sihaokills
Footballguy
This is great. I hope every team goes to their facilities and work out and watch tape. Show those damn owners that they wanna f***** play the game. Wow football is back for now, no more high school football fields kick out
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
David Dodds
Administrator
The players should be able to get their playbooks and talk to the assistants. I am happy about this, because this could easily start the process of healing here.I fully expect the NFL to decide on some rules over the next two days and for free agency to open in time for the draft.
I think you're underestimating the effect of not having a league minimum salary. There aren't really any other leagues where the majority (over 2/3) of the players are playing at or very near the league minimums. Once that artificial support is removed, you now have the majority of the league making much less than they would have with a CBA in place. The players will split before the owners.
David Dodds
Administrator
Except a lot of those things are written into contracts now (games played, performance bonuses if they take X snaps or run for X yards, etc). Why would half the league make less money? Most have contracts already. They are going to get paid the same as before. And do you really expect the Daniel Snyder's not to bid up this current round of free agents with no salary cap in place? The owners collectively "colluded" last year to keep salaries down, but I doubt they play that game with lawsuits already pending. The owners that choose to cut payroll, etc will lose their fanbase quickly when their teams suck. And I doubt the rich owners will share all TV revenue equally after this deal if no CBA is in place (especially if some franchises spend real low). This will essentially force the weakest hands to sell their teams to owners wealthier and more willing to lose money to field a competitive team. In the end the players get a lot better deals than they currently have. I suspect the owners know all this too though and will be looking to get some kind of CBA in place soon.
az_prof
Footballguy
I disagree. The power of stars like Brady, Manning, ADP, and such is so great that teams will pay a fortune for them. I suspect that what will happen is that the top players will get more; borderline players and backups may get less. Overall, players will get more. And that's capitalism where people are paid according to their merits.
How are you disagreeing? Sure a few stars will make more, but a majority of the league will make less. The last 1/3 of most NFL rosters and guys playing in the arena league / CFL is a coin flip. You're going to end up with three groups...the owners, the star players, and the rank and file players.
Contracts aren't guaranteed. Cut the non key players and re-sign them (or a player like them) to a new $100k contract. Why pay a long snapper with 12 years experience 800k+?
loose circuits
Footballguy
because the FG battery is important?
Most of those contracts aren't guaranteed. It would be no problem for the owner's to jettision the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of their talent pool. I can't imagine a more than 1-2 punters/kickers making more than 100k.I don't quite see it the same way you do. Today's revenue is driven by everyone watching on TV. Bottom line is that you're talking about 16 revenue producing events per team. These player's can't expect a baseball or NBA type of paychecks without putting in that type of working/performing hours unless the product as a whole is growing.
For 6-7 plays per game? When forced to pay a minimum salary, paying a 12 year vet 800 vs an 8 year vet 600 might be worth it. But when the difference is 800 vs 100, it doesn't make sense.
Their are plenty of people who can long snap. Without a CBA you could bring in 5 news ones every week to compete for the job. You could also make the $100K guy do nothing but practice snapping 40 hours a week less 3 hours of game time for 50 weeks of the year.
loose circuits
Footballguy
long snapper is a pretty important position. If you get a good one, 800k isn't a whole lot when you look at the big picture and what a missed FG can cost or snap over the punters head. I wouldn't want to be shuffling players off my roster at that position.
Heck, I might even long snap for a year for free just because it might grow my business opportunities elsewhere. The owners could help accomodate this by not allowing the long snapper to be hit. Heck, even if i'm not that great the owner's could implement a 3 "mississippi" rush requirement so I'd just have to the the snap close. Of course the owner's could eliminate the long snapper from the game by changing the rules to start with the ball in the holder's / punters hands.
Maybe the new kickoff rule was put into place in part to make special teams players less valuable. It's a lot easier to pay one kicker than to pay 10 special teams players.
David Dodds
Administrator
so this is all about the long snappers now? Why does anybody think anybody cares about them or the journeyman 3rd quarterback, etc? Yes a team can cut a bunch of guys that make $800K. But some teams will be willing to grab some of these guys at that price. Those players who really are worthless will make substantially less. But unless all the owners are colluding again, don't expect everyone to say kickers will never earn more than $100K a year. Because some owner (without a cap) will be willing to pay more.
Collectively owners will pay more for salaries if they blow up the cap and minimums because as owners they are competitive.
and if this system continues, TV revenue will not be evenly split. When a team like Buffalo is not on any TV games, they soon will receive less than a team like the Cowboys who are on all the time. I could even see teams like the Cowboys negotiating their own pay per view channel away from Direct TV.
