Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[BassNBrew]

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?

Peppers sure got a nice deal for part time work.

 

[Ksquared]

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?

Exactly..... this is where this all will be going. You want to see what a mess lawyers can make of something, just watch this train wreck. I have come more and more to the conclusion I hope the whole thing blows up. That way Fatness and his Redskins lackeys can enjoy Snyder rostering 100+ players and win by just financially overwhelming most franchises. Every FA that feels they should be getting more than they do (it has happened every year for as long as I can remember) will now file suit claiming "collusion" of the owners depressed their self perceived value. Sorry David, but if the uncertainty of the future $$ structure is still around, teams are not going to throw ridiculous money around at FAs. So the only possible reason for this would be "collusion", not uncertainty of the future financial situations from the "affected players view". Will franchise values go down (the normal anti-owner argument about the vile owners) in the future. I know they will in certain markets and in fact I believe some will fold. And if this becomes the complete free market utopia that many seem to want, there will be retraction of franchises in the next 10 years I am certain. Probably become a 24-28 team league. But that is ok for most of you because you live in a big market city and feel the "fly over" part of the country franchises are just a drag on the league anyway. (sarcasm)

 

[Orange Crush]

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.

Not if the player contractually agrees to it. This is taken from the standard player's contract:

17. ASSIGNMENT. Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, Club may assign this contract and Player’s services under this contract to any successor to Club’s franchise or to any other Club in the League. Player will report to the assignee Club promptly upon being informed of the assignment of his contract and will faithfully perform his services under this contract. The assignee club will pay Player’s necessary traveling expenses in reporting to it and will faithfully perform this contract with Player.

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

Rene, it seems that the lockout was the first drone missile to be fired.

 

[roarlions]

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.

Why wouldn't trades be allowed without player approval, wouldn't contracts still be enforced? I can see where there is some question under the previous rules about franchise tags and how many years were necessary before becoming a free agent, but contracts would still be enforced which would allow teams to trade players under contract. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[Mello]

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?

Exactly..... this is where this all will be going. You want to see what a mess lawyers can make of something, just watch this train wreck. I have come more and more to the conclusion I hope the whole thing blows up. That way Fatness and his Redskins lackeys can enjoy Snyder rostering 100+ players and win by just financially overwhelming most franchises. Every FA that feels they should be getting more than they do (it has happened every year for as long as I can remember) will now file suit claiming "collusion" of the owners depressed their self perceived value. Sorry David, but if the uncertainty of the future $$ structure is still around, teams are not going to throw ridiculous money around at FAs. So the only possible reason for this would be "collusion", not uncertainty of the future financial situations. Will franchise values go down (the normal anti-owner argument about the vile owners) in the future. I know they will in certain markets and in fact I believe some will fold. And if this becomes the complete free market utopia that many seem to want, there will be retraction of franchises in the next 10 years I am certain. Probably become a 24-28 team league. But that is ok for most of you because you live in a big market city and feel the "fly over" part of the country franchises are just a drag on the league anyway. (sarcasm)

The owners we're free to avoid this by not opting out of the CBA. They also could have accepted any of the players' offers up until the decertification. They chose to act like they could withstand the legal challenges and they cannot. They put the players in a position where this was their only option other accepting whatever the owners wanted or attempting to wait out the lockout and likely watching their union crumble as players defected.This is a complete mess. It is the results of both sides being adversarial rather than sitting down and truly figuring out the best deal for everyone moving forward. Unless you know of a way to force both sides to stop being greedy, this is the only option.

 

[renesauz]

Rene, it seems that the lockout was the first drone missile to be fired.

Wasn't the lockout a RESPONSE to decertification? IE: It was NOT the first missile, at least not the first nuclear missile.

 

[David Dodds]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I hope the judge doesnt issue the stay just to move this process along.

If I thought it would advance the process of getting to a CBA, I'd agree. I think the players are getting more and more emboldened and worry that what began as a true leverage/negotiation tactic is rapidly becoming a very real possibility for the future of the operation of the NFL...that being the NFL absent a CBA.

 

[WVU Alum]

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?

He restructured after the super bowl and last year was his last year under contract. The Colts tried to give him a contract extension last season but he didn't bite. Pretty sure under the old CBA he is an RFA this year and if tagged would make $23 million. Sounds like there will be no franchise tags. Guys is going to make $100+ over 4 or 5 years. He will have the largest contract in history regardless of the outcome of the lockout.

 

[Ksquared]

I disagree this is the only option, but even if it was. I don't see it leading to a solution.

 

[zadok]

Rene, it seems that the lockout was the first drone missile to be fired.

Wasn't the lockout a RESPONSE to decertification? IE: It was NOT the first missile, at least not the first nuclear missile.

No. That's why the league says the de-cert was a sham. You can't lockout a non union workforce.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'm expecting a very vanilla draft. If I was an owner, I'd be trading every future 2012 thru 20?? draft pick for extra picks this year.

 

[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.

Why wouldn't trades be allowed without player approval, wouldn't contracts still be enforced? I can see where there is some question under the previous rules about franchise tags and how many years were necessary before becoming a free agent, but contracts would still be enforced which would allow teams to trade players under contract. Unless I'm missing something.

Good question. I'm no expert so I hope others chime in if I'm wrong. I would think it would first depend on the contract. If it states a player can be traded without their approval, there would be no issues. Otherwise, I'm just comparing it to what I think applies to normal employees. Can a company with an employee under a contract trade that person to another company without their approval? Silly question since there isn't much reason for it, but I don't believe they can.

 

[Mello]

I disagree this is the only option, but even if it was. I don't see it leading to a solution.

Assuming they did not want to accept what the owners were offering, what other option did the players have?

 

[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.

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.

Rene, it seems that the lockout was the first drone missile to be fired.

lockout was threatened, but the owners were content extending the CBA while mediation continued with the NLRB. It was the players decertifying THEN the lockout.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

Just a question. Is this the NFL you want?Do you think it benefits some/all/most players?

 

[WVU Alum]

I disagree this is the only option, but even if it was. I don't see it leading to a solution.

Assuming they did not want to accept what the owners were offering, what other option did the players have?

Extend negotiations again?

 

[David Dodds]

Trades could definitely be legal, by stating it in the contract.

 

[David Dodds]

I disagree this is the only option, but even if it was. I don't see it leading to a solution.

Assuming they did not want to accept what the owners were offering, what other option did the players have?

Extend negotiations again?

The owners sent just a handful of people to the last set of talks (mediated by Cohen). They did not take it seriously so why should the players continue down that path?

 

[roarlions]

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.

Why wouldn't trades be allowed without player approval, wouldn't contracts still be enforced? I can see where there is some question under the previous rules about franchise tags and how many years were necessary before becoming a free agent, but contracts would still be enforced which would allow teams to trade players under contract. Unless I'm missing something.

Good question. I'm no expert so I hope others chime in if I'm wrong. I would think it would first depend on the contract. If it states a player can be traded without their approval, there would be no issues. Otherwise, I'm just comparing it to what I think applies to normal employees. Can a company with an employee under a contract trade that person to another company without their approval? Silly question since there isn't much reason for it, but I don't believe they can.

Pretty sure Orange Crush answered this in his post a bit earlier than mine. Looks like the standard player contract would allow a trade without player approval. Makes sense, since news is usually made when a player has a no-trade clause rather than the other way around.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

Not if the player contractually agrees to it. This is taken from the standard player's contract:

17. ASSIGNMENT. Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, Club may assign this contract and Player's services under this contract to any successor to Club's franchise or to any other Club in the League. Player will report to the assignee Club promptly upon being informed of the assignment of his contract and will faithfully perform his services under this contract. The assignee club will pay Player's necessary traveling expenses in reporting to it and will faithfully perform this contract with Player.

provided that each team in the trade feels like they are getting value, I see no problem trading in a non-CBA league. It's like Harris Teeter and Kroger agreeing to swap store leases so strengthen their positions in individual markets. If both feel they are getting value there is no collusion.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I disagree this is the only option, but even if it was. I don't see it leading to a solution.

