Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[zadok]

32 teams agreeing not sign any is.

But 32 teams not signing anyone because there are a multitude of unanswered questions and worries about the future is not.

Those "unanswered questions" are the fault of the league itself! It's a prison they have the key to. Nelson called them out on it.

 

[Jason Wood]

If teams aren't required to sign free agents, they certainly aren't "required" to trade players either. The key question is, are they allowed to? If so, I think a few teams (my Eagles included) will want to get right on that

 

[D.J.]

Couldn't the individual owners be held in contempt if they don't "open for business?"at least talking to agents, letting players work out, ect...

 

[Chadstroma]

32 teams agreeing not sign any is.

But 32 teams not signing anyone because there are a multitude of unanswered questions and worries about the future is not.

The league had one of their lawyers tell Judge Nelson today in writing that her ruling was sufficiently clear. So they can't play "uncertain" without being in contempt of court.

As we see it, the league can comply with Judge Nelson’s rulings and treat the lockout as over — or the league can maintain the status quo pending appeal of the decision not to stay the injunction, pending appeal.

The risk of a finding of contempt of court has spiked significantly after today’s events, in our view. Though the league could project (feigned or otherwise) confusion on Monday and Tuesday, there is no doubt today regarding Judge Nelson’s intentions.

The lockout is over. The injunction ending the lockout is not stayed.

In light of letters from the lawyers for the NFL and the players submitted to Judge Nelson on Wednesday, we believe the league no longer can credibly claim that further clarification is needed.

First, a letter from NFL local counsel Aaron D. Van Oort to Judge Nelson targeted the proposed order submitted by the players on Monday night elaborating on the ruling lifting the lockout. “We believe that the prescriptive language of the Court’s Order — ‘The lockout is enjoined’ — coupled with the Opinion that precedes that language, provides sufficient guidance of the Court’s directions,” Van Oort writes.

link

Actually yes they can. They still have no idea what will happen tomorrow (tomorrow being a generic term for the future in case you take it too literally). There will be a CBA at some point and if you sign someone to a contract that is really not a good one under the new CBA then you have done yourself extreme harm. Further, even operating under no CBA has questions for an organization to work out.

As long as they allow the current players under contract to come in and work out etc, then they will be fine. You can't say "Look! They have not signed anyone!" as proof of contempt of court. It would be a poor judge that orders individual teams to sign players now. When simply put, there are real business reasons why a team will not sign anyone. I also think that the smart teams will start to talk to agents of FA's to get the talks going while they can, which again can be shown as a reason why they are not in contempt, so that they can have a better idea of who they will sign when this is all said and done.

 

[massraider]

If teams aren't required to sign free agents, they certainly aren't "required" to trade players either. The key question is, are they allowed to? If so, I think a few teams (my Eagles included) will want to get right on that

I can't imagine a scenario where a team would trade for Kolb without a contract extension at least discussed with his people.

 

[David Dodds]

AWESOME.

The owners still have the possible hail mary that the appeals court will grant a stay, but I think it's a huge longshot to get that expedited in the next few days.

 

[Chadstroma]

32 teams agreeing not sign any is.

But 32 teams not signing anyone because there are a multitude of unanswered questions and worries about the future is not.

Those "unanswered questions" are the fault of the league itself! It's a prison they have the key to. Nelson called them out on it.

It is the leagues fault that they do not know what the next CBA will look like? The decertification is a sham people. The union is only gone by process and not by fact. The league will not move forward operating under a free market- the union will not allow that to happen. All of this is a big game between the NFL and the union. Currently that game is being played in the courts. Right now, the union has some significant early victories but the game is a long ways from being over. At some point, a new CBA will be ushered in. Any team that makes significant decisions like signing players without knowing what that CBA will look like is being run by morons.