There was a reason the owners are trying to call decertification a sham. They want to argue this against a union. If we have seen the last of the CBAs, it is just a matter of time before salaries are way more expensive than they currently are.
Collectively owners will pay more for salaries if they blow up the cap and minimums because as owners they are competitive.
and if this system continues, TV revenue will not be evenly split. When a team like Buffalo is not on any TV games, they soon will receive less than a team like the Cowboys who are on all the time. I could even see teams like the Cowboys negotiating their own pay per view channel away from Direct TV.
There was a reason the owners are trying to call decertification a sham. They want to argue this against a union. If we have seen the last of the CBAs, it is just a matter of time before salaries are way more expensive than they currently are.
Last edited by a moderator:
More short term, sure thing. Longer term, who knows.The problem with your TV theory is that Dallas will only control 8 games. Cowboy fans aren't going to be happy when Buffalo isn't letting the Cowboys broadcast their game. Jerry isn't going to be happy when Buffalo's ownership wants $40 per viewer for the Cowboy's to broadcast the road game.Yes the owner's want a CBA and so do 90% of the players.
Last edited by a moderator:
Many want to make things appear like a few teams are going to run roughshod over everyone else. Dallas can only get so big on it's own. The reality is that they have to play someone else to have a product so they'll have to share the wealth ande have a vested interest in the the other teams. They could always form other Dallas teams/franchises to play against, but then they would be in the the problem of becoming a league.
Catbird
Footballguy
I see no way this will be resolved in a couple of days (or weeks). There are dozens of issues that were controlled by a CBA that is no longer in effect. Everyone (okay, almost everyone) on both sides realizeas that an agreement is the only way to maintain the draft, free agency rules, a salary structure and long term competitive balance. The profits of both player and owners are protected and guaranteed by both sides reaching an agreement. I don't think the goal of operating under an agreement has ever seriously been at issue. Its just that if the players can't be locked out the owners don't have the economic advantage they hoped. The players would take back the old deal. The owners will not. At the very least, an appeal goes forward (with the CA stay likely granted because of the chaos existing without it for rules with no other agreement in place) and the parties negotiate further. It seems to me the players would be wise to make a deal that compromises where they can (18 games, rookie salary scale and what they can negotiate on salary share while the owners too are in doubt, because if the players win the appeal, they are pretty much right where they are now - negotiating a CBA with no lockout threat. If they lose it though, they have to virtually accept whatever the owners offer or get starved out.
Football Critic
Footballguy
Hmmmm, I got blasted for referencing the same thing in another thread, lol.She had her mind made up before she even heard arguments, and its was a political and personal decision. However if it brings football, I dont care. But it dont mean it was the right decision though.On this however, no transactions are allowed to happen until the NFL starts its league year, and the NFL determines the start date with or without the CBA. The judge can force their hand but the league will argue the chaos will prevent them from starting instantly and they will win that.Lockout will just let them in the building, after clarification, we will know more.'BusterTBronco said:
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I think we should care though, regardless of whether it brings football.
Then care enough to do some research on labor laws. They clearly favor the players. This idea that Judge Nelson was in the tank for the players because of her political biases is a fantasy. If anything, the ruling for the players who voluntarily disbanded their union and challenged the league's free market restrictions is a conservative ruling.
Football Critic
Footballguy
they clearly did not disband, they were always acting as a union.
Last edited by a moderator:
Common sense would say that's true. The law doesn't care about common sense. The players voted and the union legally decertified and reformed as a trade union.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Trade Association.The players will always hire some sort of representation. Just as the owners will.
Football Critic
Footballguy
Its funny how law dont look at common sense huh? lol
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Because simple common sense is sometimes wrong. That's why they try and make the laws to be exacting and deliberate.In your day-to-day life common sense is grand, but when it comes to the law... it has to be refined and finite.
Just as a person may not understand that Trade Associations are common, and they are also not a Union.
Even though Trade Association may hire many of the same reps that a Union would also hire.
But understand this, none of the players are locked into what another players-rep bargains/agrees to with the owners.