Assuming they did not want to accept what the owners were offering, what other option did the players have?

Extend negotiations again?

The owners sent just a handful of people to the last set of talks (mediated by Cohen). They did not take it seriously so why should the players continue down that path?

Because it was more likely to lead to a resolution than this path?

 

[renesauz]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

Only on those ultra-competitive teams. Non-competitive teams will seek to minimze roster salaries just to remain fiscally afloat. Parity will be destroyed. With a lack of parity, public interest in MOST markets diminishes, and total league revenues do NOT go up, they go down. (Revenues may skyrocket in places like Dallas and New York or Washington, but most teams will see declines.)A completely free market system would not benefit the players long term, but short term (while fan interest and revenues remain high). Manning, Brees, and Brady may make more money, but the draft picks (oops...no draft n a free market world)rookie FAs entering the league 10 or 15 years from now will make far less than they would have if the cap system remained in place. These future players have every bit as much right to have their salaries maximized as the current players do. The health of the league (revenues generated by PARITY) is a crucial component that must be preserved.

"Free markets" are over-rated. Uncontrolled growth often hurts businesses and/or promotes monopolies. This is not an answer a reasonable and informed person would want as a long term solution. The fact that many of the players already admit that they don't want to get rid of the draft, and were negotiating not for a free market but a cap, shows that they understand and agree with this philosophy. It also shows that decertification while the owners were still trying to negotiate was itself a negotiating tool, and a sham (morally if not legally).

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

Rene, it seems that the lockout was the first drone missile to be fired.

lockout was threatened, but the owners were content extending the CBA while mediation continued with the NLRB. It was the players decertifying THEN the lockout.

I have apparently misremembered the order of events and retract my statement. Apologies.

 

[WVU Alum]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

Only on those ultra-competitive teams. Non-competitive teams will seek to minimze roster salaries just to remain fiscally afloat. Parity will be destroyed. With a lack of parity, public interest in MOST markets diminishes, and total league revenues do NOT go up, they go down. (Revenues may skyrocket in places like Dallas and New York or Washington, but most teams will see declines.)A completely free market system would not benefit the players long term, but short term (while fan interest and revenues remain high). Manning, Brees, and Brady may make more money, but the draft picks(oops...no draft n a free market world)rookie FAs entering the league 10 or 15 years from now will make far less than they would have if the cap system remained in place.

"Free markets" are over-rated. Uncontrolled growth often hurts businesses and/or promotes monopolies. This is not an answer a reasonable and informed person would want as a long term solution. The fact that many of the players already admit that they don't want to get rid of the draft, and were nrgotiaiting not for a fre market but a cap, shows that they understand and agree with this philosophy. It also shows that decertification while the owners were still trying to negotiate was a negotiating tool, and a sham (morally if not legally).

For every Yankees type spender there will be 1 or 2 Pirates type spenders. Not every team will find it beneficial to profits to field a competitive team. Some teams will likely make more money having a handful of decent players and a hell of a bunch of marginal ones.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think Andrew Brandt has established himself as one of the, if not the most centered guy covering this stuff. Brandt's missives have all had the same underlying point...all of this is posturing. Brandt continues to say that, in spite of the legal tides going heavily in the players favor, there is absolutely no question that they do not want, nor intend, to ever let "Brady vs..." go to court. Why? Because neither side REALLY wants the entire structure of this league eradicated. It's called a nuclear option for a reason. Neither side would come out a winner.

As much as people are trying ever so vehemently to make this something it's not, it certainly seems that the most likely outcome at this point is a new CBA, which is somewhere closer to the "last best" offer we heard from the NFL at the end of the mediation, and much more favorable than what the owners were hoping for. The only question is whether that's negotiated in a week or two, or several years from now.

Let's not forget that the NFL operated without a CBA and in the midst of a labor dispute for several years before. It can happen again, but ultimately neither side wants to let the rule of law define every aspect of this league.

 

[roadkill1292]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

I see that this post has come under fire but I think we could all agree that the league has a handful of current owners who really need to be culled from the herd.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So ok looks like I was wrong on the trading thing, but then why cant they do player trades during this draft?

 

[Mello]

I disagree this is the only option, but even if it was. I don't see it leading to a solution.

Assuming they did not want to accept what the owners were offering, what other option did the players have?

Extend negotiations again?

The owners sent just a handful of people to the last set of talks (mediated by Cohen). They did not take it seriously so why should the players continue down that path?

Because it was more likely to lead to a resolution than this path?

The players didn't believe that is true and I haven't seen anything from anyone except NFL PR that would make me believe that either.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I think Andrew Brandt has established himself as one of the, if not the most centered guy covering this stuff. Brandt's missives have all had the same underlying point...all of this is posturing. Brandt continues to say that, in spite of the legal tides going heavily in the players favor, there is absolutely no question that they do not want, nor intend, to ever let "Brady vs..." go to court. Why? Because neither side REALLY wants the entire structure of this league eradicated. It's called a nuclear option for a reason. Neither side would come out a winner. As much as people are trying ever so vehemently to make this something it's not, it certainly seems that the most likely outcome at this point is a new CBA, which is somewhere closer to the "last best" offer we heard from the NFL at the end of the mediation, and much more favorable than what the owners were hoping for. The only question is whether that's negotiated in a week or two, or several years from now.Let's not forget that the NFL operated without a CBA and in the midst of a labor dispute for several years before. It can happen again, but ultimately neither side wants to let the rule of law define every aspect of this league.

Yes. All of this is my 'hope' and I've fully admitted I'm a little "Chicken Little" on the sky is falling kind of stuff, however, I do see a very real chance that no one blinks in this game of chicken and that the game is either irreparably damaged and/or harmed for a very long time.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I disagree this is the only option, but even if it was. I don't see it leading to a solution.

Assuming they did not want to accept what the owners were offering, what other option did the players have?

Extend negotiations again?

The owners sent just a handful of people to the last set of talks (mediated by Cohen). They did not take it seriously so why should the players continue down that path?

Because it was more likely to lead to a resolution than this path?

The players didn't believe that is true and I haven't seen anything from anyone except NFL PR that would make me believe that either.

I see no progress being made this route.

 

[David Dodds]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

Just a question. Is this the NFL you want?Do you think it benefits some/all/most players?

I want a CBA. I like the draft, restrictive free agency, and the salary cap.But I think the owners are being extreme turds. They want more money and have provided no reason for it. Their plan all along was to hold the players hostage and use the $4B in TV money to squeeze the players. I think they had a fair deal. Things like franchise tags, very restrictive free agency and salary caps kept the league profitable for all. The owners opted to blow that up despite making record money and the league more successful than ever. I have said all along that this is about the NFL Network. If they sold those Thursday games and bailed on the network, they would generate another billion a year. and I personally believe the only way we are going to get a CBA that works for both sides is for the owners to get crushed in these court rulings. That means doing exactly what the players are doing now. Challenge everything that the owners had been given by the CBA to keep the costs down. If the league blows up and the salary cap is gone forever (plus less restrictive free agency), players as a whole will make more money. The gap will also be wider though so special teams players, punters, long-snappers, etc will all be impacted negatively. At some point, some of the teams will be so awful that they will be forced to sell their franchise because they are unwilling to spend to compete. But new ownership will buy these "loser" teams and be willing to compete which should also drive up player salaries in the long run.

 

[WVU Alum]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

I see that this post has come under fire but I think we could all agree that the league has a handful of current owners who really need to be culled from the herd.

This is true but I am sure the franchise could remain profitable even if it fields a consistently inferior product. We as fans are loyal and stubborn. Regardless of how inept the Raiders have been I still find myself tuning in whenever they are on. People still buy me the occassional Raiders trinket. Teams will still make money, they just won't have to worry about a salary floor. Dan Snyder can sign all the big names he wants and maybe win championships, but Buffalo could make just as much money by signing a bunch of has-beens and never-was' and people will buy the product.

 

[Orange Crush]

I think Andrew Brandt has established himself as one of the, if not the most centered guy covering this stuff. Brandt's missives have all had the same underlying point...all of this is posturing. Brandt continues to say that, in spite of the legal tides going heavily in the players favor, there is absolutely no question that they do not want, nor intend, to ever let "Brady vs..." go to court. Why? Because neither side REALLY wants the entire structure of this league eradicated. It's called a nuclear option for a reason. Neither side would come out a winner. As much as people are trying ever so vehemently to make this something it's not, it certainly seems that the most likely outcome at this point is a new CBA, which is somewhere closer to the "last best" offer we heard from the NFL at the end of the mediation, and much more favorable than what the owners were hoping for. The only question is whether that's negotiated in a week or two, or several years from now.Let's not forget that the NFL operated without a CBA and in the midst of a labor dispute for several years before. It can happen again, but ultimately neither side wants to let the rule of law define every aspect of this league.

I completely agree. The problem is that the NFL viewed a worst-case scenario as still getting a stay so that they could at least negotiate a new CBA without starting the league year. The very real danger of not getting a stay is what throws everything into chaos. I still think everything will end up ok and with a new CBA, but I'm getting a little nervous.

 

[BassNBrew]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

I see that this post has come under fire but I think we could all agree that the league has a handful of current owners who really need to be culled from the herd.

This is true but I am sure the franchise could remain profitable even if it fields a consistently inferior product. We as fans are loyal and stubborn. Regardless of how inept the Raiders have been I still find myself tuning in whenever they are on. People still buy me the occassional Raiders trinket. Teams will still make money, they just won't have to worry about a salary floor. Dan Snyder can sign all the big names he wants and maybe win championships, but Buffalo could make just as much money by signing a bunch of has-beens and never-was' and people will buy the product.

People don't pay for bad product in mass.

 

[WVU Alum]

I did not author this. It is from 2006 (bolded is revenue in millions) Last year NYY revenue was 400 mil.

Top 10 MLB Revenues (MILL):

264 New York Yankees

201 Boston Red Sox

180 New York Mets

173 Seattle Mariners

170 Chicago Cubs

167 Philadelphia Phillies

166 Los Angeles Dodgers

162 Atlanta Braves

159 San Francisco Giants

155 Houston Astros

Bottom 5 MLB Revenues:

107 Toronto Blue Jays

104 Kansas City Royals

103 Florida Marlins

102 Minnesota Twins

80 Washington Nationals

LINK 2

2006 Top 10 MLB Payrolls

$194,663,079 New York Yankees

$120,099,824 Boston Red Sox

$103,472,000 Los Angeles Angels

$102,750,667 Chicago White Sox

$101,084,963 New York Mets

$98,447,187 Los Angeles Dodgers

$94,424,499 Chicago Cubs

$92,551,503 Houston Astros

$90,156,876 Atlanta Braves

$90,056,419 San Francisco Giants

2006 Bottom 5 MLB Payrolls

$47,294,000 Kansas City Royals

$46,717,750 Pittsburgh Pirates

$41,233,000 Colorado Rockies

$35,417,967 Tampa Bay Devil Rays

$14,998,500 Florida Marlins

And this is what I found interesting.... I divided their 2006 Payroll by the 2005 Revenue(there will be a margin of error here) to get a clearer understanding of who really is shelling out in attempt to win.

% or Revenue spent on Payroll

79% Washington Nationals

79% Chicago White Sox

74% New York Yankees

70% Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

67% Toronto Blue Jays

66% Detroit Tigers

62% Minnesota Twins

60% Houston Astros

60% Boston Red Sox

59% Los Angeles Dodgers

59% St Louis Cardinals

57% San Francisco Giants

56% New York Mets

56% Atlanta Braves

55% Chicago Cubs

53% Oakland Athletics

53% Philadelphia Phillies

52% Milwaukee Brewers

51% Seattle Mariners

49% Baltimore Orioles

48% Cincinnati Reds

48% Texas Rangers

47% San Diego Padres

45% Kansas City Royals

44% Arizona Diamondbacks

43% Pittsburgh Pirates

40% Cleveland Indians

32% Tampa Bay Devil Rays

31% Colorado Rockies

15% Florida Marlins

 

[roadkill1292]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

I see that this post has come under fire but I think we could all agree that the league has a handful of current owners who really need to be culled from the herd.

This is true but I am sure the franchise could remain profitable even if it fields a consistently inferior product. We as fans are loyal and stubborn. Regardless of how inept the Raiders have been I still find myself tuning in whenever they are on. People still buy me the occassional Raiders trinket. Teams will still make money, they just won't have to worry about a salary floor. Dan Snyder can sign all the big names he wants and maybe win championships, but Buffalo could make just as much money by signing a bunch of has-beens and never-was' and people will buy the product.

Yes, I see Dodds is talking about a capless NFL but that's the last thing I ever see happening. Players want the minimum and, if they're gonna continue to agree to revenue sharing, then owners are damn well gonna want a minimum, too, to make sure that none of their brethren are coasting along sucking up the profits (an old Devil Bob Irsay gambit, BTW) without spending some of it along the way to make the game better. By requiring a cap minimum, you force the sluggards to compete. If they fail, they lose money and get bought out.

 

[Mello]

I think Andrew Brandt has established himself as one of the, if not the most centered guy covering this stuff. Brandt's missives have all had the same underlying point...all of this is posturing. Brandt continues to say that, in spite of the legal tides going heavily in the players favor, there is absolutely no question that they do not want, nor intend, to ever let "Brady vs..." go to court. Why? Because neither side REALLY wants the entire structure of this league eradicated. It's called a nuclear option for a reason. Neither side would come out a winner. As much as people are trying ever so vehemently to make this something it's not, it certainly seems that the most likely outcome at this point is a new CBA, which is somewhere closer to the "last best" offer we heard from the NFL at the end of the mediation, and much more favorable than what the owners were hoping for. The only question is whether that's negotiated in a week or two, or several years from now.Let's not forget that the NFL operated without a CBA and in the midst of a labor dispute for several years before. It can happen again, but ultimately neither side wants to let the rule of law define every aspect of this league.

If the stay is not granted, the issue will be what rules the NFL is willing to implement. Didn't the Reggie White case that untimely resulted in a CBA come from the NFL implementing rules that violated anti-trust laws?

 

[renesauz]

In a complete free market with no cap, I suspect the weakest owners / smaller markets will sell their teams to owners who can spend to compete. Especially with a sport as popular as football. With only 32 teams and lots of people wanting to own teams, I think franchises would continue to rise unless the team was so bad that it was a laughing stock in the league. Additionally the stronger teams will likely be able to get their own pay-per view channels for additional (non-shared) revenue. All of this would likely lead to larger dollars paid to the players as well.

I see that this post has come under fire but I think we could all agree that the league has a handful of current owners who really need to be culled from the herd.

This is true but I am sure the franchise could remain profitable even if it fields a consistently inferior product. We as fans are loyal and stubborn. Regardless of how inept the Raiders have been I still find myself tuning in whenever they are on. People still buy me the occassional Raiders trinket. Teams will still make money, they just won't have to worry about a salary floor. Dan Snyder can sign all the big names he wants and maybe win championships, but Buffalo could make just as much money by signing a bunch of has-beens and never-was' and people will buy the product.

I think you're giving far too much credit to fan loyalty here. If I felt my team could never/would never be competitive, I would stop watching. The declining popularity of baseball (see TV ratings) provides at least some evidance of this. There are, I'm sure, MANY fans like me who would watch a lot less football if parity were destroyed. Heck....I was a diehard college football fan 20 years ago. But college ball has no parity, nor even a real playoff system. I still like college football, and tune in when my team (Penn State) is good, but my interest level and support is nowhere close to what it was, or would be if college football had parity. (And Penn State actually has at least a little parity intra-conferance)

 

[renesauz]

I did not author this. It is from 2006 (bolded is revenue in millions) Last year NYY revenue was 400 mil.