 

[shader]

If you are a small market team and you aren't thrilled with the rich owners, this seems like a perfect time to go sign some free agents. Senile owners like Wilson and Adams would make the most sense here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

They still have no idea what will happen tomorrow (tomorrow being a generic term for the future in case you take it too literally). There will be a CBA at some point and if you sign someone to a contract that is really not a good one under the new CBA then you have done yourself extreme harm. Further, even operating under no CBA has questions for an organization to work out.

I'm not sure this is right. The owners don't have a CBA because they walked away from one. It's not up to anyone to save them from their decision. And they can operate under the law without one. To say, "we'd comply with your order but we don't have a CBA isn't going to fly.

 

[Chadstroma]

AWESOME.The owners still have the possible hail mary that the appeals court will grant a stay, but I think it's a huge longshot to get that expedited in the next few days.

I don't see this as being 'awesome' because I see this as prolonging this labor dispute further. I do not think that a stay from the appeals court is a hail mary.

 

[Chadstroma]

They still have no idea what will happen tomorrow (tomorrow being a generic term for the future in case you take it too literally). There will be a CBA at some point and if you sign someone to a contract that is really not a good one under the new CBA then you have done yourself extreme harm. Further, even operating under no CBA has questions for an organization to work out.

I'm not sure this is right. The owners don't have a CBA because they walked away from one. It's not up to anyone to save them from their decision. And they can operate under the law without one. To say, "we'd comply with your order but we don't have a CBA isn't going to fly.

Like I said before, they can easily allow players under contract into the facilities, have coaches talk to players, talk to agents.... do everything but sign players. It would be pretty hard for anyone to say that they are not complying with the order. Would the court demand that each team sign someone? I think some of you are seeing this way too much as black and white. I don't see it that way.

 

[fatness]

Fans chant outside Radio City Music Hall, “We want football!”

 

[massraider]

32 teams agreeing not sign any is.

But 32 teams not signing anyone because there are a multitude of unanswered questions and worries about the future is not.

Those "unanswered questions" are the fault of the league itself! It's a prison they have the key to. Nelson called them out on it.

It is the leagues fault that they do not know what the next CBA will look like? The decertification is a sham people. The union is only gone by process and not by fact. The league will not move forward operating under a free market- the union will not allow that to happen. All of this is a big game between the NFL and the union. Currently that game is being played in the courts. Right now, the union has some significant early victories but the game is a long ways from being over. At some point, a new CBA will be ushered in. Any team that makes significant decisions like signing players without knowing what that CBA will look like is being run by morons.

Everyone knows the decertification is a sham and that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

 

[fatness]

There will be a CBA at some point and if you sign someone to a contract that is really not a good one under the new CBA then you have done yourself extreme harm.

Judge Nelson disagreed.

 

[David Dodds]

Why would the appeals court grant a stay?

Let's say the United Auto Workers decertified so there is no CBA. Could Ford then lockout all the workers and use the courts to make them be union employees (even though no union exists)? This is exactly what the NFL is trying to argue.

The owners lost on merit. They are going to lose on appeal. To grant an emergency stay, the appeals court has to think the NFL has a chance to win the appeal. They also have to believe that irreparable harm would happen if the league has to open. Unfortunately for the NFL, their arguments for irreparable harm would have them operating business like every other one in the country (ie not in violation of anti-trust laws). Without an anti-trust exception from Congress, their is no basis to the owner's claims.

Whether it be a day or a week, NFL 2011 is on.

 

[fatness]

If you are a small market team and you aren't thrilled with the rich owners, this seems like a perfect time to go sign some free agents. Senile owners like Wilson and Adams would make the most sense here.

Likewise if you're a mid-market or rich owner --- free agents may not be getting too many offers, and some may settle for less than they'd sign for during normal offseasons.

 

[David Dodds]

There will be a CBA at some point and if you sign someone to a contract that is really not a good one under the new CBA then you have done yourself extreme harm.

Judge Nelson disagreed.

