Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

I see no reason the owners shouldn't be allowed to continue to try and grow and develop the NFL network if they think it is in the best interests of the long-term development of the NFL.This bothers me a lot that it gets pointed to as something the owners could do.

They all do a lot of things to raise present day revenue (they could all charge admission to training camp, a la Danny Snyder) but the question is SHOULD THEY, if they have a reasonable business reason for not exploiting a particular revenue stream...

 

[zadok]

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

That, or just work under the 2010 rules which the players have no issue with and so won't challenge.

 

[Rockchild]

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."

If they are offering them 'more' money then how can they argue that the they need more from the players? Isn't that why they opted out becaue they couldn't go on the way things were going?

 

[Orange Crush]

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.

The bolded is a pretty key point, isn't it? They are the ones making the arguments in court, not the people making statements outside of court saying they want a CBA. The court can only deal with what's been presented to them.

 

[fatness]

NFL players say the league's request to put a federal judge's lockout ruling on hold should be denied because the work stoppage harms them and their careers.

Lawyers for the players filed their response to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson on Wednesday morning. The representatives for the players were ordered to respond to the NFL's motion by 10 a.m. ET.

NFLPA executive director Richard Berthelsen wrote: "As one who has experienced the opening of free agent negotiations every offseason in the past 18 years, I believe there will be no detriment to any NFL club by the Court's lifting of the current lockout.

"I also believe that lifting the lockout immediately is the only way to preserve the 2011 season announced by the NFL, given the need to sign free agents, to complete the NFL draft and sign drafted players, to plan and to hold training camp, and to plan for the season itself."

The NFL has until 6 p.m. ET on Wednesday to tell Nelson why the league year should not start.

linkThe league better do a damn good job showing irreparable harm to the league by this afternoon, something they've been unable to do so far in court. Not being able to "unscramble the eggs" might cut it with their supporters here, but it won't cut it in court.

 

[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?

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.

Nor is waiting a few weeks during the appeal. I agree if the owners get to appeal and lose, something like this needs to be and should be in place. I also think the owners and players should be sitting at a table around the clock hammering out a deal, but they aren't. Largely because the players have no incentive to. But first things first, a reasoned approach needs to be taken with regard to 'opening for business' and there isn't any good reason why all parties can't wait 2-3 weeks for the appeals process to run its course.

 

[blackbird001]

If I were advising the owners, I would have them bump the minimum salary from $200,000 to $400,000. This would get the attention of the largest chunk of the trade association and take millions out of the salary cap available to veterans. Very soon, you would have the NFLPA divided pretty sharply. Once divided, it wouldn't be long until they fell.

 

[fatness]

Jenny Vrentas of the Newark Star-Ledger reports that tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson and defensive lineman Mike Devito both showed up for a second straight day Wednesday. (Kudos to Vrentas for being there again too.)

The players wanted to be counted as present because they have workout bonuses, even though they aren’t allowed to workout.

Continuing to show up seems like a waste of time, though. No matter what happens with that workout bonus, we really doubt that showing up in these strange labor purgatory days is going to make a difference. Devito doesn’t plan to change his approach. “As long as it’s open, I’m going to show up,” he said.

link

 

[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.

The bolded is a pretty key point, isn't it? They are the ones making the arguments in court, not the people making statements outside of court saying they want a CBA. The court can only deal with what's been presented to them.

True. And that is why I hate this game of chicken that D. Smith started. And the way the courts have been ruling, it seems to me that the union will be able to threaten to decertify upon the implementation or request by owners of anything the union finds distasteful. It is all upside down, at the moment. I guess the only real fix is through congress.

 

[fatness]

Agent David Canter wrote on Twitter that he initially couldn’t get a response from teams when contacting them. Eventually he did hear back, and got the same message repeatedly: “No one will deal because ‘we don’t know what rules we are functioning under”‘ Canter wrote.