Top 10 MLB Revenues (MILL):

264 New York Yankees

201 Boston Red Sox

180 New York Mets

173 Seattle Mariners

170 Chicago Cubs

167 Philadelphia Phillies

166 Los Angeles Dodgers

162 Atlanta Braves

159 San Francisco Giants

155 Houston Astros

Bottom 5 MLB Revenues:

107 Toronto Blue Jays

104 Kansas City Royals

103 Florida Marlins

102 Minnesota Twins

80 Washington Nationals

LINK 2

2006 Top 10 MLB Payrolls

$194,663,079 New York Yankees

$120,099,824 Boston Red Sox

$103,472,000 Los Angeles Angels

$102,750,667 Chicago White Sox

$101,084,963 New York Mets

$98,447,187 Los Angeles Dodgers

$94,424,499 Chicago Cubs

$92,551,503 Houston Astros

$90,156,876 Atlanta Braves

$90,056,419 San Francisco Giants

2006 Bottom 5 MLB Payrolls

$47,294,000 Kansas City Royals

$46,717,750 Pittsburgh Pirates

$41,233,000 Colorado Rockies

$35,417,967 Tampa Bay Devil Rays

$14,998,500 Florida Marlins

And this is what I found interesting.... I divided their 2006 Payroll by the 2005 Revenue(there will be a margin of error here) to get a clearer understanding of who really is shelling out in attempt to win.

% or Revenue spent on Payroll

79% Washington Nationals

79% Chicago White Sox

74% New York Yankees

70% Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

67% Toronto Blue Jays

66% Detroit Tigers

62% Minnesota Twins

60% Houston Astros

60% Boston Red Sox

59% Los Angeles Dodgers

59% St Louis Cardinals

57% San Francisco Giants

56% New York Mets

56% Atlanta Braves

55% Chicago Cubs

53% Oakland Athletics

53% Philadelphia Phillies

52% Milwaukee Brewers

51% Seattle Mariners

49% Baltimore Orioles

48% Cincinnati Reds

48% Texas Rangers

47% San Diego Padres

45% Kansas City Royals

44% Arizona Diamondbacks

43% Pittsburgh Pirates

40% Cleveland Indians

32% Tampa Bay Devil Rays

31% Colorado Rockies

15% Florida Marlins

With a median and an average both close to 54%, it would seem to indicate that the NFL's CAPPED numbers really aren't too far off the total that would exist in a completely free market, particularly when you consider that the NFL is putting far more effor tinto growing their product (NFLN, ETC.) than MLB.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

sounds like the owners are getting some bad legal advice from their lawyers. As they continue to lose in court we can only hope that they wake up and smell the roses or they are forced to start the season, either now ifthe stay isnt granted or later after appeals are exhausted

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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

I liked that part. (And I'm not being sarcastic.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

I don't think the non-statutory labor exemption is available to the league that this point.But while the draft and salary cap are clear violations of antitrust laws, the other restrictions on free agency are defensible. Moreover, the 2011 draft is covered by the previous CBA, and there was no salary cap in 2010, so there's no problem on that front going forward. Stuff like roster limits should pass antitrust scrutiny. Stuff like the franchise tag may or may not pass muster, but by the time those things are litigated, there should be a new CBA in place anyway (which I think is the answer to your final question). Using most of the 2010 rules should work okay . . .

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

There's no need for more lawsuits; there's already a lawsuit. Part of the Brees lawsuit is to challenge the lockout. Another part is to challenge current restrictions on free agency.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

Not any restriction. Just unreasonable restrictions. See the analysis in Mackey.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

Mostly the same as 2010 (meaning no salary cap), except that I'd probably get rid of franchise tags (and transition tags) just to be safe. (ETA: And restricted free agency.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

It's easy to be harmed by staying in business against your will, even if the business is legal. The owners don't want to have a 2011 season. (And I mean that in the same sense that people mean when they say that Kessler doesn't want a draft. They really do want those things, but their litigation positions are different from their actual positions.) As long as the owners don't want to have a 2011 season, it harms them to force on one them. Refusal to grant the stay puts the league immediately in business when it doesn't want to be.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

It depends on what is offered, but if they receive a decent offer, the obvious answer is: money.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

The teams would have to get in compliance.