There is only going to be a CBA if the owners choose to negotiate with the players fairly. That includes answering why they need extra money off of the top when they are making record profits. So far I have seen nothing from the ownership group that says they are willing to do that. So to take the position that there has to be a CBA is incorrect. It might be years before we see a CBA. And if the owners never agree to open up their books (or at least explain the need for money off the top) then we may never see another CBA. The owners took the CBA (and all of the cost controls that came with that) for granted. It now may cost them a lot more than the deal they had.

 

[fatness]

The NFL had argued that Nelson had no jurisdiction and that she shouldn't make a decision while a complaint of bad-faith negotiation against the players was still pending with the National Labor Relations Board. The league also argued that it shouldn't be subject to some of the antitrust claims levelled by the players with the collective bargaining deal barely expired.

The judge shot all of those down.

They just keep losing.And they're putting forth some pretty bad-faith arguments too.

The league's plea to Nelson for the stay was also based on a purported fear that an immediate lifting of the lockout would result in a free agency free-for-all that could create a mess that would be difficult to undo should a new collective bargaining agreement lead to different rules.

link

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There is only going to be a CBA if the owners choose to negotiate with the players fairly. That includes answering why they need extra money off of the top when they are making record profits. So far I have seen nothing from the ownership group that says they are willing to do that. So to take the position that there has to be a CBA is incorrect. It might be years before we see a CBA.

I'd also think that the terms of the next CBA are getting more expensive by the ruling.

 

[David Dodds]

I think the league will try some stalling maneuvers, but we are going to see rules of operation sometime next week. And unless the emergency stay gets granted from the appeals court, Football is on for 2011.

 

[Cripster]

Changing the subject a little, does anyone think Roger gets booed when he comes out tomorrow night. We were talking about that today in my office. Not significant, but the owners just seem to be tanking in the public eye.

 

[David Dodds]

There is only going to be a CBA if the owners choose to negotiate with the players fairly. That includes answering why they need extra money off of the top when they are making record profits. So far I have seen nothing from the ownership group that says they are willing to do that. So to take the position that there has to be a CBA is incorrect. It might be years before we see a CBA.

I'd also think that the terms of the next CBA are getting more expensive by the ruling.

No doubt about that. I do think the players were mostly just playing goalie through this process. They weren't asking for more. They liked their deal. The owners wanted a lot more. The owners came off that considerably in the waining hours with mediator Cohen, but the NFL's last second offer was too many changes too late to determine the intricacies whether negotiating could get them closer to the deal they needed The NFLPA felt slighted that most of the owners mailed in those mediation sessions and weren't negotiating in good faith. So they pressed the red button. And they initially took a lot of heat from fans for doing just that.The owners still had one chance to save themselves though and that was when this judge opened up mediation. But the owner's failure to see what has now played out is likely going to cost them a much worse CBA going forward. I doubt the players even agree to play according to the last 2 years of the old deal anymore. I still believe some kind of CBA gets done eventually, but we may hear these antitrust cases first.

 

[fatness]

Now today we heard that the judge has denied the stay and has put the injunction into effect. Now there are a few things that are going to happen.

1. The owners are going to continue to appeal to the higher court

2. The players are going to request that the owners post an appeal bond

3. The owners are going to test the court’s power

linkI hadn't thought of that in connection with the stay request to the 8th circuit. But I guess the players would be consistent in asking for that bond.

 

[David Dodds]

Changing the subject a little, does anyone think Roger gets booed when he comes out tomorrow night. We were talking about that today in my office. Not significant, but the owners just seem to be tanking in the public eye.

I think he probably does get booed a bit. He has botched these negotiations pretty badly where I sit. While D Smith was getting signatures all last year for decertification, Roger seemed shocked that the players went that route. Really? Your owners have provided no justification for more money. As a commissioner, it was his job to find out the truthfulness of needing that money and present a compelling case. He has looked like someone being pulled by both sides in this the whole way. Tags led the negotiations.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think the league will try some stalling maneuvers, but we are going to see rules of operation sometime next week. And unless the emergency stay gets granted from the appeals court, Football is on for 2011.