Agent Drew Rosenhaus told Liz Mullen of the Sports Business Journal he has also been contacting teams. “Can’t comment on their reaction,” Rosenhaus said. ”Don’t want to get anyone in trouble.”

link

 

[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

That, or just work under the 2010 rules which the players have no issue with and so won't challenge.

The union, as a whole might not have an issue, but there is no union, and certainly individual players would have an issue (See: DeAngelo Williams/Vincent Jackson) and it only takes one to file an anti-trust lawsuit.

 

[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?

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

That, or just work under the 2010 rules which the players have no issue with and so won't challenge.

Wrong, I guarantee at least one player and their legal council will file. Egos in sports are so big for example I can see a court challenge just from this perspective, "there is no way my client would not have been signed to a contract except for those 2010 CBA restrictions that do not apply anymore". There is no union anymore, everyone is free to do whatever they like - I hope all of you that have promoted this mindset see what you really get out of it.

 

[fatness]

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.

The granting of the stay makes the most sense? To who? Oh, just the owners, who haven't shown how they'll be financially harmed without a stay.Meanwhile players are unable to work out and collect bonuses, team employees are being laid off, and they're suffering financial harm by the lockout continuing. I won't call you dense for not seeing that, but it's right there.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

NFL players say the league's request to put a federal judge's lockout ruling on hold should be denied because the work stoppage harms them and their careers.

Lawyers for the players filed their response to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson on Wednesday morning. The representatives for the players were ordered to respond to the NFL's motion by 10 a.m. ET.

NFLPA executive director Richard Berthelsen wrote: "As one who has experienced the opening of free agent negotiations every offseason in the past 18 years, I believe there will be no detriment to any NFL club by the Court's lifting of the current lockout.

"I also believe that lifting the lockout immediately is the only way to preserve the 2011 season announced by the NFL, given the need to sign free agents, to complete the NFL draft and sign drafted players, to plan and to hold training camp, and to plan for the season itself."

The NFL has until 6 p.m. ET on Wednesday to tell Nelson why the league year should not start.

linkThe league better do a damn good job showing irreparable harm to the league by this afternoon, something they've been unable to do so far in court. Not being able to "unscramble the eggs" might cut it with their supporters here, but it won't cut it in court.

You quoted the "beliefs" of the executive director of the Trade Association. I see no more art in his argument as compared to the 'unscrambling of the eggs', he just didn't use a food analogy.

 

[Orange Crush]

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

That, or just work under the 2010 rules which the players have no issue with and so won't challenge.

They've already been challenged. The franchise tags, the restricted free agent tags, etc. The players wouldn't even have to file a new lawsuit, and it would remain in front of the same judge who has just slammed the owners.

 

[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.

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.

Staying the ruling for 2-3 weeks hurts the players for the same reasons the judge gave in her opinion for implementing the injunction. I honestly don't buy those that much, but the court did. Yes, a free market system is not the best setup for a healthy competitive league. The NFL isn't entitled to that if it harms the players. I agree with the rest of your post though. This is a mess. Players unions now have a roadmap to destroy sports leagues' current setup. This can only be resolved through Congress if leagues are to maintain things like a draft and restricted free agency going forward.

 

[roarlions]

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 $124M (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 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.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

The granting of the stay makes the most sense? To who? Oh, just the owners, who haven't shown how they'll be financially harmed without a stay.Meanwhile players are unable to work out and collect bonuses, team employees are being laid off, and they're suffering financial harm by the lockout continuing. I won't call you dense for not seeing that, but it's right there.

First, stays are TYPICALLY GRANTED pending appeal. To not grant one is departing from the norm. Second, the standard isn't 'financial harm'Third, any financial harm suffered by players (team employees, who I have sympathy for, have no standing here) can be compensated by money damages and the period of time for the appeal to be heard is not going to damage any player 'irreparably'

 

[WVU Alum]

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

That, or just work under the 2010 rules which the players have no issue with and so won't challenge.

The union, as a whole might not have an issue, but there is no union, and certainly individual players would have an issue (See: DeAngelo Williams/Vincent Jackson) and it only takes one to file an anti-trust lawsuit.

Agreed, and the list by Dodds would probably cut the mustard with labor law. It would also likely prove to the mid-tier players, who greatly outnumber top-tier, that they aren't going to get the cash bonanza they would like.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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.

The granting of the stay makes the most sense? To who? Oh, just the owners, who haven't shown how they'll be financially harmed without a stay.Meanwhile players are unable to work out and collect bonuses, team employees are being laid off, and they're suffering financial harm by the lockout continuing. I won't call you dense for not seeing that, but it's right there.

First, stays are TYPICALLY GRANTED pending appeal. To not grant one is departing from the norm. Second, the standard isn't 'financial harm'Third, any financial harm suffered by players (team employees, who I have sympathy for, have no standing here) can be compensated by money damages and the period of time for the appeal to be heard is not going to damage any player 'irreparably'

even if Nelson doenst grant the Stay, the owners will ask the 8th circuit court for an emergency stay, and who knows when they will decide on that.

 

[David Dodds]

There is no way the owners can just adopt the 2010 rules without being sued (and losing). The 2010 rules were written into the last CBA. That's now officially dead.

I hear people saying why not just wait another 2-3 weeks. Do people really expect this to be settled then? They have to choose the three people. These people need to get up to speed. They need to set dates and meet with lawyers. If they challenge anything at all, it's even more quagmire.

If I am Susan I don't grant the stay. If the appeals court believes there is a good chance that this gets overturned, they can grant the stay. And if the appeals court is not willing to grant the stay, then league business really should be started now.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

There is no way the owners can just adopt the 2010 rules without being sued (and losing). The 2010 rules were written into the last CBA. That's now officially dead. I hear people saying why not just wait another 2-3 weeks. Do people really expect this to be settled then? They have to choose the three people. These people need to get up to speed. They need to set dates and meet with lawyers. If they challenge anything at all, it's even more quagmire.If I am Susan I don't grant the stay. If the appeals court believes there is a good chance that this gets overturned, they can grant the stay. And if the appeals court is not willing to grant the stay, then league business really should be started now.

Thanks, Susan.I do expect it to be heard in less than a month. The appeals process will be expedited. What I don't get is why the sides aren't negotiating and why the owner's aren't petitioning congress.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

There is no way the owners can just adopt the 2010 rules without being sued (and losing). The 2010 rules were written into the last CBA. That's now officially dead. I hear people saying why not just wait another 2-3 weeks. Do people really expect this to be settled then? They have to choose the three people. These people need to get up to speed. They need to set dates and meet with lawyers. If they challenge anything at all, it's even more quagmire.If I am Susan I don't grant the stay. If the appeals court believes there is a good chance that this gets overturned, they can grant the stay. And if the appeals court is not willing to grant the stay, then league business really should be started now.

Thanks, Susan.I do expect it to be heard in less than a month. The appeals process will be expedited. What I don't get is why the sides aren't negotiating and why the owner's aren't petitioning congress.

arent they going back to mediation on May 16th or some such date?Also the owners dont want the season to start on time. They want the players to feel it in the pocket book. So they will appeal and appeal and appeal. The players want to get back to work ASAP.

 

[fatness]

even if Nelson doenst grant the Stay, the owners will ask the 8th circuit court for an emergency stay, and who knows when they will decide on that.

In June, from what I've read.edited to add:

Don’t expect a ruling from the appelate court any time soon.

Although the NFL has asked for an “expedited” appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling late Monday afternoon to lift the NFL lockout, the appeals hearing likely won’t begin until June 13.

linkAlmost 7 weeks from now if it isn't pushed back more.

 

[fatness]

arent they going back to mediation on May 16th or some such date?

Yes.

 

[roarlions]

There is no way the owners can just adopt the 2010 rules without being sued (and losing). The 2010 rules were written into the last CBA. That's now officially dead. I hear people saying why not just wait another 2-3 weeks. Do people really expect this to be settled then? They have to choose the three people. These people need to get up to speed. They need to set dates and meet with lawyers. If they challenge anything at all, it's even more quagmire.If I am Susan I don't grant the stay. If the appeals court believes there is a good chance that this gets overturned, they can grant the stay. And if the appeals court is not willing to grant the stay, then league business really should be started now.

Thanks, Susan.I do expect it to be heard in less than a month. The appeals process will be expedited. What I don't get is why the sides aren't negotiating and why the owner's aren't petitioning congress.

If the owners were smart they would make a better offer than their last offer to the NFLPA and then put the pressure on the players to respond and get negotiations going again. At the least it would be good PR for the owners.And do you really think Congress could address this mess faster than the courts?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

There is no way the owners can just adopt the 2010 rules without being sued (and losing). The 2010 rules were written into the last CBA. That's now officially dead. I hear people saying why not just wait another 2-3 weeks. Do people really expect this to be settled then? They have to choose the three people. These people need to get up to speed. They need to set dates and meet with lawyers. If they challenge anything at all, it's even more quagmire.If I am Susan I don't grant the stay. If the appeals court believes there is a good chance that this gets overturned, they can grant the stay. And if the appeals court is not willing to grant the stay, then league business really should be started now.

Thanks, Susan.I do expect it to be heard in less than a month. The appeals process will be expedited. What I don't get is why the sides aren't negotiating and why the owner's aren't petitioning congress.

If the owners were smart they would make a better offer than their last offer to the NFLPA and then put the pressure on the players to respond and get negotiations going again. At the least it would be good PR for the owners.And do you really think Congress could address this mess faster than the courts?

No. Certainly not faster. But it needs to be done.

 

[Jason Wood]

Those who don't see why there is at least an argument for a stay haven't been involved with litigation before, I'm guessing.

 

[Rylenol]

per NFL.com

"MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL players say the league's request to put a federal judge's lockout ruling on hold should be denied because every day it remains in effect they suffer more harm.

Lawyers for the players filed their response to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson on Wednesday morning.

Nelson is weighing a request from the owners for a stay, which means the preliminary injunction she issued to lift the lockout would be frozen during the appeals process.

If Nelson grants the league's request, players want the NFL to post a $1 billion bond, roughly 25 percent of players' compensation last year.

The NFL says it needs the stay to keep the league year from starting before the rules are fair and clear.

But players, in their response to the league's request, say the dilemma the NFL says it's in -- risking violation of antitrust laws by imposing a system the players would challenge or harming the league's competitive balance by a potential free agency free-for-all -- is the league's own doing.

"They put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," attorneys for the players wrote.

They argue the league could simply implement a new set of free agency guidelines and other rules: "There is no reason why the NFL Defendants cannot devise a lawful player system, and their complaints about potential antitrust scrutiny are not well-founded where such scrutiny is a reality of doing business."

Some players tried to go back to work Tuesday, but most who did were told they couldn't work out at team facilities once they entered the building."

 

[David Dodds]

Third, any financial harm suffered by players (team employees, who I have sympathy for, have no standing here) can be compensated by money damages and the period of time for the appeal to be heard is not going to damage any player 'irreparably'

This is where some of us disagree with you. Yes theoretically they can be made right with monetary damages. But take a guy like Kolb. His value is decreasing every day he is not traded and learning a different playbook. Same with the countless free agents that are nearly twice as many as past years because of the rules they played under in 2010. and what about roster bonuses due for offseason workout programs? Will those be made whole plus interest? Or will the owners say offseason is now over so the players get no bonuses. There are a lot of players suffering major harm right now. I see no harm done to the owners who have the ability to open up under any rules they desire. If the judge believes the appeal is without merit (and I am sure she does), then not granting the stay is the correct course. Let the owners scramble and convince the appeals court to grant the stay. If they can't succeed in that, then it's clear they were going to lose on appeal anyway.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

even if Nelson doenst grant the Stay, the owners will ask the 8th circuit court for an emergency stay, and who knows when they will decide on that.

In June, from what I've read.edited to add:

Don’t expect a ruling from the appelate court any time soon.

Although the NFL has asked for an “expedited” appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling late Monday afternoon to lift the NFL lockout, the appeals hearing likely won’t begin until June 13.

linkAlmost 7 weeks from now if it isn't pushed back more.

Right, so if the Stay is granted, nothing until June 13th. The mediation sessions will not result in anything either until the appeal is herd. Giant cluster

 

[fatness]

And on May 12 Judge Doty has a hearing to decide what to do about the $4 billion the league tried to get from the networks to tide them over during the lockout, which was in violation of the CBA. There is a chance the players would be paid damages.

 

[David Dodds]

Those who don't see why there is at least an argument for a stay haven't been involved with litigation before, I'm guessing.

I think we get why there is an argument. If I am the judge though I don't grant one as I don't think the owners will suffer any irreparable harm opening up the league, free agency, and establishing a set of rules for the 2011 season. I think many players continue to suffer from the current situation.

 

[fatness]

And do you really think Congress could address this mess faster than the courts?

Wanting Congress to get involves is pretty desperate. They'd take several years and make a total mess of things, and stay involved forever. But since our government seems to come to the aid of large businesses, I can see why this would be a pleasing fantasy.

 

[fatness]

The players used NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's own reasoning as they argued against the stay, pointing out that a lockout is bad business for players and the NFL, which in January estimated a lockout would cost it $1 billion even if no games were missed.

They cited Goodell's comments last week to USA TODAY in urging the judge not to allow the lockout to remain in place. Goodell's words: "That's why we think that the longer it goes, it's bad for players, the clubs, our partners, and the fans."

The schedule for the preseason and regular season is out, the players argued. The NFL is making preparations to move forward with a season. The players need to be able to make similar preparations.

The players argued that while they would be harmed if the judge imposes a stay, the opposite effect would occur for the NFL.

USA Today

 

[Idiot Boxer]

per NFL.com

"MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL players say the league's request to put a federal judge's lockout ruling on hold should be denied because every day it remains in effect they suffer more harm.

Lawyers for the players filed their response to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson on Wednesday morning.

Nelson is weighing a request from the owners for a stay, which means the preliminary injunction she issued to lift the lockout would be frozen during the appeals process.

If Nelson grants the league's request, players want the NFL to post a $1 billion bond, roughly 25 percent of players' compensation last year.

The NFL says it needs the stay to keep the league year from starting before the rules are fair and clear.

But players, in their response to the league's request, say the dilemma the NFL says it's in -- risking violation of antitrust laws by imposing a system the players would challenge or harming the league's competitive balance by a potential free agency free-for-all -- is the league's own doing.

"They put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," attorneys for the players wrote.

They argue the league could simply implement a new set of free agency guidelines and other rules: "There is no reason why the NFL Defendants cannot devise a lawful player system, and their complaints about potential antitrust scrutiny are not well-founded where such scrutiny is a reality of doing business."

Some players tried to go back to work Tuesday, but most who did were told they couldn't work out at team facilities once they entered the building."

Oh, good god. This is ridiculous. Worse than unscrambling eggs. Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

Do the players really WANT free-market football and all that entails?

 

[Mello]

per NFL.com

"MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL players say the league's request to put a federal judge's lockout ruling on hold should be denied because every day it remains in effect they suffer more harm.

Lawyers for the players filed their response to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson on Wednesday morning.

Nelson is weighing a request from the owners for a stay, which means the preliminary injunction she issued to lift the lockout would be frozen during the appeals process.

If Nelson grants the league's request, players want the NFL to post a $1 billion bond, roughly 25 percent of players' compensation last year.

The NFL says it needs the stay to keep the league year from starting before the rules are fair and clear.

But players, in their response to the league's request, say the dilemma the NFL says it's in -- risking violation of antitrust laws by imposing a system the players would challenge or harming the league's competitive balance by a potential free agency free-for-all -- is the league's own doing.

"They put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," attorneys for the players wrote.

They argue the league could simply implement a new set of free agency guidelines and other rules: "There is no reason why the NFL Defendants cannot devise a lawful player system, and their complaints about potential antitrust scrutiny are not well-founded where such scrutiny is a reality of doing business."

Some players tried to go back to work Tuesday, but most who did were told they couldn't work out at team facilities once they entered the building."

Oh, good god. This is ridiculous. Worse than unscrambling eggs. Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

Do the players really WANT free-market football and all that entails?

Doesn't matter if the NFLPA agreed. They don't now and decertified their union.Players don't really want free-market football, but they have to act like it to apply maximum pressure on the owners.

 

[Jason Wood]

Those who don't see why there is at least an argument for a stay haven't been involved with litigation before, I'm guessing.

I think we get why there is an argument. If I am the judge though I don't grant one as I don't think the owners will suffer any irreparable harm opening up the league, free agency, and establishing a set of rules for the 2011 season. I think many players continue to suffer from the current situation.

Right, but that's where these threads lose me. None of us are judges, so predicting what "we would do if we were a judge" really falls down to our own -- unfounded, and not grounded in legal discipline -- views on the matter. None of these outcomes has anything to do with what we all think should happen, it comes down to arguing the merits, and letting a judge make a determination on the rule of law. The same legal experts that are acting as if Nelson has no chance of granting a stay now were arguing a year ago how the players union was screwed and that they wouldn't dare decertify even if it came to that.This will resolve itself. And we're a lot closer to a resolution today than we were a week ago. But whether it should resolve itself now (because let's admit that would be exciting as teams have to scramble to do all this stuff at once) or in a few weeks really doesn't matter, except from the story angle and human interest standpoint.

 

[David Dodds]

Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

I think the way the owners negotiated the TV deals will be found in violation. I also think all the collusion that happened in 2010 when no teams bid on some of the biggest free agents will also be found to be in violation. I think all of the franchise tagging going on this season without a CBA is illegal (or not enforceable). I think not paying roster bonuses by declaring a lockout (that now is obvious the owners can't have) needs to remedied. I am sure the trade association could come up with more examples.

 

[fatness]

Albert Breer of NFL Network breaks down the 23-page filing, with a few key notes:1. The players asked for a $1 billion bond if the stay is granted. (Cue bad Austin Powers jokes.) That is the estimated damages from the player’s side if the stay is granted.2. The players want the NFL to immediately implement a system which does not violate antitrust laws. (Does that mean a system without a draft or free agent restrictions? Discuss amongst yourselves.)3. The players argued that the NFL is unable to prove they are likely to win an appeal, which seems like a fair point to this non-lawyer.4. They also say a stay is not in the public’s interest. That’s the best argument yet.

PFT

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

I think the way the owners negotiated the TV deals will be found in violation. I also think all the collusion that happened in 2010 when no teams bid on some of the biggest free agents will also be found to be in violation. I think all of the franchise tagging going on this season without a CBA is illegal (or not enforceable). I think not paying roster bonuses by declaring a lockout (that now is obvious the owners can't have) needs to remedied. I am sure the trade association could come up with more examples.

name one big name free agent that didnt get a deal David? kevin Maewa? who?

 

[Ksquared]

Third, any financial harm suffered by players (team employees, who I have sympathy for, have no standing here) can be compensated by money damages and the period of time for the appeal to be heard is not going to damage any player 'irreparably'

This is where some of us disagree with you. Yes theoretically they can be made right with monetary damages. But take a guy like Kolb. His value is decreasing every day he is not traded and learning a different playbook. Same with the countless free agents that are nearly twice as many as past years because of the rules they played under in 2010. and what about roster bonuses due for offseason workout programs? Will those be made whole plus interest? Or will the owners say offseason is now over so the players get no bonuses. There are a lot of players suffering major harm right now. I see no harm done to the owners who have the ability to open up under any rules they desire. If the judge believes the appeal is without merit (and I am sure she does), then not granting the stay is the correct course. Let the owners scramble and convince the appeals court to grant the stay. If they can't succeed in that, then it's clear they were going to lose on appeal anyway.

This is the point many of us are trying to make. I don't believe he can be traded now without "collusion" occurring. It is like all of us NFL/fantasy guys just want the normal stuff to get going again. But only signing FA could occur (that with no restrictions). I am certain any trade is a collusive act unless the player involved agrees ahead of time, and maybe Kolb would. As to roster bonuses, if the owners were smart (not a guarantee, especially some of them) they would pay out the workout bonuses that players were barred from attending during the lockout. Those that don't will likely find themselves paying triple damages down the road, not counting the legal fees.

 

[fatness]

"They put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," attorneys for the players wrote.

Oh, good god. This is ridiculous. Worse than unscrambling eggs. Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

The NFL threw out the CBA, and had no agreement with a players' union which they need to not be in violation of anti-trust laws.

 

[texasbirdfan]

per NFL.com

"MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL players say the league's request to put a federal judge's lockout ruling on hold should be denied because every day it remains in effect they suffer more harm.

Lawyers for the players filed their response to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson on Wednesday morning.

Nelson is weighing a request from the owners for a stay, which means the preliminary injunction she issued to lift the lockout would be frozen during the appeals process.

If Nelson grants the league's request, players want the NFL to post a $1 billion bond, roughly 25 percent of players' compensation last year.

The NFL says it needs the stay to keep the league year from starting before the rules are fair and clear.

But players, in their response to the league's request, say the dilemma the NFL says it's in -- risking violation of antitrust laws by imposing a system the players would challenge or harming the league's competitive balance by a potential free agency free-for-all -- is the league's own doing.

"They put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," attorneys for the players wrote.

They argue the league could simply implement a new set of free agency guidelines and other rules: "There is no reason why the NFL Defendants cannot devise a lawful player system, and their complaints about potential antitrust scrutiny are not well-founded where such scrutiny is a reality of doing business."

Some players tried to go back to work Tuesday, but most who did were told they couldn't work out at team facilities once they entered the building."

Oh, good god. This is ridiculous. Worse than unscrambling eggs. Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

Do the players really WANT free-market football and all that entails?

It seems ludicrous why a bunch of rich guys can't put on a game/ show that attracts a cash endowed revenue stream audience of abundance that have highly paid performers (not prisoners) trying to screw it up for their own individual gain

 

[Idiot Boxer]

"They put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," attorneys for the players wrote.

Oh, good god. This is ridiculous. Worse than unscrambling eggs. Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

The NFL threw out the CBA, and had no agreement with a players' union which they need to not be in violation of anti-trust laws.

Again, your choice of words belies your bias.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Third, any financial harm suffered by players (team employees, who I have sympathy for, have no standing here) can be compensated by money damages and the period of time for the appeal to be heard is not going to damage any player 'irreparably'

This is where some of us disagree with you. Yes theoretically they can be made right with monetary damages. But take a guy like Kolb. His value is decreasing every day he is not traded and learning a different playbook. Same with the countless free agents that are nearly twice as many as past years because of the rules they played under in 2010. and what about roster bonuses due for offseason workout programs? Will those be made whole plus interest? Or will the owners say offseason is now over so the players get no bonuses. There are a lot of players suffering major harm right now. I see no harm done to the owners who have the ability to open up under any rules they desire. If the judge believes the appeal is without merit (and I am sure she does), then not granting the stay is the correct course. Let the owners scramble and convince the appeals court to grant the stay. If they can't succeed in that, then it's clear they were going to lose on appeal anyway.

This is the point many of us are trying to make. I don't believe he can be traded now without "collusion" occurring. It is like all of us NFL/fantasy guys just want the normal stuff to get going again. But only signing FA could occur (that with no restrictions). I am certain any trade is a collusive act unless the player involved agrees ahead of time, and maybe Kolb would. As to roster bonuses, if the owners were smart (not a guarantee, especially some of them) they would pay out the workout bonuses that players were barred from attending during the lockout. Those that don't will likely find themselves paying triple damages down the road, not counting the legal fees.

trading a player is certainly illegal in anti trust. Im sure Carson Palmer and Kevin Kolb would agree to be traded, but would the players that they are traded for? I hope the judge doesnt issue the stay just to move this process along.

 

[WVU Alum]

Which rules and restrictions did the NFL put into place that weren't agreed to by the NFLPA?

I think the way the owners negotiated the TV deals will be found in violation. I also think all the collusion that happened in 2010 when no teams bid on some of the biggest free agents will also be found to be in violation. I think all of the franchise tagging going on this season without a CBA is illegal (or not enforceable). I think not paying roster bonuses by declaring a lockout (that now is obvious the owners can't have) needs to remedied. I am sure the trade association could come up with more examples.

name one big name free agent that didnt get a deal David? kevin Maewa? who?

Mawae admitted yesterday that he had an offer on the table from San Fran but it wasn't enough to justify signing. He wasn't blackballed, he was too old and outspoken to get a contract that he thought he was worth.

 

[David Dodds]

name one big name free agent that didnt get a deal David? kevin Maewa? who?

I will probably whiff here, but isn't this the reason Peyton Manning and other huge names are part of the anti-trust lawsuits? Wasn't Peyton a restricted FA last year. Are you telling me no team thought he was worth 2 first round picks?

 

[Mello]

Third, any financial harm suffered by players (team employees, who I have sympathy for, have no standing here) can be compensated by money damages and the period of time for the appeal to be heard is not going to damage any player 'irreparably'

This is where some of us disagree with you. Yes theoretically they can be made right with monetary damages. But take a guy like Kolb. His value is decreasing every day he is not traded and learning a different playbook. Same with the countless free agents that are nearly twice as many as past years because of the rules they played under in 2010. and what about roster bonuses due for offseason workout programs? Will those be made whole plus interest? Or will the owners say offseason is now over so the players get no bonuses. There are a lot of players suffering major harm right now. I see no harm done to the owners who have the ability to open up under any rules they desire. If the judge believes the appeal is without merit (and I am sure she does), then not granting the stay is the correct course. Let the owners scramble and convince the appeals court to grant the stay. If they can't succeed in that, then it's clear they were going to lose on appeal anyway.

This is the point many of us are trying to make. I don't believe he can be traded now without "collusion" occurring. It is like all of us NFL/fantasy guys just want the normal stuff to get going again. But only signing FA could occur (that with no restrictions). I am certain any trade is a collusive act unless the player involved agrees ahead of time, and maybe Kolb would. As to roster bonuses, if the owners were smart (not a guarantee, especially some of them) they would pay out the workout bonuses that players were barred from attending during the lockout. Those that don't will likely find themselves paying triple damages down the road, not counting the legal fees.

trading a player is certainly illegal in anti trust. Im sure Carson Palmer and Kevin Kolb would agree to be traded, but would the players that they are traded for? I hope the judge doesnt issue the stay just to move this process along.

Trades could happen if the player agreed to the trade.

 

[renesauz]

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.

That's STILL not a pay cut for individual players with contracts. It's less money immediately available for rookies and FA contracts, but only temporarily.Using the nuclear option (decertification) is like a wife threatening divorce because her hubby doesn't lower the toilet seat. It threatens the very existance of the NFL and should not be used over a 5 or 6% differance in opinion on salaries, or even 10% (a figure in dispute). The threat level of such a move is unconcionable, and we should all be appalled at the maneuver no matter which side of the dispute you're on.