Last edited by a moderator:
southeastjerome
Footballguy
Ok, so do any of you legal mavens know how long this appeal by the owners will take to get sorted out? Days? Weeks? Months?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
By june per lester munson
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Don't be ridiculous. A judge's personal beliefs always come into play in interpreting the law. The people who simply say "the law is the law" and the judges are just there to enforce it are clearly oversimplifying. If it were that black and white, a sixth grader could be a judge. The fact of the matter is that the law, all law, is open for interpretation. The judge in this case (and indeed in all cases) have to interpret the law, but always bring their personal beliefs to the table about how the law should be interpreted/who the law is designed to protect. A judge could very easily have stayed within the law and ruled that the players would not be irreparably harmed by a lockout. A judge could have issued a stay by simply stating that even if the players prevailed, there is no damage to the players that could not be compensated for by a financial award.
This judge wan't "in the tank" for the players, but her personal beliefs certainly influenced how she ruled on this case (and, in particular, her ruling to not stay the injunction pending appeal). To suggest otherwise is patently foolish and naive.
The owners are hoping to get a more favorable ruling on appeal, however, the things that can be reviewed on appeal are far more limited and therefore being overturned is far less likely. If I had to guess, the owners will be hammering the jurisdictional on appeal. They presented a bunch of evidence on that issue at trial and this will be one of the issues reviewable by the Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals interprets the law regarding jurisdiction in favor of the owners, then this whole case never happened and we go back in front of the NLRB. A longshot, but the owner's best shot at this point.
So are Unions
Refined and finite also means law is fallible. It means that legal does NOT always = right or moral. These laws were never meant to cover Billionares squabling with millionares.
So you believe it's right or moral to give the players no other option than to accept whatever the owners want or find another profession? Because that's the only other alternative to this. I don't see how that's acceptable when the NFL is the only major professional football league in existence.
Absolutely not. If that's what I (unintentionally) implied, I'm sorry. Players absolutely SHOULD have bargaining power. What I'm saying is that American Needle and our labor laws (written as they are for normal people in normal jobs) give them more negotiating power than is reasonable. They have the very real power to DESTROY the NFL as it has existed (and made them rich). That power makes their demands less like negotiation, and more like extortion.My primary argument is against using dated labor laws against an enterprise where they don't make sense, by folks making an average of over 2.5 million dollars, when those laws were designed for a VERY differant type of labor dispute between Billionares and common men in the BOTTOM 10% income brackets.Too many people are equating Legal with "right". Such a moral position is simple, but it's also somewhat juvenile.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Great post renesauz. That's the real question for the legal minds, why don't professional sports have different labor laws? They're clearly different. MT?
fatness
Footballguy
The NFL needs to hire different lawyers. The current ones have led them down a dead-end road where so far they've been beaten at every step, and there's a good chance those beatings will continue.The NFL wanted:1. to be able to lock out the players2. to use $4 billion in TV money to tide themselves over during the lockoutThey lost on both points so far. If I had to guess, their lawyers are telling the owners what they want to hear ("you're in charge, you own the teams, you can do what you want") and not giving them realistic legal advice. The NFL has a terrible record in court, they usually lose, and they're losing again at the moment.'Maurile Tremblay said:
Hedgehog
Footballguy
Does the appeal have to in essence overturn/find errors in the original decision or affirm it - or does it essentially start from scratch with the 8th Circ al over again?
From PFT:"All that matters for now is whether the players have shown that they have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial, a standard used most recently by the 8th Circuit in a case decided in 2008. For the purposes of the appeal, the judges would be required to find that Judge Nelson abused her discretion in concluding that the players have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial."So basically, things don't start from scratch.
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
The stay is granted until Wednesday. Is this another win for the players?
Jason Wood
Zoo York
I think people are getting ahead of themselves.
Not that everything in this situation is easily predicted, but it seems unlikely the NFL won't get a stay here, and then it's up to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
As fans, and fantasy players, we want the 8th Circuit Court to uphold the lower court's injunction, obviously. In that case, we'll go back immediately to business as usual under 2010 rules (or perhaps, if the owners feel it's smart leverage, the "last, best" offer that was articulated a month or so ago).
But if the 8th Circuit overturns the ruling? Then we're back to square one, if not even more behind the 8 ball as the owners feel emboldened to dig in.
Not that everything in this situation is easily predicted, but it seems unlikely the NFL won't get a stay here, and then it's up to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
As fans, and fantasy players, we want the 8th Circuit Court to uphold the lower court's injunction, obviously. In that case, we'll go back immediately to business as usual under 2010 rules (or perhaps, if the owners feel it's smart leverage, the "last, best" offer that was articulated a month or so ago).
