Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

The player bashers OWNER BASHERS in this topic better hurry up. Not much time left to say how worthless, ungrateful, and ignorant they are before you go back to watching and cheering them LAUNDRY on Sundays.

FIXED. Seems like a win-win deal to me. But, the fact that the players are pushing for an opt-out clause and the owners are not suggests the owners are happier with this deal than the players are, no?

 

[fatness]

I knew you'd be the first reply. Get you digs in at the players quick, cobalt. You'll be cheering them like crazy soon.

 

[cobalt_27]

I knew you'd be the first reply. Get you digs in at the players quick, cobalt. You'll be cheering them like crazy soon.

I'm working on it!

 

[eakfootball]

ESPN just said that if the players agree on the deal then teams can start to sign there own free agents on saterday July 30th, then the full free agency would begin on August 2nd.

 

[JaxBill]

So since there's no 7 year opt-out, what concession did the players get, aside from the limited padded practices?

 

[fatness]

ESPN has upped the language and certainty of their report that says the process to end the lockout will start with a vote Monday.

No longer is a meeting between the NFLPA* executive committee “expected.” Now the players have bought tickets and are flying in Sunday for a Monday meeting. No longer are there a few minor points left to figure out. Adam Schefter reports the two sides “have reached agreement” on the remaining issues. “Despite the fact the new deal will require a majority vote from the players, that part of the deal between the two sides is considered a formality, according to sources,” Schefter writes.

The timeline we laid out last night remains. While it’s not official, some teams could potentially report to their team facilities Wednesday. The two sides would hope to have enough players officially vote to open free agency and training camp next Saturday. These dates remain subject to tweaking, but the report of an agreement apparently does not.

link

 

[dehaven123]

once ratified, is the CBA a doc that will allowed for public viewing?

 

[fatness]

After this is settled and players are playing football again, this will be the next labor-management dispute.

The NFL players successfully have beaten back the league’s desire to expand (i.e., enhance) the regular season from 16 to 18 games. For now.

A source with knowledge of the terms of the deal approved by the owners on Thursday tells PFT that, while the new CBA removes the league’s unilateral right to expand from 16 to 18 games (while keeping four preseason games, if so desired), the agreement gives the league the ability to shift to a 16-and-2 format without the input or approval of the post-asterisked NFLPA.

The thinking is that, if the players decline in the future to agree to move to 18 games (which would push the season deeper into the winter months) and cut the preseason from four games to two, the league would simply invoke its right to cut the preseason in half. With the players now getting 48 percent of the gross, the players would lose 48 percent of the revenue lost from a reduced preseason.

And that’s where the owners once again are badly underestimating the players. As we’ve learned over the last 60 hours, the players don’t care about the preseason nearly as much as the owners do.

 

[fatness]

once ratified, is the CBA a doc that will allowed for public viewing?

I hope so, but I really don't know.

 

[Cripster]

So since there's no 7 year opt-out, what concession did the players get, aside from the limited padded practices?

I think what they got was the choice to re-certify the NFLPA the way they wanted, not the way the owners spelled out Thursday. Though their de-certification strategy did not ultimately help them in the 8th circuit, it is valuable to them in negotiations and they would like to keep that weapon in reserve for the future. They felt the owners map for re-certification would weaken the players argument that the de-certification was valid. There may be other things.

 

[cobalt_27]

So since there's no 7 year opt-out, what concession did the players get, aside from the limited padded practices?

I think what they got was the choice to re-certify the NFLPA the way they wanted, not the way the owners spelled out Thursday. Though their de-certification strategy did not ultimately help them in the 8th circuit, it is valuable to them in negotiations and they would like to keep that weapon in reserve for the future. They felt the owners map for re-certification would weaken the players argument that the de-certification was valid. There may be other things.

Exactly. It's a sham device, but they have to do everything they can to legally maintain the argument that it was a "serious" and "legitimate" choice.

 

[GregR_2]

And just because a side says they want something doesn't mean the other side has to concede something to keep it out. Sometimes if you want something, you have to concede something to get it in. Just depends on how strong the other side feels about it and how strong you feel about it.

 

[Insomniac]

once ratified, is the CBA a doc that will allowed for public viewing?

The previous CBA was available on the NFLPA site. This one probably will be too at some point.

 

[dehaven123]

once ratified, is the CBA a doc that will allowed for public viewing?

The previous CBA was available on the NFLPA site. This one probably will be too at some point.

nice. good coffee read on a lazy sat/sun morning...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

once ratified, is the CBA a doc that will allowed for public viewing?

It always has been in the past . . .

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So since there's no 7 year opt-out, what concession did the players get, aside from the limited padded practices?

I think what they got was the choice to re-certify the NFLPA the way they wanted, not the way the owners spelled out Thursday. Though their de-certification strategy did not ultimately help them in the 8th circuit, it is valuable to them in negotiations and they would like to keep that weapon in reserve for the future. They felt the owners map for re-certification would weaken the players argument that the de-certification was valid. There may be other things.

I wouldn't say that. If they hadn't decertified, their case would have been dismissed. Since they had decertified, their case was allowed to proceed and the players were allowed to pursue a claim for damages. They couldn't get a preliminary injunction, but that was only a small part of the battle.

 

[cobalt_27]

So since there's no 7 year opt-out, what concession did the players get, aside from the limited padded practices?

I think what they got was the choice to re-certify the NFLPA the way they wanted, not the way the owners spelled out Thursday. Though their de-certification strategy did not ultimately help them in the 8th circuit, it is valuable to them in negotiations and they would like to keep that weapon in reserve for the future. They felt the owners map for re-certification would weaken the players argument that the de-certification was valid. There may be other things.

I wouldn't say that. If they hadn't decertified, their case would have been dismissed. Since they had decertified, their case was allowed to proceed and the players were allowed to pursue a claim for damages. They couldn't get a preliminary injunction, but that was only a small part of the battle.

But, I think the question is whether or not the anti-trust suit was necessary from a bargaining position in the first place. I don't think the owners were at all moved or scared by this because I don't think they felt the players would hold out a year to test it out in the first place. And, I don't think the players had any intention of holding out a year+ to do it, either. The main motivating factor (from my perspective) was time. They both wanted to get a new CBA before the season started. What the anti-trust suit did bring the players was the possibility that the lockout would be lifted. But, that obviously didn't work out well for them (albeit for the 10 minutes they had a few months ago). Otherwise, I don't think it served much purpose or gave them any more leverage than the fact that we were in July and were at the 11th hour before games and income were going to be lost.

 

[King of the Jungle]

ESPN reporting both sides agree....

 

[ThePittbully]

ESPN has upped the language and certainty of their report that says the process to end the lockout will start with a vote Monday.

No longer is a meeting between the NFLPA* executive committee “expected.” Now the players have bought tickets and are flying in Sunday for a Monday meeting. No longer are there a few minor points left to figure out. Adam Schefter reports the two sides “have reached agreement” on the remaining issues. “Despite the fact the new deal will require a majority vote from the players, that part of the deal between the two sides is considered a formality, according to sources,” Schefter writes.

The timeline we laid out last night remains. While it’s not official, some teams could potentially report to their team facilities Wednesday. The two sides would hope to have enough players officially vote to open free agency and training camp next Saturday. These dates remain subject to tweaking, but the report of an agreement apparently does not.

link

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Looks like it's over! A big thank you to the owners for getting the ball rolling on Thursday!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But, I think the question is whether or not the anti-trust suit was necessary from a bargaining position in the first place. I don't think the owners were at all moved or scared by this because I don't think they felt the players would hold out a year to test it out in the first place.

The prospect of paying $12 billion in damages would scare anybody. Believe me, the owners took that lawsuit very seriously.

 

[cobalt_27]

But, I think the question is whether or not the anti-trust suit was necessary from a bargaining position in the first place. I don't think the owners were at all moved or scared by this because I don't think they felt the players would hold out a year to test it out in the first place.

The prospect of paying $12 billion in damages would scare anybody. Believe me, the owners took that lawsuit very seriously.

And, the outcome on the NFL as an entity would be what, if that were to have happened? Do you think the players would have championed a strategy that would have crippled the only organization and franchises that could support them to the tune of 4-5 billion per year? And to cripple the very foundation that would have supported around 60 billion in salaries over the next 10 years? Neither the owners nor the players wanted to lose THIS season. The anti-trust suit was to these negotiations what a ghost or a boogeyman is to a child. A scary threat in theory, but not a real threat. It would have never going to get to that point because it ultimately was a mythical entity. The players and owners would have never allowed it to go through. This thing was going to get done without it because there was $9-10 billion of revenue at stake for this year. That's really all it came down to. And, the only thing decertification allowed for, in my opinion, was the opportunity the players had to lift the lockout. The players came up empty there, but it was a good try. Still, the leverage they had all along was what finally manufactured a deal: Time. The antitrust suit had squadoosh to do with anything, because neither side would have let it actually carry out to completion. Both sides wanted to get money for this season, the owners wanted to get money for this season, and it would have been foolhardy for either side to miss out on that.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

ESPN reporting both sides agree....

I seen the report too, but I'll believe it when I see it. Forget what anyone reports at this point.

 

[cobalt_27]

ESPN reporting both sides agree....

I seen the report too, but I'll believe it when I see it. Forget what anyone reports at this point.

You're on an island here. This thing is happening. Time to pop the bubbly. Welcome back, NFL.

 

[D.J.]

ESPN reporting both sides agree....

I seen the report too, but I'll believe it when I see it. Forget what anyone reports at this point.

You're on an island here. This thing is happening. Time to pop the bubbly. Welcome back, NFL.

you can add me to the island...i think it will happen tomorrow, but as they have said all along "theres no deal in place until it is signed." There is plenty of time for someone to say or do something stupid.

 

[JaxBill]

Here's what I don't understand. Players report Wed to sign CBA but camps don't start until Sat? A lot of teams have camps in town now. You don't think teams will call in players for meetings, etc.?

 

[NateDawg]

Here's what I don't understand. Players report Wed to sign CBA but camps don't start until Sat? A lot of teams have camps in town now. You don't think teams will call in players for meetings, etc.?

Basically teams must wait until the new league year begins in order to begin camp. The league won't begin the new league year until after those ballots are cast to reform the union, they are counted, and the union is officially reformed, the settlement is accepted and the CBA is approved. That's going to take a few days.

 

[greenroom]

But, I think the question is whether or not the anti-trust suit was necessary from a bargaining position in the first place. I don't think the owners were at all moved or scared by this because I don't think they felt the players would hold out a year to test it out in the first place.

The prospect of paying $12 billion in damages would scare anybody. Believe me, the owners took that lawsuit very seriously.

And, the outcome on the NFL as an entity would be what, if that were to have happened? Do you think the players would have championed a strategy that would have crippled the only organization and franchises that could support them to the tune of 4-5 billion per year? And to cripple the very foundation that would have supported around 60 billion in salaries over the next 10 years? Neither the owners nor the players wanted to lose THIS season. The anti-trust suit was to these negotiations what a ghost or a boogeyman is to a child. A scary threat in theory, but not a real threat. It would have never going to get to that point because it ultimately was a mythical entity. The players and owners would have never allowed it to go through. This thing was going to get done without it because there was $9-10 billion of revenue at stake for this year. That's really all it came down to. And, the only thing decertification allowed for, in my opinion, was the opportunity the players had to lift the lockout. The players came up empty there, but it was a good try. Still, the leverage they had all along was what finally manufactured a deal: Time. The antitrust suit had squadoosh to do with anything, because neither side would have let it actually carry out to completion. Both sides wanted to get money for this season, the owners wanted to get money for this season, and it would have been foolhardy for either side to miss out on that.

Keep thinking that it had nothing to do with it. I am 100% sure it played a part of it. It put a risk on the owners that they did not have without it. Without that risk I dont think the owners would of moved or gave away as much as they did.

 

[zadok]

Listening to Heath Evans unable to say exactly what was "slipped in"; he (and all who are claiming it) is utterly clueless. This ish is over.

"I'd like to thank my hands for being so great today"-the people's champ

 

[dickey moe]

Our long national nightmare is (hopefully) over...

 

[cobalt_27]

But, I think the question is whether or not the anti-trust suit was necessary from a bargaining position in the first place. I don't think the owners were at all moved or scared by this because I don't think they felt the players would hold out a year to test it out in the first place.

The prospect of paying $12 billion in damages would scare anybody. Believe me, the owners took that lawsuit very seriously.

And, the outcome on the NFL as an entity would be what, if that were to have happened? Do you think the players would have championed a strategy that would have crippled the only organization and franchises that could support them to the tune of 4-5 billion per year? And to cripple the very foundation that would have supported around 60 billion in salaries over the next 10 years? Neither the owners nor the players wanted to lose THIS season. The anti-trust suit was to these negotiations what a ghost or a boogeyman is to a child. A scary threat in theory, but not a real threat. It would have never going to get to that point because it ultimately was a mythical entity. The players and owners would have never allowed it to go through. This thing was going to get done without it because there was $9-10 billion of revenue at stake for this year. That's really all it came down to. And, the only thing decertification allowed for, in my opinion, was the opportunity the players had to lift the lockout. The players came up empty there, but it was a good try. Still, the leverage they had all along was what finally manufactured a deal: Time. The antitrust suit had squadoosh to do with anything, because neither side would have let it actually carry out to completion. Both sides wanted to get money for this season, the owners wanted to get money for this season, and it would have been foolhardy for either side to miss out on that.

Keep thinking that it had nothing to do with it. I am 100% sure it played a part of it. It put a risk on the owners that they did not have without it. Without that risk I dont think the owners would of moved or gave away as much as they did.

Yeah, I'm just trying to draw this out to the natural conclusion. Let's assume no anti-trust lawsuit, is it likely that the owners were willing to sacrifice their $4 to $ billion in profits this year to wait on a deal? I say no way. They would have been in the same place they were last week, scrambling around trying to get a deal finished. We'd be in exactly the same place as we were with the AT lawsuit.The players thought the AT lawsuit was a powerful bargaining chip. It posed two threats, one immediate, the other remote. The immediate threat came in the form of forcing the owners to lift their lockout. The courts did not pay the players any favors here, so that angle was extinguished. So, the next option is/was to wait out a long, drawn out lawsuit with no clear outcome. If they lost that case, it would have been huge, but it could have taken a year or longer to find out. If they won...then what? The owners, already reeling from the loss of billions this year would have been forced to pay out exponentially more in damages. What state would that leave the NFL in that outcome? At minimum, they'd be in serious financial hardship. At worse, teams would fold, operations would be gutted, the NFL as we know it wouldn't exist.

So, how would that work out well for the players? They got a nice lump sum of cash, but a crippled league to return to. With severely diminished revenues due to an angry fanbase that would throw their hands in the air and say screw you guys, we're not paying for tickets, merchandise, or any other garbage you're selling. I'll go golfing on Sundays, instead, thank you very much. Those TV contracts? Carve out at least 50% in reduced buy-ins from the networks. That money's all but gone.

Bottom line, neither the owners nor the players would benefit from this thing going to court. It would have been a disaster for everyone.

The AT was a myth. Certainly documented on real paper and out there looming. But, neither the owners, nor the players were prepared to see that through, not because of its threat but because they had more important things to settle here, which was a CBA for this year. And, the pressure to get that accomplished was driven 99.99% by the dates on the July and August 2011 calendar and what could be accomplished to get a 2011 season under way. That's it.

Once the 8th circuit ruled that the lockout could remain, that anti-trust suit was just window dressing. They wasted their time with the whole thing when they could have had De and Goodell in the room, ironing out suitable provisions for a new CBA and spared us all the rhetoric and grief. The owners moved to the players side because they wanted THIS season to continue--not for fear of this Brady lawsuit.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Drew Brees, in an e-mail to the Saints' players:

"Free Agency -- It now looks like free agency will begin at noon on Tuesday and it will be open free agency," he wrote. "There will be no 3 day grace period for teams to sign their own players. It will be open for anyone to sign anywhere."Training Camp -- It looks like the NFL is trying to force teams into camp on time," he went on. "This would move us to a report date of Thursday, July 28. We would have physicals, conditioning, and meetings on this day. The day before would be a travel day and the hotel would be open that night for guys to check in as well as physicals but nothing mandatory until Thursday."

Goes on to say situation is fluid, but it looks like the NFL is editing on the fly here and eliminating the three-day period for teams to negotiate with their own FAs in order to get camps started by this weekend. Tuesday could be a pretty interesting day.

 

[FUBAR]

Our long national nightmare is (hopefully) over...

Who cares about war and massive debt when we have FOOTBALL

 

[zed2283]

Our long national nightmare is (hopefully) over...

Who cares about war and massive debt when we have FOOTBALL

Good point. Obama probably brokered this whole deal so that we would could have our distraction back.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

NFL.com has a banner that they agreed to the terms and deal.

I started a news thread, since there is no longer a dispute, lol!

GAME ON!

 

[cobalt_27]

Enjoyed this thread. Learned a bunch of legal stuff I never knew before.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Let the madness begin?

The expected NFL free agent frenzy might begin as soon as Monday afternoon if the NFL Players Association signs off on a timeline being discussed, a source at the highest level told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Let the madness begin?

The expected NFL free agent frenzy might begin as soon as Monday afternoon if the NFL Players Association signs off on a timeline being discussed, a source at the highest level told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

AdamSchefter Adam SchefterTeams can sign their free agents this afternoon. Teams can begin talking to UFAs this afternoon. Teams can sign UFAs tomorrow at noon.

 

[GregR_2]

Albert Breer reporting that there will not be an opt out clause.

He said the players wanted an opt out. The owners said ok but it needs to be two-way opt out that either side can use. Players apparently decided they didn't want owners to have that ability too so gave up on it.

 

[GregR_2]

NFL reported potential schedule:

Players can be traded - Tuesday

Undrafted rookies can sign - Tuesday

Can talk to free agents - Tuesday

First training camps open - Wednesday

Team can cut players = Thursday

Free agents can be signed = Friday 6pm

 

[eakfootball]

I've seen two different reports of when FA starts.

 

[GregR_2]

The Tuesday events have a 10AM eastern start time.

 

[Multiple Scores]

So if I hear this right Deangelo van sign with the panthers right now?

 

[GregR_2]

So if I hear this right Deangelo van sign with the panthers right now?

No, free agents sign Friday. They didn't mention teams being able to sign their own FAs before then so I assume it's all at the same time.

 

[Chadstroma]

So if I hear this right Deangelo van sign with the panthers right now?

No, NFLN is reporting the following: Team Voluntary Conditioning- tomorrowDrafted and undrafted rookies can sign- tomorrow 10amPlayers can be cut or waived- thursdayFree agency opens- friday 6pm30 training camps can start- friday Jets & Texans training camps can start- sunday

 

[Chadstroma]

So if I hear this right Deangelo van sign with the panthers right now?

No, free agents sign Friday. They didn't mention teams being able to sign their own FAs before then so I assume it's all at the same time.

There is no distinction. I did not even hear any distinction between restricted and unrestricted FAs.

 

[Sidewinder16]

So if I hear this right Deangelo van sign with the panthers right now?

No, NFLN is reporting the following: Team Voluntary Conditioning- tomorrowDrafted and undrafted rookies can sign- tomorrow 10amPlayers can be cut or waived- thursdayFree agency opens- friday 6pm30 training camps can start- friday Jets & Texans training camps can start- sunday

There have been reports, though, that teams can start negotiating w/ FAs beginning tomorrow (as well as negotiating trades) but that nothing will be "official" until Friday.

 

[Chadstroma]

Enjoyed this thread. Learned a bunch of legal stuff I never knew before.

And never ever want to hear again.

 

[Chadstroma]

So if I hear this right Deangelo van sign with the panthers right now?

No, NFLN is reporting the following: Team Voluntary Conditioning- tomorrowDrafted and undrafted rookies can sign- tomorrow 10amPlayers can be cut or waived- thursdayFree agency opens- friday 6pm30 training camps can start- friday Jets & Texans training camps can start- sunday

There have been reports, though, that teams can start negotiating w/ FAs beginning tomorrow (as well as negotiating trades) but that nothing will be "official" until Friday.

That is what NFLN is reporting as well. You can basically start negotiating right away but you can't sign a deal- even if everyone is agreed until Friday at 6pm. There is a big difference between negotiating and signing.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

from KFFL

KFFL.com News of NoteNFL returns; transactions could begin quicklyNFL free agency might begin as soon as Monday, July 25, if the NFLPA signs off on a timeline being discussed, according to a source at the highest level. According to the projected timeline, the new league year would officially start Aug. 2 at 4 p.m. EST. Before that, teams can sign their own free agents and begin talking with other unrestricted free agents Monday, July 25. Teams can also begin signing unrestricted free agents Tuesday, July 26, at noon EST but those contracts would not take effect until Aug. 2. As well, teams can begin talking trades Monday, July 25. Any trades would become official Saturday, July 30.