Was there ever any real doubt football would be on for 2011? The only real questions were under what terms and how much of the offseason would be missed. Either way, the sooner the better for fans (and fantasy football sites ) obviously.

 

[David Dodds]

How awesome would life be if the NFL posted their rules for the season on Friday morning and the rest of the draft would involve trading players, signing free agents, etc?

Yes it's too much to ask, but I can hope.

 

[BassNBrew]

So what's preventing owners from opening training camp on Monday for the next four months?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Goodell should prepare to hear boos at draft

Meanwhile the players have remained, at least outwardly, together. Last week’s report of a splinter group of “mid-tier” players seeking a place at the negotiating table has fizzled. The momentum of this week’s victories should aid unity. Union head DeMaurice Smith has managed his team well.

Perhaps most telling is that the public hasn’t rallied around the owners. It usually does in sports labor cases because it thinks owners are supposed to be rich while athletes are lucky to be.

The arrogance of too many owners has become increasingly clear as this lockout stumbles along. The NFL’s game plan appears to be failing, yet no one is making halftime adjustments.

Goodell’s reaction in the Wall Street Journal to Nelson’s ruling was particularly absurd, perhaps his worst moment in nearly five years on the job. The owners have valid arguments and if they were presented to the public with intellectual honesty then that’s fine. (For what’s it worth, I don’t care who “wins” in this battle. It has no personal bearing on anything for me.) What Goodell published though was an insult to things like facts and logic. It was the work of an organization that didn’t respect the intelligence of the audience

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

Its going to spun as if its not Goodell directly being booed... but it will be.

 

[otis68]

32 teams agreeing not sign any is.

But 32 teams not signing anyone because there are a multitude of unanswered questions and worries about the future is not.

Those "unanswered questions" are the fault of the league itself! It's a prison they have the key to. Nelson called them out on it.

It is the leagues fault that they do not know what the next CBA will look like? The decertification is a sham people. The union is only gone by process and not by fact. The league will not move forward operating under a free market- the union will not allow that to happen. All of this is a big game between the NFL and the union. Currently that game is being played in the courts. Right now, the union has some significant early victories but the game is a long ways from being over. At some point, a new CBA will be ushered in. Any team that makes significant decisions like signing players without knowing what that CBA will look like is being run by morons.

Decertification is not a sham, it is a tactic. Just like the lockout was a tactic. As it turns out, decertification looks like it was a better tactic than the lockout. Right now the owners need the union alot more than the players do, as without it there is unfettered free agency, no salary cap and after this year, no draft. If the appeals court rejects the owners, the only question will be are the players still willing to give up something to the owners, like a salary scale for rookies. But if they do, it will likely mean free agency at 4 years and no more retricted free agents.

 

[Orange Crush]

Can the 49ers call the eagles and get Kolb RIGHT NOW?

Forget Kolb. They should make a run at signing Peyton.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

I think it's because the players' strategy leads to games being played, while the owners' leads to games being cancelled. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

That's why Goodell's op-ed in yesterday's WSJ was kind of odd. He stressed that if the players get their way in court, there will be no draft. He didn't mention that if the owners get their way in court, there will be no football games. Realistically, neither side really wants what it's asking for. But if we're going by what they're asking for . . . I'd rather we still have football games but do away with the draft, rather than still having a draft but doing away with football games. If those are the choices, I think most people would side with the players.Focusing on what each side wants from litigation probably isn't the best way for the owners to win fan support.

Can you please explain how you arrive at this conclusion? That's not at all the case. At least not necessarily and simply puts the onus on both sides to collectively bargain until they find common ground. Now, if you think the players' position would be too unreasonable and that they would be too stubborn--or the owners the same--then there wouldn't be football. But, it's not entirely clear that the posturing and grandstanding by both sides would extend into August, September, and beyond to eliminate games from the schedule.I understand you have a bias, as do I. But, this statement assumes a lot, and certainly is not a position Goodell feels is accurate...seems unfair to criticize him for not including that in his WSJ article.