But if the 8th Circuit overturns the ruling? Then we're back to square one, if not even more behind the 8 ball as the owners feel emboldened to dig in.
shader
Footballguy
The stay hasn't been granted. The players have until Wednesday morning at 9am to respond to the league's request. At that time, it looks like she will respond. If she denies the stay, it's POSSIBLE that we'll have business as usual. If she grants the stay, this mess is all in the future and it's time to focus on the draft.
What legal people are expecting the stay to be granted or the Court of Appeals to overturn this other than the NFL's lawyers? The appeals court has to find that the judge abused her discretion in concluding that the players have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial.
Football Critic
Footballguy
Who knows?...but it would be sweet as heck if free agency and trading started the day of the draft, lol.Could the league ask for worse timing.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Most legal opinions I've seen in the last 12+ hours suggest a stay should be expected, because the idea of forcing business to reopen with an appeal pending (which could shut it down in a few weeks again) would be damaging to all sides. Now as to the 8th Circuit Court? I have no idea how that will go. The ownership feels confident they're going to win in appeal because of the makeup of the court (13 of 16 8th Circuit judges are "pro business" GOP appointees), but as you note, they need to determine the lower court judge abused her discretion, and by most accounts her 89-page ruling was very thorough in order to avoid that potential outcome.So I think, ultimately, we get back to business in a few weeks after the 8th Circuit has weighed in, not before.
zadok
Footballguy
Right. And it's not like the players are going to agree to the let the lockout continue pending appeal. The owners are playing a very dangerous game.
Premier
Footballguy
I don't know what Wood has been reading but a stay isn't coming. The basis for Nelson's decision was that a lockout would cause irreparable harm to the players. There's no reason at all to expect her to reverse course and then grant a stay.
The NFL will be open for business sometime in the next week.
The NFL will be open for business sometime in the next week.
zadok
Footballguy
What's to stop the players from "responding" in the next 10 minutes with "hell no" and bau to resume within the hour?
Heatman
Footballguy
Capitalism is letting the owners of business run their business and decide who to hire and what to pay them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CapitalismSocialism is letting the government and the employees have equal power with the owners in deciding how to run their business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism'az_prof said:
As far as the "Slavery" BS. A slave is defined as someone who is held against their will and forced to work without compensation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
No one is forcing the players to play, they are EXTREMELY well paid and they can quit any time they want to. If you say the players have the right to work you are correct, but to say they have the right to play in the NFL you are incorrect, the NFL can hire who they want to when they want to. Having the right to work means you can go get a job wherever someone will hire you, just go look. By letting the government tell the NFL how to run their business and giving the players a majority of profits through legal means they are treading very close to socialism. If the players were being treated bad with little compensation I could see an argument for what they are asking, back in the 70's and even into the 80's there was a need for more compensation for the players. But what they are getting today and asking for is plain and simple greed. BUT most people see it as greed by the owners? They OWN the business and therefore have the right to make money from said business, they also pay their employees very well but those employees now think they have the right to make most of the money? Heck the owners aren't even asking to keep most of the profits, they simply want it split equally but that's not good enough for the players, they want to and have to have it all.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/judge-nelson-gives-players-until-wednesday-to-respond-to-stay/She hasn't and won't rule on the stay until 9AM CT tomorrow. While indications are that she will likely deny the stay, the issue of irreparable harm vis-a-vis the lockout and irreparable harm vis-a-vis the stay are two different animals and she's only issued her opinion regarding the first.
I imagine the NFL will argue that the greater irreparable harm will be to the league as no one knows what 'open for business' means in the post CBA world of the NFL and that once Pandora's Box is opened, closing it may be difficult...compare this to the 'irreparable harm' to the players (who can ultimately be fully compensated with money damages) and I think a stay is at least a reasonable possibility, this despite the judge's predisposition to support the players. The NFL better be using this time to determine some rules. And if the players are smart, they WON'T challenge them in court...at least not yet.
Once it gets to appeal (stay or no stay) it seems the owner's best bet is to challenge jurisdiction. Not saying that Judge Nelson got it wrong, but that she didn't have jurisdiction over the parties to even make such a decision. If they were to prevail there (and I think it unlikely, but certainly not impossible), this whole thing gets kicked - likely to the jurisdiction of the NLRB.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
This hasn't happened in MLB and I doubt it would happen in the NFL. The difference in revenue the Yankees and Braves get from their TV broadcasting rights dwarfs what the Indians and Pirates get in TV revenue yet they still play and broadcast the games.Without salary caps/minimums and revenue sharing it wouldn't be long before the Steelers and Packers turn into the Pirates while the Cowboys and Redskins turn into the Yankees.'BassNBrew said:
Last edited by a moderator:
