Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Entire memo sent to NFL Players this afternoon

4. I am not under contract and am currently a free agent, does this mean I can shop my services to teams right now?

Unless and until Judge Nelson or the Court of Appeals issues another order, the lockout has been ordered to end immediately, and if the NFL does not comply, it would be in contempt of the court order. So, until you hear otherwise, if you are not under contract, Class Counsel believes that you and your agent can contact teams and shop your services to the clubs. Judge Nelson's order is in effect as of 6 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2011, and unless and until that order is stayed, the clubs are not allowed to refuse to negotiate with you. If they do refuse, you should contact Class Counsel immediately (contact information is listed below.) The NFL must put in place a free agency system that complies with the antitrust laws.

As an owner, I wouldn't find it hard to be in compliance at all. Every FA that called would get an offer - somewhere around 5 years, 250k.

And then a team in your division would offer them 260k. And then another team in your division would offer them 270k. And in the end, they'd be offered something near their market value, and your team wouldn't have any FAs. Unless of course you had an arrangement with the other teams in the league not to offer and more than your 250k - which would probably be illegal in the current situation.

That's the point. What is market value for 2/3 of the players who have been artificially supported by a minimum salary for years?

Their market value will be determined by the market. It's whatever the highest bidder offers.

Exactly. And how has that worked out elsewhere? In other words, do you suppose the variability or spread that separates the highest-paid athletes and the lowest-paid athletes will grow, diminish, or remain unchanged in an uncapped system?Hint: Brady will make what he makes. Manning will make what he makes. Highly touted FAs will make what they ordinarily will make. Long snappers will not even approach the previous league minimum. Backup linebackers will not make nearly the same multiplier of 100k that they made in 2009. The haves will be the haves (+ some in some cases). The have-nots will be the have-nots (-minus some).

Free market principles at work. I'm sure that's precisely what the players want, so there's no need to negotiate a deal. They'll be delighted to be working within this sort of system.

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

 

[cobalt_27]

Entire memo sent to NFL Players this afternoon

4. I am not under contract and am currently a free agent, does this mean I can shop my services to teams right now?

Unless and until Judge Nelson or the Court of Appeals issues another order, the lockout has been ordered to end immediately, and if the NFL does not comply, it would be in contempt of the court order. So, until you hear otherwise, if you are not under contract, Class Counsel believes that you and your agent can contact teams and shop your services to the clubs. Judge Nelson's order is in effect as of 6 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2011, and unless and until that order is stayed, the clubs are not allowed to refuse to negotiate with you. If they do refuse, you should contact Class Counsel immediately (contact information is listed below.) The NFL must put in place a free agency system that complies with the antitrust laws.

As an owner, I wouldn't find it hard to be in compliance at all. Every FA that called would get an offer - somewhere around 5 years, 250k.

And then a team in your division would offer them 260k. And then another team in your division would offer them 270k. And in the end, they'd be offered something near their market value, and your team wouldn't have any FAs. Unless of course you had an arrangement with the other teams in the league not to offer and more than your 250k - which would probably be illegal in the current situation.

That's the point. What is market value for 2/3 of the players who have been artificially supported by a minimum salary for years?

Their market value will be determined by the market. It's whatever the highest bidder offers.

Exactly. And how has that worked out elsewhere? In other words, do you suppose the variability or spread that separates the highest-paid athletes and the lowest-paid athletes will grow, diminish, or remain unchanged in an uncapped system?Hint: Brady will make what he makes. Manning will make what he makes. Highly touted FAs will make what they ordinarily will make. Long snappers will not even approach the previous league minimum. Backup linebackers will not make nearly the same multiplier of 100k that they made in 2009. The haves will be the haves (+ some in some cases). The have-nots will be the have-nots (-minus some).

Free market principles at work. I'm sure that's precisely what the players want, so there's no need to negotiate a deal. They'll be delighted to be working within this sort of system.

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

Agree with the first part. Disagree with the second. Particularly in this market, particularly with the divisions in negotiations, I fully expect owners to take a more conservative route. At least this year, they will.

 

[Hoosier16]

The overriding idea is that because the market is not setting value, then we really don't know what the true value is. Especially, in a field where there are limied people have the skills to do the job (there really are not 1000s of dudes who snap a football with 98plus %accuracy) the chances that market is undervalueing skills is much greater than with the french fry cook.

Why is the market not currently setting their value? There isn't a cap on their individual salary, only a minimum. The players who currently accept the minimum do so because there is another player on the practice squad (or in the arena league) who is 1% worse than they are and if they don't take it, someone else will. The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous. With UFL and arena players making about 25k and pratice squad guys making 4-5k per week, there is a lot bigger difference in salaries than there is in talent. Every year, each team has a couple of kickers in camp. For many of the teams, the guys are even throughout camp. One guy gets the job and is instantly making 600k more than the other. Without a minimum, that job isn't worth 600k.

 

[fatness]

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

Given that NFL profits were so great last year, I expect the total amount spend on players to increases as well. There are owners dying to spend more money.

 

[fatness]

The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous.

The bottom half? I think that's fantasy. That would be 26 players/team --- all offensive and defensive starters and 4 other players.

 

[coolnerd]

The overriding idea is that because the market is not setting value, then we really don't know what the true value is. Especially, in a field where there are limied people have the skills to do the job (there really are not 1000s of dudes who snap a football with 98plus %accuracy) the chances that market is undervalueing skills is much greater than with the french fry cook.

Why is the market not currently setting their value? There isn't a cap on their individual salary, only a minimum. The players who currently accept the minimum do so because there is another player on the practice squad (or in the arena league) who is 1% worse than they are and if they don't take it, someone else will. The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous. With UFL and arena players making about 25k and pratice squad guys making 4-5k per week, there is a lot bigger difference in salaries than there is in talent. Every year, each team has a couple of kickers in camp. For many of the teams, the guys are even throughout camp. One guy gets the job and is instantly making 600k more than the other. Without a minimum, that job isn't worth 600k.

In an industry where 1 to 2 plays a game out around 135-150 (do your own math) is often the difference between winning and losing, hiring that dude who misses one extra block in a game or a has a couple extra bad snaps in a season is costly even if you can financially (short-term) get away with it. Mutliply that simple 1% across your 20-25 players and that roster is significant worse. Now, if an owner's main motivation is purely economic then you will be correct, but the more an organization is woried about winning they will pay more to not have the handful of extra bad plays that will come from those so-called slight difference in players.

 

[FUBAR]

The overriding idea is that because the market is not setting value, then we really don't know what the true value is. Especially, in a field where there are limied people have the skills to do the job (there really are not 1000s of dudes who snap a football with 98plus %accuracy) the chances that market is undervalueing skills is much greater than with the french fry cook.

Why is the market not currently setting their value? There isn't a cap on their individual salary, only a minimum. The players who currently accept the minimum do so because there is another player on the practice squad (or in the arena league) who is 1% worse than they are and if they don't take it, someone else will. The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous. With UFL and arena players making about 25k and pratice squad guys making 4-5k per week, there is a lot bigger difference in salaries than there is in talent. Every year, each team has a couple of kickers in camp. For many of the teams, the guys are even throughout camp. One guy gets the job and is instantly making 600k more than the other. Without a minimum, that job isn't worth 600k.

In an industry where 1 to 2 plays a game out around 135-150 (do your own math) is often the difference between winning and losing, hiring that dude who misses one extra block in a game or a has a couple extra bad snaps in a season is costly even if you can financially (short-term) get away with it. Mutliply that simple 1% across your 20-25 players and that roster is significant worse. Now, if an owner's main motivation is purely economic then you will be correct, but the more an organization is woried about winning they will pay more to not have the handful of extra bad plays that will come from those so-called slight difference in players.

You make a few good points. I was thinking about this in a context of only having X amount to spend on players, but if there's no cap, I don't know how many teams will set their own limit. Somewhat could depend on revenue sharing, if there is any. I suspect that winning will help a team generate more revenue in general, but the small market teams will be challenged. The Jaguars would probably have to move.

 

[David Dodds]

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

This is how I see it as well

 

[coolnerd]

The overriding idea is that because the market is not setting value, then we really don't know what the true value is. Especially, in a field where there are limied people have the skills to do the job (there really are not 1000s of dudes who snap a football with 98plus %accuracy) the chances that market is undervalueing skills is much greater than with the french fry cook.

Why is the market not currently setting their value? There isn't a cap on their individual salary, only a minimum. The players who currently accept the minimum do so because there is another player on the practice squad (or in the arena league) who is 1% worse than they are and if they don't take it, someone else will. The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous. With UFL and arena players making about 25k and pratice squad guys making 4-5k per week, there is a lot bigger difference in salaries than there is in talent. Every year, each team has a couple of kickers in camp. For many of the teams, the guys are even throughout camp. One guy gets the job and is instantly making 600k more than the other. Without a minimum, that job isn't worth 600k.

In an industry where 1 to 2 plays a game out around 135-150 (do your own math) is often the difference between winning and losing, hiring that dude who misses one extra block in a game or a has a couple extra bad snaps in a season is costly even if you can financially (short-term) get away with it. Mutliply that simple 1% across your 20-25 players and that roster is significant worse. Now, if an owner's main motivation is purely economic then you will be correct, but the more an organization is woried about winning they will pay more to not have the handful of extra bad plays that will come from those so-called slight difference in players.

You make a few good points. I was thinking about this in a context of only having X amount to spend on players, but if there's no cap, I don't know how many teams will set their own limit. Somewhat could depend on revenue sharing, if there is any. I suspect that winning will help a team generate more revenue in general, but the small market teams will be challenged. The Jaguars would probably have to move.

In a free-for-all system a Jacksonville would be interesting. On the field, Jacksonville for the last 12-15 years has been no different, if not even better than franchises like Dallas and Washington, two of the most economically significant teams in the league. My ability to say that tells me how well the current system works for year and year competitive balance. If have something else then does Jacksonville (inserting baseball teams) go Oakland; low income but innovative, competitive team; Nationals, and just freaking move; or Pittsburgh/KC, even with good development systems just don't truly try at the highest level.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

We’ve obtained a copy of the 15-page document filed last night by the NFL in response to Judge Nelson’s order lifting the lockout, in which the league seeks a stay of the order pending appeal.

PFT

The league argues that it will suffer irreparable harm, if it’s forced to proceed with business as usual while the appeal proceeds. “t will not be possible to unscramble the eggs,” the NFL writes regarding the prospect of a stop-and-start to the league year, with the 2011 league year beginning absent a stay and ending after a successful appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling.

The fact that Judge Nelson, who is considering the request for a stay, already has found that the players are suffering irreparable harm during the lockout and that the NFL will suffer significantly less harm if the lockout is lifted puts the league at an obvious disadvantage. The possibility that the league will have to begin the 2011 league year and then end it arguably creates discomfort and/or inconvenience, but it’s hard to regard the outcome as “irreparable harm.”

The possibility that the lockout will continue makes it hard to conclude that the harm to the league will be “irreparable” if the league is required to transact football business unless and until an appeals court scuttles Judge Nelson’s ruling.

4 yrs, all that $$ and braintrust + legal batallions and they lead with "it will not be possible to unscramble the eggs"....

 

[Hoosier16]

The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous.

The bottom half? I think that's fantasy. That would be 26 players/team --- all offensive and defensive starters and 4 other players.

Take a look.I had previously looked at Cincy. I just now looked at Arizona and Atlanta. There are a total of 131 players listed on their (Atl and Ari) contract pages. Of those, 36 are listed as FAs this year. Of the remaining 95, only 31 are playing for significantly more than the minimum (even including bonuses). Another 5 are playing for the minimum but had signing bonuses of 400-600k over 4 years or so. The rest are at (or very, very near) the required league minimums. So, yes, more than half. Actually, more than 60%. And if you assume that many key players would have been locked up prior to becoming a FA (a fair assumption), then likely a higher percentage of FAs are looking at the minimum as well.

Rotoworld Atlanta contract page

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Exactly. And how has that worked out elsewhere? In other words, do you suppose the variability or spread that separates the highest-paid athletes and the lowest-paid athletes will grow, diminish, or remain unchanged in an uncapped system?Hint: Brady will make what he makes. Manning will make what he makes. Highly touted FAs will make what they ordinarily will make. Long snappers will not even approach the previous league minimum. Backup linebackers will not make nearly the same multiplier of 100k that they made in 2009. The haves will be the haves (+ some in some cases). The have-nots will be the have-nots (-minus some).Free market principles at work. I'm sure that's precisely what the players want, so there's no need to negotiate a deal. They'll be delighted to be working within this sort of system.

As you get towards the bottom of the employed players, their talent isn't much better than those left unemployed. My guess is their talent is not $100k better than an unemployed long snapper (or more, and other positions), so a team will no longer audition players and then pay them the minimum, the players desired salaries will become a factor for many teams. In theory, would you rather have a 85 caliber player that will cost you $200k / year or a 83 caliber player that will cost you $100k? Assume he's one of the last guys to make your roster and will see limited playing time.My guess is the young guys will be willing to take less and have a chance to make it big while the older guys are more likely to hold out for more money.

The answer to that question is laregly cap dependent. To a lesser extent team dependent (ie snyder n jones's vs panthers and pats). But Me? I'd take the 85. I like win and I am making money hand over fist anyway.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The overriding idea is that because the market is not setting value, then we really don't know what the true value is. Especially, in a field where there are limied people have the skills to do the job (there really are not 1000s of dudes who snap a football with 98plus %accuracy) the chances that market is undervalueing skills is much greater than with the french fry cook.

Why is the market not currently setting their value? There isn't a cap on their individual salary, only a minimum. The players who currently accept the minimum do so because there is another player on the practice squad (or in the arena league) who is 1% worse than they are and if they don't take it, someone else will. The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous. With UFL and arena players making about 25k and pratice squad guys making 4-5k per week, there is a lot bigger difference in salaries than there is in talent. Every year, each team has a couple of kickers in camp. For many of the teams, the guys are even throughout camp. One guy gets the job and is instantly making 600k more than the other. Without a minimum, that job isn't worth 600k.