I explain it in my next sentence, after what you bolded. In court, the owners are seeking to have the lockout upheld. A lockout means no football games. (It's true that the owners don't really want to kill football, just like the players don't really want to kill the draft. But if Goodell is going to divine the players' intent from what they're asking for in a lawsuit, it's only fair to do the same with the owners.)

 

[Orange Crush]

Changing the subject a little, does anyone think Roger gets booed when he comes out tomorrow night. We were talking about that today in my office. Not significant, but the owners just seem to be tanking in the public eye.

I think he probably does get booed a bit. He has botched these negotiations pretty badly where I sit. While D Smith was getting signatures all last year for decertification, Roger seemed shocked that the players went that route. Really? Your owners have provided no justification for more money. As a commissioner, it was his job to find out the truthfulness of needing that money and present a compelling case. He has looked like someone being pulled by both sides in this the whole way. Tags led the negotiations.

This morning I thought he'd get booed. Now, I think he'll be heckled and jeered.

 

[Chadstroma]

32 teams agreeing not sign any is.

But 32 teams not signing anyone because there are a multitude of unanswered questions and worries about the future is not.

Those "unanswered questions" are the fault of the league itself! It's a prison they have the key to. Nelson called them out on it.

It is the leagues fault that they do not know what the next CBA will look like? The decertification is a sham people. The union is only gone by process and not by fact. The league will not move forward operating under a free market- the union will not allow that to happen. All of this is a big game between the NFL and the union. Currently that game is being played in the courts. Right now, the union has some significant early victories but the game is a long ways from being over. At some point, a new CBA will be ushered in. Any team that makes significant decisions like signing players without knowing what that CBA will look like is being run by morons.

Everyone knows the decertification is a sham and that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

It may not have anything to do with the price of tea in China but it certainly does have something to do with whether or not teams will sign players. If decertification was not a sham then there would be no reasonable expectation of a CBA in the future. Hence, it is linked.

 

[Chadstroma]

There will be a CBA at some point and if you sign someone to a contract that is really not a good one under the new CBA then you have done yourself extreme harm.

Judge Nelson disagreed.

I did not read the full 89 pages of her decision. Apparently you did. Can you go ahead and copy&paste the reference where she disagreed that there would be a CBA in the future? Thanks in advance.

 

[Chadstroma]

Why would the appeals court grant a stay?Let's say the United Auto Workers decertified so there is no CBA. Could Ford then lockout all the workers and use the courts to make them be union employees (even though no union exists)? This is exactly what the NFL is trying to argue. The owners lost on merit. They are going to lose on appeal. To grant an emergency stay, the appeals court has to think the NFL has a chance to win the appeal. They also have to believe that irreparable harm would happen if the league has to open. Unfortunately for the NFL, their arguments for irreparable harm would have them operating business like every other one in the country (ie not in violation of anti-trust laws). Without an anti-trust exception from Congress, their is no basis to the owner's claims. Whether it be a day or a week, NFL 2011 is on.

It could simply grant a stay because they want time to review the case and think that no action should be taken until then. It is at the whim of the court on what they do here. No one really knows what they will do until they tell us.

 

[thehornet]

AWESOME.

The owners still have the possible hail mary that the appeals court will grant a stay, but I think it's a huge longshot to get that expedited in the next few days.

I don't see this as being 'awesome' because I see this as prolonging this labor dispute further. I do not think that a stay from the appeals court is a hail mary.

It's a longshot to say the least. If the league waits on the appeals court for ruling on the stay, Judge Nelson can not only hold the owners in contempt of court if the stay is also denied at the 8th Crucuit, but with this comes big fines and damages. This was pretty explicit in the 20 page order released this evening that follows up the 89 page opinion she wrote a few days ago. She has made it shockingly hard for the 8th circuit to go against her decision.

 

[Chadstroma]

32 teams agreeing not sign any is.

But 32 teams not signing anyone because there are a multitude of unanswered questions and worries about the future is not.

Those "unanswered questions" are the fault of the league itself! It's a prison they have the key to. Nelson called them out on it.

It is the leagues fault that they do not know what the next CBA will look like? The decertification is a sham people. The union is only gone by process and not by fact. The league will not move forward operating under a free market- the union will not allow that to happen. All of this is a big game between the NFL and the union. Currently that game is being played in the courts. Right now, the union has some significant early victories but the game is a long ways from being over. At some point, a new CBA will be ushered in. Any team that makes significant decisions like signing players without knowing what that CBA will look like is being run by morons.

Decertification is not a sham, it is a tactic. Just like the lockout was a tactic. As it turns out, decertification looks like it was a better tactic than the lockout. Right now the owners need the union alot more than the players do, as without it there is unfettered free agency, no salary cap and after this year, no draft. If the appeals court rejects the owners, the only question will be are the players still willing to give up something to the owners, like a salary scale for rookies. But if they do, it will likely mean free agency at 4 years and no more retricted free agents.

It is a tactic which means it is a sham. Decertification means that a union will no longer represent a group of individuals for collective bargaining purposes. This is a tactic by which they gain traction in their collective bargaining attempts.

 

[Orange Crush]

So what's preventing owners from opening training camp on Monday for the next four months?

Nothing except maybe finances. The standard players contract makes the team responsible for paying for the players' room and board during training camp. Also, training camp increases the likelihood of a football-related injury, which would put the team on the hook for the players' salary while he was injured, up to the complete year. So if a team is ok with that financial cost and risk, then they could do it.

 

[Chadstroma]

AWESOME.

The owners still have the possible hail mary that the appeals court will grant a stay, but I think it's a huge longshot to get that expedited in the next few days.

I don't see this as being 'awesome' because I see this as prolonging this labor dispute further. I do not think that a stay from the appeals court is a hail mary.

It's a longshot to say the least. If the league waits on the appeals court for ruling on the stay, Judge Nelson can not only hold the owners in contempt of court if the stay is also denied at the 8th Crucuit, but with this comes big fines and damages. This was pretty explicit in the 20 page order released this evening that follows up the 89 page opinion she wrote a few days ago. She has made it shockingly hard for the 8th circuit to go against her decision.

All the teams have to do is open their facilities to players and start having talks with agents about free agents and that would be more than enough to show that there is no lockout. The order did not say that unless teams start signing players within days that they will be held in contempt. In the meantime, the NFL moves forward with it's request for a stay and it's appeal.

 

[Chadstroma]

The comments in here are looking at this as it is the final battle that has won the war. I don't think that that is nearly close to being what is going on. This is really just the first battle in what will now be a longer war. I think some of you are playing checkers here and this $#*!'s chess.

 

[thehornet]

AWESOME.

The owners still have the possible hail mary that the appeals court will grant a stay, but I think it's a huge longshot to get that expedited in the next few days.

I don't see this as being 'awesome' because I see this as prolonging this labor dispute further. I do not think that a stay from the appeals court is a hail mary.

It's a longshot to say the least. If the league waits on the appeals court for ruling on the stay, Judge Nelson can not only hold the owners in contempt of court if the stay is also denied at the 8th Crucuit, but with this comes big fines and damages. This was pretty explicit in the 20 page order released this evening that follows up the 89 page opinion she wrote a few days ago. She has made it shockingly hard for the 8th circuit to go against her decision.

All the teams have to do is open their facilities to players and start having talks with agents about free agents and that would be more than enough to show that there is no lockout. The order did not say that unless teams start signing players within days that they will be held in contempt. In the meantime, the NFL moves forward with it's request for a stay and it's appeal.

I agree and that is most likely what the league is telling the teams to do, imo. My point is that they are playing a very dangerous game and unarquably going to see big fines if and when the 8th circuit agrees with Nelson.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not unless they get a stay. As I understand it, failure to negotiate with free agents would be illegal. This is really close to unraveling for the owners.

