Dodds]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

 

[Orange Crush]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

 

[Romulan]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

Now thats completely dumb... The purpose of a Union is to bargain in good faith and protect the rights of its members. You are saying that the players might forgo a CBA and keep the current status quo? Not likely... Collective bargaining Agreement is the goal and now they finally have exposed with the help of the court system how greedy and pathetic the owners are. I hope the heat continues on these stuck up Billionaires and I hope they continue to look like money hungry jerks that they are. They chose to cancel the CBA early out of greed and now I hope it comes back to bite them in the A##...

 

[David Dodds]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

That's an interesting angle. I could see some of these to attempt to divide the players: - Minimum league salary to be a lot less and giving no preference to years of service.- Harsher violations of the drug and conduct policy- New contracts to be very performance-based.

 

[Orange Crush]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

 

[Orange Crush]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

Now thats completely dumb... The purpose of a Union is to bargain in good faith and protect the rights of its members. You are saying that the players might forgo a CBA and keep the current status quo? Not likely... Collective bargaining Agreement is the goal and now they finally have exposed with the help of the court system how greedy and pathetic the owners are. I hope the heat continues on these stuck up Billionaires and I hope they continue to look like money hungry jerks that they are. They chose to cancel the CBA early out of greed and now I hope it comes back to bite them in the A##...

Sure the NFLPA is supposed to represent every player, but its player reps are mostly the league's biggest stars. Likewise, look at the players named on the lawsuit ... Brees, Manning, Brady. And the stars are the ones who benefit most from a completely free system. How much would Peyton Manning go for this year if he had all 32 teams bidding on his services? And while negotiations on a new CBA will still move forward, if the league rules implement are such that there's no real pain, or even discomfort, on the players, then the players have a greater incentive to use their newfound leverage to hold out for the best deal possible. My thoughts were about finding a scenario in which both sides were maximally motivated to come to an agreement.

 

[David Dodds]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

 

[BassNBrew]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

That's an interesting angle. I could see some of these to attempt to divide the players: - Minimum league salary to be a lot less and giving no preference to years of service.- Harsher violations of the drug and conduct policy- New contracts to be very performance-based.

The first step would be to implement rules that would force the players to live with rules the rest of us working stiffs have to. Maybe opening training camp now would be too extreme, but mandatory 40 hrs weeks would be feasible. No one could argue that additional film study and structured light workouts wouldn't benefit the team. Not only would that cost the players valued free time, it would force them to live in the city that they are employed year round. Teams could exempt stars or give them more vacation timeNot sure if there's a pension plan, but that would needed to be nixed. Pro-bowl becomes mandatory like business trips trips are for most of us. Basically the owners need to #### can anything that a union would have bargained for in the players behalf in the past that's unrelated to salary.

 

[BassNBrew]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think there is a demand for him.Regarding bidding up his pay, like Dodds in auction leagues, I think the Pats getting stuck with two QBs would be funny.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think there is a demand for him.Regarding bidding up his pay, like Dodds in auction leagues, I think the Pats getting stuck with two QBs would be funny.

Maybe we can see a QB Squeeze?

 

[JHuber77]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

Now thats completely dumb... The purpose of a Union is to bargain in good faith and protect the rights of its members. You are saying that the players might forgo a CBA and keep the current status quo? Not likely... Collective bargaining Agreement is the goal and now they finally have exposed with the help of the court system how greedy and pathetic the owners are. I hope the heat continues on these stuck up Billionaires and I hope they continue to look like money hungry jerks that they are. They chose to cancel the CBA early out of greed and now I hope it comes back to bite them in the A##...

Repeat after me, "There is no more union" On a side note, Looks like Adrian Peterson might have to become a modern day slave yet again, depending on what rules the owners decide to impliment.

 

[belljr]

Ok could someone clear something up for me here. Let's say they play this year with 2010 rules or whatever. So if there is no union and there is no CBA after this year, why do the owners have to split any money with the players?

If this becomes a "free market" can't the owners keep all the revenue since it will become more like andemployer/employee relationship than it was previously?

Won't this in turn actually hurt the players more? Sure the big names will make the money wherever they go but overall won't players lose all the revenu money?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

That's an interesting angle. I could see some of these to attempt to divide the players: - Minimum league salary to be a lot less and giving no preference to years of service.- Harsher violations of the drug and conduct policy- New contracts to be very performance-based.

The first step would be to implement rules that would force the players to live with rules the rest of us working stiffs have to. Maybe opening training camp now would be too extreme, but mandatory 40 hrs weeks would be feasible. No one could argue that additional film study and structured light workouts wouldn't benefit the team. Not only would that cost the players valued free time, it would force them to live in the city that they are employed year round. Teams could exempt stars or give them more vacation timeNot sure if there's a pension plan, but that would needed to be nixed. Pro-bowl becomes mandatory like business trips trips are for most of us. Basically the owners need to #### can anything that a union would have bargained for in the players behalf in the past that's unrelated to salary.

Im sure the owners will be careful here, they end goal is a CBA and to have the palyers re-unionize. So I imagine the rules will be pretty close to 2010 except for changes to the RFA anf UFA stuff. But who knows the owners havent shown me that they are very smart in all this so far

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So if there is no union and there is no CBA after this year, why do the owners have to split any money with the players?If this becomes a "free market" can't the owners keep all the revenue since it will become more like andemployer/employee relationship than it was previously?

Remember the owners represent 32 different companies that cannot collude (in damn near any fashion) without the CBA.Not only are there anti-trust federal laws, but also state laws. So if (let say) a new owner-group popped up in L.A. how could they possibly disallow a qualified free market team from taking part?They would really have to start watching absolutely everything they did, heck, you could not even trade players.

 

[3nOut]

Nelson's decision also stated that all lockout rules are over, meaning teams must open their facilities and allow workouts.

Parties in the weight rooms tomorrow.

Unless she implicitly stated that they must allow workouts I don't know if this can be enforced. Is it an NFL rule that all teams even require training rooms? I know I'm stretching it a bit here, but what stops a team from removing all training equipment from their facilities or from deciding to close them for remodelling?

 

[todisco1]

Nelson's decision also stated that all lockout rules are over, meaning teams must open their facilities and allow workouts.

Parties in the weight rooms tomorrow.

Unless she implicitly stated that they must allow workouts I don't know if this can be enforced. Is it an NFL rule that all teams even require training rooms? I know I'm stretching it a bit here, but what stops a team from removing all training equipment from their facilities or from deciding to close them for remodelling?

That would be great PR for the owners.

 

[3nOut]

If teams aren't required to sign free agents, they certainly aren't "required" to trade players either. The key question is, are they allowed to? If so, I think a few teams (my Eagles included) will want to get right on that

Can they sign free agents and trade players with the anti-trust lawsuit hanging over their heads? Would they even want to risk doing anything that can later be used against them in court? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the law, but since there is no CBA right now wouldn't they have to comply with Labor laws in which trades are deemed illegal?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

If teams aren't required to sign free agents, they certainly aren't "required" to trade players either. The key question is, are they allowed to? If so, I think a few teams (my Eagles included) will want to get right on that

Can they sign free agents and trade players with the anti-trust lawsuit hanging over their heads? Would they even want to risk doing anything that can later be used against them in court? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the law, but since there is no CBA right now wouldn't they have to comply with Labor laws in which trades are deemed illegal?

If you look a few pages back I asked the same question about trades, but I guess its standard language in contracts that the contracts can be trasnfered between teams. But I would think that if challenged in courts trades would be illegal

 

[Football Critic]

A few things...

1) The league will always determine the start of the league year, they can not be force to sign or trade players. Just because she lifted the lockout does not mean that football will happen, as we already seen.

2) Their is a difference between The individual teams, and league. Taking the training equip out of the room is a team decision not a league decision, keeping the locks on the door is a league decision. You have to understand the ruling and the difference in league and team decisions here, before coming up with scenerios... but the judge made it her decision, but some owners have not followed her decision.

3) Honestly I find it all hard to believe. Owners who are as stupid as this shock me, to take this case to court and let them decertify, how they even got rich in the first place with these horrible biz practices. Am I wrong for enjoying watching old rich selfish men suffer brutal beats like this in court.

The league without a union has illegal work practices. The judge ruled locking out players who are not unionized is illegal. this decision did not bring back football, just gave out leverage in the CBA negotioations. I look at some posts and see people asking about trades and signings, the decision was not about that.

 

[Football Critic]

If teams aren't required to sign free agents, they certainly aren't "required" to trade players either. The key question is, are they allowed to? If so, I think a few teams (my Eagles included) will want to get right on that

Can they sign free agents and trade players with the anti-trust lawsuit hanging over their heads? Would they even want to risk doing anything that can later be used against them in court? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the law, but since there is no CBA right now wouldn't they have to comply with Labor laws in which trades are deemed illegal?

If you look a few pages back I asked the same question about trades, but I guess its standard language in contracts that the contracts can be trasnfered between teams. But I would think that if challenged in courts trades would be illegal

Players can still be traded to another team legally with or wothout anti trust...a player can consent to a trade. Its like transferring employees to another city in like say "walmart" or something.

 

[Tau837]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

Really? What is Manning likely to get, a 6 year contract at $25M per or something like that? What if Dan Snyder offered him 8 years at $40M per? Do you think he would turn that down? Or is it that you think even the richest and/or most aggressive owners won't make such a pitch? Irsay is just fortunate that Jerry Jones has a QB good enough to keep him from going after him...

 

[JaxBill]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

YEEEEEEEP

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If teams aren't required to sign free agents, they certainly aren't "required" to trade players either. The key question is, are they allowed to? If so, I think a few teams (my Eagles included) will want to get right on that

Can they sign free agents and trade players with the anti-trust lawsuit hanging over their heads? Would they even want to risk doing anything that can later be used against them in court? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the law, but since there is no CBA right now wouldn't they have to comply with Labor laws in which trades are deemed illegal?

Well for one, they would have a very defensible position of acting upon what the judge had ordered them to do... business as usual.

 

[Orange Crush]

A few things...1) The league will always determine the start of the league year, they can not be force to sign or trade players. Just because she lifted the lockout does not mean that football will happen, as we already seen.2) Their is a difference between The individual teams, and league. Taking the training equip out of the room is a team decision not a league decision, keeping the locks on the door is a league decision. You have to understand the ruling and the difference in league and team decisions here, before coming up with scenerios... but the judge made it her decision, but some owners have not followed her decision. 3) Honestly I find it all hard to believe. Owners who are as stupid as this shock me, to take this case to court and let them decertify, how they even got rich in the first place with these horrible biz practices. Am I wrong for enjoying watching old rich selfish men suffer brutal beats like this in court.The league without a union has illegal work practices. The judge ruled locking out players who are not unionized is illegal. this decision did not bring back football, just gave out leverage in the CBA negotioations. I look at some posts and see people asking about trades and signings, the decision was not about that.

The decision was about that. The court order forces the NFL to end the lockout. That means they have to start the league year. The NFL may drag its feet for a few days -- maybe even a couple weeks -- claiming they need to figure out what rules to implement in the absence of CBA protection that will survive antitrust scrutiny. But any delay beyond that is all but guaranteed to be viewed by the Judge as a blatant refusal to abide by her court order (I don't care how many billions you're worth, you do NOT want to piss off a federal judge). And implementing rules means allowing teams to sign free agents and trade players. As the order said, there's no requirement that a team has to sign a free agent. But games are going to be played starting in August, and other teams will have the ability to sign players that could help a team perform in those games, so an individual team refusing to sign anyone is at risk of fielding a poor product and harming their fanbase even more than they already have. A collective decision by all 32 teams not to sign free agents will be seen by the judge as, again, a blatant refusal to abide by her court order.In the meantime, the teams have to open up their doors to their facilities to players already under contract, because most of those players are contractually required to spend X number of days at the facility in the off-season working out, and have large bonuses on the line to ensure their participation. Refusing to allow those players to work out now would be inviting a separate breach of contract suit, potentially allowing the player to declare the entire contract void and allowing him to seek the services of another team (depending on the language found within the contract).

 

[David Dodds]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

Really? What is Manning likely to get, a 6 year contract at $25M per or something like that? What if Dan Snyder offered him 8 years at $40M per? Do you think he would turn that down? Or is it that you think even the richest and/or most aggressive owners won't make such a pitch? Irsay is just fortunate that Jerry Jones has a QB good enough to keep him from going after him...

I just don't think any other owner will offer so much more to Peyton that he would leave. He is a rare exception though.

 

[Orange Crush]

If teams aren't required to sign free agents, they certainly aren't "required" to trade players either. The key question is, are they allowed to? If so, I think a few teams (my Eagles included) will want to get right on that

Can they sign free agents and trade players with the anti-trust lawsuit hanging over their heads? Would they even want to risk doing anything that can later be used against them in court? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the law, but since there is no CBA right now wouldn't they have to comply with Labor laws in which trades are deemed illegal?

It's not labor law in this instance but contract law. Players have signed contracts stating that those contracts can be assigned to third parties (in this case, other teams). The freedom to contract is one of our basic liberties in this country. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that.

 

[Orange Crush]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

Really? What is Manning likely to get, a 6 year contract at $25M per or something like that? What if Dan Snyder offered him 8 years at $40M per? Do you think he would turn that down? Or is it that you think even the richest and/or most aggressive owners won't make such a pitch? Irsay is just fortunate that Jerry Jones has a QB good enough to keep him from going after him...

I just don't think any other owner will offer so much more to Peyton that he would leave. He is a rare exception though.

Just as a hypothetical -- how much do you think Peyton would be worth to, say, the Jaguars? They've been seen as underperforming the past few years and have been struggling to sell tickets, even after blocking off portions of their stadium and slashing ticket prices. Signing Peyton would instantly make them a contender, it would shift the balance in the division, devastating a rival, and would generate instant interest in the local fanbase to promote ticket sales, and increased ticket prices. It may even save the Jaguars for Jacksonville. In 2009 (the last year for which I've got Forbes financials), the Jaguars earned $30M less than the league average in revenue, though they were still profitable to the tune of $26M. You think Peyton is worth $30M a year to them? More? How about to a team who is also in need of a QB, showed a surprising strength to the rest of the squad, and is owned by a man who isn't afraid of pissing off the rest of the league like the Oakland Raiders? They had the lowest revenue in the league in '09 at $33M below average. How much would Al Davis be willing to throw at Peyton (especially if there was no cap)?

PS - The Colts ranked 9th in revenue and 8th in profits that year with numbers $40-$50M higher than the Jags and Raiders, in spite of playing in one of the smallest markets in the league. You think Peyton had anything to do with that?

 

[David Dodds]

The NFL has an out for a little while. That out is that even though the league is open, nothing mandates that the free agency period must start on the 1st day of league business. But come Monday morning they are going to start getting on very thin ice if they don't publish such a schedule and define the terms that teams will play ball under. The owners are going for a full press to get an emergency stay from the Appeals Court, but I personally will be shocked if they get it.

 

[Toads]

The Rookie Draft takes on an unusually significant roll this year in that it preceeds the UFA signing period. As such, it's the first indicator of where teams will look to fill their needs and it will then shape the RFA demand curve as the free agent signing period begins.

As a side note, with the players asking for the enforcement of lockout end, and the court rulings preceding this request, it appears to be leading to the possibility that RFA signings could occur, as two parties are now able to agree to a contract. If you are a NFL FA, you can sign with any team once the team agrees to the contract.

And, that contract window is now open, and it can be tested as soon as two parties are willing to fish in those waters?

As another "for instance": the rookie draft is over, hit the streets to sign UFA talent....right? Standard pratice, right? If we're talking contract law, then there's bound to be some light bulbs that go on in the near future that begin to test these waters, wheter it's an un-drafted FA (UFA) or some other FA that's restricted/not restricted based upon the contingencies of contract law?

 

[3nOut]

3) Honestly I find it all hard to believe. Owners who are as stupid as this shock me, to take this case to court and let them decertify, how they even got rich in the first place with these horrible biz practices. Am I wrong for enjoying watching old rich selfish men suffer brutal beats like this in court.

Can you explain this more because I don't understand. The owners are appelaing a decision that the players took the league to court on. Also, you say let them decertify. How could the league stop them?

 

[David Dodds]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

Really? What is Manning likely to get, a 6 year contract at $25M per or something like that? What if Dan Snyder offered him 8 years at $40M per? Do you think he would turn that down? Or is it that you think even the richest and/or most aggressive owners won't make such a pitch? Irsay is just fortunate that Jerry Jones has a QB good enough to keep him from going after him...

I just don't think any other owner will offer so much more to Peyton that he would leave. He is a rare exception though.

Just as a hypothetical -- how much do you think Peyton would be worth to, say, the Jaguars? They've been seen as underperforming the past few years and have been struggling to sell tickets, even after blocking off portions of their stadium and slashing ticket prices. Signing Peyton would instantly make them a contender, it would shift the balance in the division, devastating a rival, and would generate instant interest in the local fanbase to promote ticket sales, and increased ticket prices. It may even save the Jaguars for Jacksonville. In 2009 (the last year for which I've got Forbes financials), the Jaguars earned $30M less than the league average in revenue, though they were still profitable to the tune of $26M. You think Peyton is worth $30M a year to them? More? How about to a team who is also in need of a QB, showed a surprising strength to the rest of the squad, and is owned by a man who isn't afraid of pissing off the rest of the league like the Oakland Raiders? They had the lowest revenue in the league in '09 at $33M below average. How much would Al Davis be willing to throw at Peyton (especially if there was no cap)?

I think Peyton would be worth a lot to a lot of teams. With no salary cap, the best of the best are going to see some really juicy offers. Its possible some rich owner makes it extremely tempting to pry him away from the Colts. For a team like the Jaguars, the pain to the Colts would be double as they are also a Division opponent.

 

[roadkill1292]

Changing the subject a little, does anyone think Roger gets booed when he comes out tomorrow night. We were talking about that today in my office. Not significant, but the owners just seem to be tanking in the public eye.

I will have a good chuckle if/when this happens. After so many years of utter adoration, it will be amusing to see the face of the league squirming in discomfort.

 

[David Dodds]

The Rookie Draft takes on an unusually significant roll this year in that it preceeds the UFA signing period. As such, it's the first indicator of where teams will look to fill their needs and it will then shape the RFA demand curve as the free agent signing period begins.As a side note, with the players asking for the enforcement of lockout end, and the court rulings preceding this request, it appears to be leading to the possibility that RFA signings could occur, as two parties are now able to agree to a contract. If you are a NFL FA, you can sign with any team once the team agrees to the contract.And, that contract window is now open, and it can be tested as soon as two parties are willing to fish in those waters?As another "for instance": the rookie draft is over, hit the streets to sign UFA talent....right? Standard pratice, right? If we're talking contract law, then there's bound to be some light bulbs that go on in the near future that begin to test these waters, wheter it's an un-drafted FA (UFA) or some other FA that's restricted/not restricted based upon the contingencies of contract law?

Yes this is going to get interesting. After the draft, teams sign all kinds of undrafted players right away (sometimes as many as 10 per team). If they are signing them, but not veteran free agents, why is that? If the NFL tells their teams they can't sign these rookies yet, they could be subject to a collusion lawsuit. The league needs to publish their operating rules now. They surely have planned for the possibility that they would lose this lawsuit.

 

[WVU Alum]

How about to a team who is also in need of a QB, showed a surprising strength to the rest of the squad, and is owned by a man who isn't afraid of pissing off the rest of the league like the Oakland Raiders? They had the lowest revenue in the league in '09 at $33M below average. How much would Al Davis be willing to throw at Peyton (especially if there was no cap)?

Oh, please let this happen. Please, please, please!

 

[Toads]

The Rookie Draft takes on an unusually significant roll this year in that it preceeds the UFA signing period. As such, it's the first indicator of where teams will look to fill their needs and it will then shape the RFA demand curve as the free agent signing period begins.

As a side note, with the players asking for the enforcement of lockout end, and the court rulings preceding this request, it appears to be leading to the possibility that RFA signings could occur, as two parties are now able to agree to a contract. If you are a NFL FA, you can sign with any team once the team agrees to the contract.

And, that contract window is now open, and it can be tested as soon as two parties are willing to fish in those waters?

As another "for instance": the rookie draft is over, hit the streets to sign UFA talent....right? Standard pratice, right? If we're talking contract law, then there's bound to be some light bulbs that go on in the near future that begin to test these waters, wheter it's an un-drafted FA (UFA) or some other FA that's restricted/not restricted based upon the contingencies of contract law?

Yes this is going to get interesting. After the draft, teams sign all kinds of undrafted players right away (sometimes as many as 10 per team). If they are signing them, but not veteran free agents, why is that? If the NFL tells their teams they can't sign these rookies yet, they could be subject to a collusion lawsuit. The league needs to publish their operating rules now. They surely have planned for the possibility that they would lose this lawsuit.

Yes, we are avoiding the COLLUSION word here but I believe that if the Owner's act in good faith, the SCARLET "C" word can be avoided.Now then, if they don't choose to do that.......?

 

[Orange Crush]

Sports Law professor Michael McCann has an article up at SI.com regarding the different scenarios. Its worth reading generally, but he does a good job of not really saying anything. He does recommend, though, that the NFL not have a cap or franchise tags in their new rules. Which seems obvious, but with the poor legal tactics the NFL has been following so far, you never know.

 

[renesauz]

It is a tactic which means it is a sham. Decertification means that a union will no longer represent a group of individuals for collective bargaining purposes. This is a tactic by which they gain traction in their collective bargaining attempts.

It's a legal loophole which can only be closed by congress. The players are taking advantage of the laws as they now stand. I despise the morality, but it doesn't make it any less "legal".The owners are fighting this in the wrong place...they should be fighting in Washington, not a midwest courtroom.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

It is a tactic which means it is a sham. Decertification means that a union will no longer represent a group of individuals for collective bargaining purposes. This is a tactic by which they gain traction in their collective bargaining attempts.

It's a legal loophole which can only be closed by congress. The players are taking advantage of the laws as they now stand. I despise the morality, but it doesn't make it any less "legal".The owners are fighting this in the wrong place...they should be fighting in Washington, not a midwest courtroom.

yeah Im sure Congress has nothing better to do. The players took the NFL to court, not the other way around.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

At least some people think the NFL will prevail on appeal http://www.cbssports.com/#!/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/28896206

 

[renesauz]

Not unless they get a stay. As I understand it, failure to negotiate with free agents would be illegal. This is really close to unraveling for the owners.

Failure to negotiate with free agents is fine. Concerted failure to negotiate with free agents would be illegal.But that doesn't mean that negotiation has to start now. The league year will start now, but the free agency period doesn't have to begin on day one of the league year. The owners can set rules specifying when free agency begins, and it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable to wait until at least a few days after the draft.

What, exactly, IS the "league year"? Free agency is not normally open during the draft, so why should it be now?Obviously, teams need to open their weightrooms, hand out playbooks, have their normal meetings with players, open up trades, etc. etc. They need to establish a reasonable league calender ASAP. That does NOT mean they need to open up free agency.Opening up free agency the same day the draft starts is NOT reasonable, and NOT in accordance with any past league calender. Free agency, logically, should not start for a week or two, maybe 3 weeks tops, but it shouldn't start today. I don't think that anyone would reasonably interpret the ruling to mean EVERY aspect of business should open today, because EVERY aspect of NFL business is not open every day of the year.

 

[Orange Crush]

It is a tactic which means it is a sham. Decertification means that a union will no longer represent a group of individuals for collective bargaining purposes. This is a tactic by which they gain traction in their collective bargaining attempts.

It's a legal loophole which can only be closed by congress. The players are taking advantage of the laws as they now stand. I despise the morality, but it doesn't make it any less "legal".The owners are fighting this in the wrong place...they should be fighting in Washington, not a midwest courtroom.

Yes, I can't believe how a company's workforce no longer wants to be unionized. Unions are a great thing. So great, that Congress should step in and force them on all companies! [/sarcasm]

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Sports Law professor Michael McCann has an article up at SI.com regarding the different scenarios. Its worth reading generally, but he does a good job of not really saying anything. He does recommend, though, that the NFL not have a cap or franchise tags in their new rules. Which seems obvious, but with the poor legal tactics the NFL has been following so far, you never know.

Interesting point is that he states that the issue of a salary cap has not been determined to violate anti-trust law (he posits that it does, but that it hasn't been decided). This is counter to Maurile's assertion that a salary cap is a 'per se' violation.

The compatibility of the NFL salary cap with antitrust law has yet to be determined, as the salary cap did not become part of the NFL until the league had begun collectively-bargaining with the NFLPA. If the NFL imposes a salary cap, a player or group of players could file an antitrust lawsuit that would mimic arguments made in Tom Brady et al. v. NFL: the salary cap is illegal absent collective bargaining.

<br style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Sports Law professor Michael McCann has an article up at SI.com regarding the different scenarios. Its worth reading generally, but he does a good job of not really saying anything. He does recommend, though, that the NFL not have a cap or franchise tags in their new rules. Which seems obvious, but with the poor legal tactics the NFL has been following so far, you never know.

Interesting point is that he states that the issue of a salary cap has not been determined to violate anti-trust law (he posits that it does, but that it hasn't been decided). This is counter to Maurile's assertion that a salary cap is a 'per se' violation.

The compatibility of the NFL salary cap with antitrust law has yet to be determined, as the salary cap did not become part of the NFL until the league had begun collectively-bargaining with the NFLPA. If the NFL imposes a salary cap, a player or group of players could file an antitrust lawsuit that would mimic arguments made in Tom Brady et al. v. NFL: the salary cap is illegal absent collective bargaining.

<br style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">

I dont think I would call it a salary cap, but a budget, and each team can set their own. The company I work for has one for employees. That could totally tilt competitive balance but so what?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It is a tactic which means it is a sham. Decertification means that a union will no longer represent a group of individuals for collective bargaining purposes. This is a tactic by which they gain traction in their collective bargaining attempts.

It's a legal loophole which can only be closed by congress. The players are taking advantage of the laws as they now stand. I despise the morality, but it doesn't make it any less "legal".The owners are fighting this in the wrong place...they should be fighting in Washington, not a midwest courtroom.

Yes, I can't believe how a company's workforce no longer wants to be unionized. Unions are a great thing. So great, that Congress should step in and force them on all companies! [/sarcasm]

I get your sarcasm. I don't think company's workforces should be forced to unionize. I do think that Congress should strongly consider expanding the anti-trust exemption for the NFL to a few other key topics (draft, salary cap, salary floor, roster limits, league size) which recognize that certain 'controls' make sense in the context of professional sports because as a business model, it is different from any other. Beyond that, I think that sets the table for a more equitable negotiation between the NFL and either a union or individual players set up. 

 

[Orange Crush]

Sports Law professor Michael McCann has an article up at SI.com regarding the different scenarios. Its worth reading generally, but he does a good job of not really saying anything. He does recommend, though, that the NFL not have a cap or franchise tags in their new rules. Which seems obvious, but with the poor legal tactics the NFL has been following so far, you never know.

Interesting point is that he states that the issue of a salary cap has not been determined to violate anti-trust law (he posits that it does, but that it hasn't been decided). This is counter to Maurile's assertion that a salary cap is a 'per se' violation.

The compatibility of the NFL salary cap with antitrust law has yet to be determined, as the salary cap did not become part of the NFL until the league had begun collectively-bargaining with the NFLPA. If the NFL imposes a salary cap, a player or group of players could file an antitrust lawsuit that would mimic arguments made in Tom Brady et al. v. NFL: the salary cap is illegal absent collective bargaining.

Yes, but then McCann proceeds to do the Rule of Reason analysis which shows, quite clearly I think, that there is not adequate procompetitive reasons to overcome the harm to the player salary market.But I agree with Maurile. I would categorize a salary cap as a per se violation. Even in this day and age where courts are loathe to declare anything a per se violation.

 

[renesauz]

A few things...3) Honestly I find it all hard to believe. Owners who are as stupid as this shock me, to take this case to court and let them decertify, how they even got rich in the first place with these horrible biz practices. Am I wrong for enjoying watching old rich selfish men suffer brutal beats like this in court.

So, how do the owners draw a line in negotiations? What's their "nuclear option?" The owners DID deperately want to keep this out of the courts. WE've been talking for months how it was odd that the players hired LITIGATORS instead of NEGOTIATORS to represent them. HOW do the OWNERS control their own league if the players are, quite literrally, able to dictate terms? More than one person predicted that there would be no CBA before decertification, because the players wanted to maximize their leverage.The "nuclear option" of Union decertification, is, IMO, an unfair and unreasonable negotiating power. WHether such a move was legal or not is immaterial. Whether the player's demands were reasonable or not is immaterial. The traditional power of Unions is via a strike, not a decertification. Isn't it ironic that only pro sports leagues unions actually gain an ADVANTAGE via this move? How is that reasonable?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

 

[shader]

Owners playing with FIRE this morning. They've locked their facilities and aren't letting players enter.

It's one thing to not sign players...but they are basically turning their back on the judge's ruling.

I just can't believe that they would be so stupid.

 

[Hoosier16]

Maybe opening training camp now would be too extreme, but mandatory 40 hrs weeks would be feasible. No one could argue that additional film study and structured light workouts wouldn't benefit the team. Not only would that cost the players valued free time, it would force them to live in the city that they are employed year round. Teams could exempt stars or give them more vacation time

Now that would be absolutely beautiful. It would certainly give the other guys a glimpse into the future of the NFL without a CBA.