In an industry where 1 to 2 plays a game out around 135-150 (do your own math) is often the difference between winning and losing, hiring that dude who misses one extra block in a game or a has a couple extra bad snaps in a season is costly even if you can financially (short-term) get away with it. Mutliply that simple 1% across your 20-25 players and that roster is significant worse. Now, if an owner's main motivation is purely economic then you will be correct, but the more an organization is woried about winning they will pay more to not have the handful of extra bad plays that will come from those so-called slight difference in players.

You make a few good points. I was thinking about this in a context of only having X amount to spend on players, but if there's no cap, I don't know how many teams will set their own limit. Somewhat could depend on revenue sharing, if there is any. I suspect that winning will help a team generate more revenue in general, but the small market teams will be challenged. The Jaguars would probably have to move.

Exactly, ifthere's no cap, odds are Jerry Jones doesn't have any player on his team that doesn't grade higher than 85 in Madden. Even at the backup OL/DL's.

 

[fatness]

I'm finding talk of dire salary cuts for most players amusing, since the alternative proffered is to accept what the owners want in the CBA --- big financial cuts for players. And since it depends on 32 owners all making the same decisions (not colluding, mind you -- *wink* *wink*) that the majority of the players in the league should be paid less than they were before.

Since when have NFL owners shown restraint on salaries? The salary cap was put in to restrain their spending.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous.

The bottom half? I think that's fantasy. That would be 26 players/team --- all offensive and defensive starters and 4 other players.

Take a look.I had previously looked at Cincy. I just now looked at Arizona and Atlanta. There are a total of 131 players listed on their (Atl and Ari) contract pages. Of those, 36 are listed as FAs this year. Of the remaining 95, only 31 are playing for significantly more than the minimum (even including bonuses). Another 5 are playing for the minimum but had signing bonuses of 400-600k over 4 years or so. The rest are at (or very, very near) the required league minimums. So, yes, more than half. Actually, more than 60%. And if you assume that many key players would have been locked up prior to becoming a FA (a fair assumption), then likely a higher percentage of FAs are looking at the minimum as well.

Rotoworld Atlanta contract page

And that very likely is the result of the salary cap. As only last year was 'uncapped' (wink% nudge*) and even then the owners collude to keep salaries down for a year as part of this bigger plan. If truly not given a cap I think the salary structures would be very different.

 

[Hoosier16]

I'm finding talk of dire salary cuts for most players amusing, since the alternative proffered is to accept what the owners want in the CBA --- big financial cuts for players.

 

[Hoosier16]

The idea that there aren't enough competent players to replace the bottom half of players in the NFL is ridiculous.

The bottom half? I think that's fantasy. That would be 26 players/team --- all offensive and defensive starters and 4 other players.

Take a look.I had previously looked at Cincy. I just now looked at Arizona and Atlanta. There are a total of 131 players listed on their (Atl and Ari) contract pages. Of those, 36 are listed as FAs this year. Of the remaining 95, only 31 are playing for significantly more than the minimum (even including bonuses). Another 5 are playing for the minimum but had signing bonuses of 400-600k over 4 years or so. The rest are at (or very, very near) the required league minimums. So, yes, more than half. Actually, more than 60%. And if you assume that many key players would have been locked up prior to becoming a FA (a fair assumption), then likely a higher percentage of FAs are looking at the minimum as well.

Rotoworld Atlanta contract page

And that very likely is the result of the salary cap. As only last year was 'uncapped' (wink% nudge*) and even then the owners collude to keep salaries down for a year as part of this bigger plan. If truly not given a cap I think the salary structures would be very different.

When the cap gets raised every year, the money isn't going to the 60% at the bottom. It's going to the guys at the top. There is no bidding war for guys on the bottom. There never will be. The supply is essentially endless.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm finding talk of dire salary cuts for most players amusing, since the alternative proffered is to accept what the owners want in the CBA --- big financial cuts for players.

When the cap was 127 in 2009 and the owners offered a cap of 141 in 2011 and 161 by 2014, it's difficult for me to embrace the players' position that they are being asked to take a "paycut."

 

[fatness]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

 

[fatness]

When the cap was 127 in 2009 and the owners offered a cap of 141 in 2011 and 161 by 2014, it's difficult for me to embrace the players' position that they are being asked to take a "paycut."

The owners want to go from approximately $1 billion off the top of gross revenues to $2.4 billion off the top from gross revenues, money that would come from the players' share of income. That's $1.4 billion the owners want from the players for starters.

 

[renesauz]

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

This is how I see it as well

I firmly believe any gains by players financially would be short term. No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.Look at MLB. They play TEN TIMES the games, yet have payrolls which, on average, are significantly lower than current NFL payrolls. Let's not forget that MLB ruled the American sports world just 25 or 30 years ago. Parity drove the the meteoric rise in NFL popularity, and the salary cap is the single most important piece of the puzzle to promoting parity.Free markets often out-price themselves. Free markets based on longer term contractual obligations are most prone to problems. A strong argument could be made that the cap indirectly has led to higher payrolls (via the parity it has created) than a free market ever would have had it been the rule of thumb for the last 25 years. As long as the cap minimums represent a significant and negotiated % of revenues, it's healthy for both the league and the players.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.

What's your evidence for this? Can you point to a league where this has happened?Hopefully it's not baseball.

Why are salaries so high in European soccer - where there's no parity at all. And why are those no-parity league so popular?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'm finding talk of dire salary cuts for most players amusing, since the alternative proffered is to accept what the owners want in the CBA --- big financial cuts for players. And since it depends on 32 owners all making the same decisions (not colluding, mind you -- *wink* *wink*) that the majority of the players in the league should be paid less than they were before.

Since when have NFL owners shown restraint on salaries? The salary cap was put in to restrain their spending.

Hilarious.

 

[Premier]

"Can't unscramble the eggs"

wow, a 1L wouldn't even write that. This is becoming comical from the owner's side.

 

[cobalt_27]

When the cap was 127 in 2009 and the owners offered a cap of 141 in 2011 and 161 by 2014, it's difficult for me to embrace the players' position that they are being asked to take a "paycut."

The owners want to go from approximately $1 billion off the top of gross revenues to $2.4 billion off the top from gross revenues, money that would come from the players' share of income. That's $1.4 billion the owners want from the players for starters.

I know we go round and round on this. But, there is a lot more involved than just this number shaved off the top. Bottom line, the owners are offering an increase of $14 million per team this year compared to the last capped year of 2009 and that that figure increases to $34 million by 2014. More money may get shaved off the top initially to pay for expenses, which actually seems quite appropriate, anyway. But, they are going to come up with enough money to guarantee a pay raise--not a pay cut. It's not the amount of a pay raise the players are looking for...or they want salaries to be tied more closely to revenues that come in. And, that's fine. They can say that, and I have no reason to argue one way or another about that. But, don't say it's a "pay cut" because...unless someone can demonstrate that they are going to be paid less than before...it's not a pay cut.

 

[Hoosier16]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

what would be a violation of anti-trust laws specifcially? The courts ordered them open for business, thats what the players want. Unless they file more lawsuits ( which they could) the court wont actively question the anti trust stuff will they?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

"Can't unscramble the eggs" wow, a 1L wouldn't even write that. This is becoming comical from the owner's side.

While lacking in poetry, I think it fairly describes the situation should business be allowed during the pendency of the the appeal.The problem, largely, is that there is no union and therefore no set of rules that the owners could put in place that would reasonably pass an anti-trust challenge. Some have suggested that the owner's simply agree to 'go by the rules of the last year of the CBA - but that would fail if challenged by any player on anti-trust grounds. So the question then is do the owner's roll the dice and risk such challenges and assume that either they'll win on appeal and/or sign a new CBA (incorporating terms that grandfather in the rules during this period) or go 'no-holds-barred' and allow any market/competitive interaction (preventing anti-trust claims) but severely handcuffing them in creating a workable CBA moving forward if some of the teams go off the rails (and if no one goes of the rails, will they be accused of colluding?).Those eggs would be difficult to unscramble. Compare that the the relatively low impact to ALL parties if the stay is held in place for 2-3 weeks until the appeal is heard and this is pretty much a no-brainer. The stay SHOULD be granted pending appeal. The fact that this is even under consideration belies the Judge's bias.

 

[Hoosier16]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

what would be a violation of anti-trust laws specifcially? The courts ordered them open for business, thats what the players want. Unless they file more lawsuits ( which they could) the court wont actively question the anti trust stuff will they?

It's pretty clear in her ruling that she believes any antitrust protection ended when the union decertified. Any restriction of FA should be a violation.

 

[fatness]

"Can't unscramble the eggs" wow, a 1L wouldn't even write that. This is becoming comical from the owner's side.

While lacking in poetry, I think it fairly describes the situation should business be allowed during the pendency of the the appeal.The problem, largely, is that there is no union and therefore no set of rules that the owners could put in place that would reasonably pass an anti-trust challenge.

Then the owners shouldn't have thrown out the CBA and locked out the players. They put themselves in this situation, and now they're crying about it."Unscramble the eggs." I fully expect at today's hearing the owners won't be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube either.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

what would be a violation of anti-trust laws specifcially? The courts ordered them open for business, thats what the players want. Unless they file more lawsuits ( which they could) the court wont actively question the anti trust stuff will they?

It's pretty clear in her ruling that she believes any antitrust protection ended when the union decertified. Any restriction of FA should be a violation.

So franchise tags, RFA tenders etc. all thrown out the window then? I doubt he owners put that in place. it will be interesting to see say if DeAngelo williams is a considered a RFA by the owners so he gets a lawyer, sues to become a UFA. Same with Vjax - franchise tag? what franchise tag.

Thus If Im the owners I appeal this stuff all the way to the supreme court if I can.

 

[Hoosier16]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

what would be a violation of anti-trust laws specifcially? The courts ordered them open for business, thats what the players want. Unless they file more lawsuits ( which they could) the court wont actively question the anti trust stuff will they?

It's pretty clear in her ruling that she believes any antitrust protection ended when the union decertified. Any restriction of FA should be a violation.

So franchise tags, RFA tenders etc. all thrown out the window then? I doubt he owners put that in place. it will be interesting to see say if DeAngelo williams is a considered a RFA by the owners so he gets a lawyer, sues to become a UFA. Same with Vjax - franchise tag? what franchise tag.

Thus If Im the owners I appeal this stuff all the way to the supreme court if I can.

I can't see the players wanting those things, even in the next CBA. If 2010 rules are implemented, I would guess that DeAngelo and VJax will share the cover page page of the next lawsuit filed.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld by the judge herself or the appellate court the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much or as little as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

what would be a violation of anti-trust laws specifcially? The courts ordered them open for business, thats what the players want. Unless they file more lawsuits ( which they could) the court wont actively question the anti trust stuff will they?

It's pretty clear in her ruling that she believes any antitrust protection ended when the union decertified. Any restriction of FA should be a violation.

So franchise tags, RFA tenders etc. all thrown out the window then? I doubt he owners put that in place. it will be interesting to see say if DeAngelo williams is a considered a RFA by the owners so he gets a lawyer, sues to become a UFA. Same with Vjax - franchise tag? what franchise tag.

Thus If Im the owners I appeal this stuff all the way to the supreme court if I can.

I can't see the players wanting those things, even in the next CBA. If 2010 rules are implemented, I would guess that DeAngelo and VJax will share the cover page page of the next lawsuit filed.

so what we are about to have is baseball? yea! (groan)so what about trades? clearly that is some kind of anti-trust violation. Hey Bill from accounting we traded you to IBM for 2 of their low-level accountants, guess what your moving to rochester new york!

 

[Idiot Boxer]

"Can't unscramble the eggs" wow, a 1L wouldn't even write that. This is becoming comical from the owner's side.

While lacking in poetry, I think it fairly describes the situation should business be allowed during the pendency of the the appeal.The problem, largely, is that there is no union and therefore no set of rules that the owners could put in place that would reasonably pass an anti-trust challenge.

Then the owners shouldn't have thrown out the CBA and locked out the players. They put themselves in this situation, and now they're crying about it."Unscramble the eggs." I fully expect at today's hearing the owners won't be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube either.

You're confusing issues.1. Owners opted out of CBA2. Players decertified3. Owners locked out players.All of these are relatively inconsequential to the question of whether or not the judge ought to grant a stay while the appeal is being heard.

 

[fatness]

You're confusing issues.1. Owners opted out of CBA2. Players decertified3. Owners locked out players.All of these are relatively inconsequential to the question of whether or not the judge ought to grant a stay while the appeal is being heard.

Those are 3 parts of one issue --- the owners wanting a boatload of money back from the players. They opted out of the CBA, didn't get player compliance with what they wanted, and locked out the players. The stay is inconsequential; a final decision on legal issues is consequential.But by then all the cows will be out of the barn.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

You're confusing issues.1. Owners opted out of CBA2. Players decertified3. Owners locked out players.All of these are relatively inconsequential to the question of whether or not the judge ought to grant a stay while the appeal is being heard.

Those are 3 parts of one issue --- the owners wanting a boatload of money back from the players. They opted out of the CBA, didn't get player compliance with what they wanted, and locked out the players. The stay is inconsequential; a final decision on legal issues is consequential.But by then all the cows will be out of the barn.

Are you being intentionally dense to attempt to show your wit or are you just blinded by your pro-player bias? The owners may 'get what's coming to them' after the appeal, should it fail (and by most accounts, it will), but if you can't set aside your personal beliefs to understand that the granting of a stay makes the most sense while that appeal is being heard and instead want to merely make fun of the owner's soundbites, have at it, but you're really not advancing you're 'side's' argument in any helpful way.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

 

[Mello]

I find it hard to believe a court is going to grant a stay because the league will be irreparably harmed by running a system that is legal. I guess we'll see but it would sound ludicrous outside of a sports league.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I find it hard to believe a court is going to grant a stay because the league will be irreparably harmed by running a system that is legal. I guess we'll see but it would sound ludicrous outside of a sports league.

If the presumption is that there will ultimately be a CBA that keeps in place restrictions such as salary cap, salary floor, minimum salaries, roster limits, and free agency rules then I see no reason why the 'unscrambling the eggs' argument isn't very valid. No person on the players side outside of the attorney's pressing forward with the lawsuit are saying that the players want to operate without a CBA.

 

[Mello]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

First, I would realize the futility of going the legal route and get a CBA agreed to and work on changing the laws. They should have realized this before allowing things to get where they are now.If the league insists on believing they can win in the courts, they have to set up a system that won't get them sued. If suits related to the draft scare me more than not having a draft, I cancel it and allow teams to sign and cut players at will. Obviously there can be no free agency restrictions. No salary cap or floor. No roster restrictions. Basically, set the league up like European soccer. The NFL would now simply be an organization that manages the structure of the league but each team will be fully competitive with each other. That's the league's only option if they want to avoid numerous lawsuits.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

First, I would realize the futility of going the legal route and get a CBA agreed to and work on changing the laws. They should have realized this before allowing things to get where they are now.If the league insists on believing they can win in the courts, they have to set up a system that won't get them sued. If suits related to the draft scare me more than not having a draft, I cancel it and allow teams to sign and cut players at will. Obviously there can be no free agency restrictions. No salary cap or floor. No roster restrictions. Basically, set the league up like European soccer. The NFL would now simply be an organization that manages the structure of the league but each team will be fully competitive with each other. That's the league's only option if they want to avoid numerous lawsuits.

I would argue that they tried to do EXACTLY that. There was an offer on the table that provided a decent framework for a deal, but the Players Union decertified and went the litigation route. As to agreeing to a new CBA, it takes two to tango. What incentive does the NFLPA have to enter into anything at the moment? They feel like they've got the owner's on the ropes. Should the owner's agree to the old deal even if they genuinely (and I know you question this, but assume it is true) think the current deal is hampering their ability to grow the game moving forward?

Now, if they set up as system that 'won't get them sued' during the pendency of the claim and Jerry Jones goes out and signs 30 fringe players at below league minimum (or what used to be league minimum) and then either a new CBA is reached (re-instating roster limits and minimum salaries) and/or the owners win on appeal - what would you do with these contracts?

 

[David Dodds]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

No salary capNo salary minimumAll free agents are exactly that (free) Remove the franchise tagContinue to share TV revenue16 game schedule this year, but announce that an 18 game schedule starts in 2012and continue to work towards a CBA

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm finding talk of dire salary cuts for most players amusing, since the alternative proffered is to accept what the owners want in the CBA --- big financial cuts for players.

When the cap was 127 in 2009 and the owners offered a cap of 141 in 2011 and 161 by 2014, it's difficult for me to embrace the players' position that they are being asked to take a "paycut."

You're comparing apples to oranges here. The $127M # you quote in 2009 was the salary cap. The 141 and 161 numbers you quote for the later years were total player compensation, i.e. salaries plus benefits. Benefits averaged in 2009 approximately $27M per year. Which means the 2011 and 2014 numbers correspond to a salary cap of $114M and $134M (and possibly less as benefits include health care costs and those just keep going up). So the owners' final offer would have meant an immediate 10% cut in salaries and a 2014 salary cap possibly less than the 2009 salary cap. And this was their final "good" offer. Their initial offer was a cut of 20%. See John Clayton for more details.

 

[Hoosier16]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

No salary capNo salary minimumAll free agents are exactly that (free) Remove the franchise tagContinue to share TV revenue16 game schedule this year, but announce that an 18 game schedule starts in 2012and continue to work towards a CBA

I agree completely and under those conditions, I think we'd see a new CBA really, really fast.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

No salary capNo salary minimumAll free agents are exactly that (free) Remove the franchise tagContinue to share TV revenue16 game schedule this year, but announce that an 18 game schedule starts in 2012and continue to work towards a CBA

And when a new CBA is reached that sets rules in place that half of the teams would then be in violation?

 

[David Dodds]

Add 2 games to the schedule = + $500M in revenue a year

Sell rights to Thursday games = +$750M in revenue per year

Discontinue the NFL Network = +$250M ?

Implement a rookie salary cap that lowers the first round = +50M ?

Lots of extra money in play to get a deal done where both make out like bandits.

 

[Mello]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

First, I would realize the futility of going the legal route and get a CBA agreed to and work on changing the laws. They should have realized this before allowing things to get where they are now.If the league insists on believing they can win in the courts, they have to set up a system that won't get them sued. If suits related to the draft scare me more than not having a draft, I cancel it and allow teams to sign and cut players at will. Obviously there can be no free agency restrictions. No salary cap or floor. No roster restrictions. Basically, set the league up like European soccer. The NFL would now simply be an organization that manages the structure of the league but each team will be fully competitive with each other. That's the league's only option if they want to avoid numerous lawsuits.

I would argue that they tried to do EXACTLY that. There was an offer on the table that provided a decent framework for a deal, but the Players Union decertified and went the litigation route. As to agreeing to a new CBA, it takes two to tango. What incentive does the NFLPA have to enter into anything at the moment? They feel like they've got the owner's on the ropes. Should the owner's agree to the old deal even if they genuinely (and I know you question this, but assume it is true) think the current deal is hampering their ability to grow the game moving forward?

Now, if they set up as system that 'won't get them sued' during the pendency of the claim and Jerry Jones goes out and signs 30 fringe players at below league minimum (or what used to be league minimum) and then either a new CBA is reached (re-instating roster limits and minimum salaries) and/or the owners win on appeal - what would you do with these contracts?

We both know the players want a CBA also. There's incentive on both sides. The players have gained all of the leverage now though. Yes, the owners should agree to a new CBA even if they think it will hamper their ability to grow the game going forward. That situation has to be better than the rules the will eventually have to set if no CBA is agreed to. They are going to have to demonstrate to the public that the laws need to be changed for the NFL to be successful. As far as what happens if they implement a legal system temporarily, it will be up to each team to manage themselves. If Jerry signs 30 players and then a new CBA is agreed to, he will need to cut players to meet the requirements of the new CBA and deal with the cap hits (if there is one). This obviously means that even if new rules are set up, teams will be hesitant to go crazy in FA. They would still be able to sign some players though. Each team would be working at their own risk.

Also, there's nothing keeping owners from pressuring players a bit to agree to a CBA. Unless individual players contracts exempt them, require all players to be at the facilities on Monday and start working them hard. Constantly drug test every player. Add more games to the schedule. Whatever else normal businesses can do.

 

[David Dodds]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

No salary capNo salary minimumAll free agents are exactly that (free) Remove the franchise tagContinue to share TV revenue16 game schedule this year, but announce that an 18 game schedule starts in 2012and continue to work towards a CBA

And when a new CBA is reached that sets rules in place that half of the teams would then be in violation?

Give a one or two year exception to the salary cap (upon a new CBA if that includes a salary cap) and only count contracts onboard at a certain date so teams can cut players and those cap numbers won't impact them. This is is not rocket science.

 

[Mello]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

No salary capNo salary minimumAll free agents are exactly that (free) Remove the franchise tagContinue to share TV revenue16 game schedule this year, but announce that an 18 game schedule starts in 2012and continue to work towards a CBA

And when a new CBA is reached that sets rules in place that half of the teams would then be in violation?

Yep. Place a period of time in the CBA for teams to become compliant again.

 

[Ksquared]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

First, I would realize the futility of going the legal route and get a CBA agreed to and work on changing the laws. They should have realized this before allowing things to get where they are now.If the league insists on believing they can win in the courts, they have to set up a system that won't get them sued. If suits related to the draft scare me more than not having a draft, I cancel it and allow teams to sign and cut players at will. Obviously there can be no free agency restrictions. No salary cap or floor. No roster restrictions. Basically, set the league up like European soccer. The NFL would now simply be an organization that manages the structure of the league but each team will be fully competitive with each other. That's the league's only option if they want to avoid numerous lawsuits.

So "staying" the ruling for 2-3 weeks is harming the players how? But it could make a future CBA just about impossible to implement. Lets just take roster sizes for a second. Say an owner (ahem D Snyder) decides to play with his money and signs 100 players + what is already signed to his roster before a CBA gets worked out. How do you propose to include his roster into a future CBA? As to the wonderful soccer leagues in Europe everyone keeps marveling about, who cares. We are not Europe, thankfully. Just because Soccer is super popular does not mean it is the best setup for a healthy competitive sports league. Areas I think the league is screwed as we have know itrafts (including this one - I don't care that it was agreed to in the previous CBA, the entity the agreed with does not exist anymore - people of Buffalo, Cincinnati, etc that have chronically bad teams or are not the most desirable places to live better be afraid some of your draft picks will file suit so they can go "where they want".)Schedules, League Discipline (drug use - especially PEDs), roster sizes, any time restraints on contracting a FA (ie Cam Newton could have been signed in the middle of last season at Auburn and left his team to join an NFL team), etcOther than specific on the field rules of the sport, I see nothing that the NFL can actual setup with out "colluding" that would harm someone. The whole setup is a farce - what we are left with is an entity that cannot exist without a CBA to keep it legal. We have a business that is patently illegal in all legal senses unless a union gives it's blessing. What about other unions forming and not agreeing with the CBA a different union agreed to? What a mess. So in reality (it make take time) the players/union leadership will own and run all sports leagues at some point in the future. If you feel that is too dramatic, think about this. Why would a union not decertify every time they do not get what they want from ownership in a negotiations (and I use that term loosely since I don't feel the union negotiated during this round at all either - nor should they feel compelled to in the future). It is the ultimate trump card that cannot be beat unless Congress makes some type of exemption.