Failure to negotiate with free agents is fine. Concerted failure to negotiate with free agents would be illegal.But that doesn't mean that negotiation has to start now. The league year will start now, but the free agency period doesn't have to begin on day one of the league year. The owners can set rules specifying when free agency begins, and it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable to wait until at least a few days after the draft.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what's preventing owners from opening training camp on Monday for the next four months?

It would make free agents harder to sign.And for players who are already under contract, the length of training camp may be spelled out in their contract (at least for purposes of what constitutes a holdout, and would therefore subject an absent player to fines).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There will be a CBA at some point and if you sign someone to a contract that is really not a good one under the new CBA then you have done yourself extreme harm.

And if you pass on signing any free agents while your opponents sign them all, you will have done yourself extreme harm as well.

 

[Orange Crush]

It is a tactic which means it is a sham. Decertification means that a union will no longer represent a group of individuals for collective bargaining purposes. This is a tactic by which they gain traction in their collective bargaining attempts.

That's one way of looking at it. Here's another way:25 years ago, the union decertified since they had lost a strike and yet could not get anything they wanted into a CBA. There wasn't much point in remaining a union at that point, so they decertified. Individual players, including Reggie White, sued the league for antitrust violations. The judge signaled to the league that they were going to lose, and lose badly, if he made a final ruling, so the NFL agreed to settle the suit out of court. In that settlement agreement were the terms that would become the next CBA. Since the NFL needed the labor exemption to the antitrust laws to keep their cherished institutions, like the rookie draft, they made the NFLPA's re-certification and agreement to the CBA a condition of their out-of-court settlement. The players got their own condition included that should the CBA expire, that the NFL would not challenge the NFLPA's subsequent decertification as a sham, since they were only re-certifying at the bequest of the league. The NFL agreed, and that language was included in the settlement agreement and CBA.The players believe they would make more money in a free market set-up, yet they agreed to give that up in exchange for a percentage of revenues guaranteed to be spent on salaries, and minimum salaries based on years of experience. The agreement worked more as a partnership, and both sides prospered, becoming the most profitable sports league in the entire world.Fast forward to present day, and after many extensions, the CBA finally expires (after the owners opted out of it). The NFLPA decertifies, just as they said they would in '87, and yet the owners go back on their word and challenge the decertification as a sham anyway. The owners lose, in court, badly, again. Just like they were going to almost 25 years ago.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Decertification is not a sham, it is a tactic. Just like the lockout was a tactic. As it turns out, decertification looks like it was a better tactic than the lockout. Right now the owners need the union alot more than the players do, as without it there is unfettered free agency, no salary cap and after this year, no draft. If the appeals court rejects the owners, the only question will be are the players still willing to give up something to the owners, like a salary scale for rookies. But if they do, it will likely mean free agency at 4 years and no more retricted free agents.

It is a tactic which means it is a sham.

That's not what "sham" means in this context.

 

[David Dodds]

AWESOME.

The owners still have the possible hail mary that the appeals court will grant a stay, but I think it's a huge longshot to get that expedited in the next few days.

I don't see this as being 'awesome' because I see this as prolonging this labor dispute further. I do not think that a stay from the appeals court is a hail mary.

It's a longshot to say the least. If the league waits on the appeals court for ruling on the stay, Judge Nelson can not only hold the owners in contempt of court if the stay is also denied at the 8th Crucuit, but with this comes big fines and damages. This was pretty explicit in the 20 page order released this evening that follows up the 89 page opinion she wrote a few days ago. She has made it shockingly hard for the 8th circuit to go against her decision.

All the teams have to do is open their facilities to players and start having talks with agents about free agents and that would be more than enough to show that there is no lockout. The order did not say that unless teams start signing players within days that they will be held in contempt. In the meantime, the NFL moves forward with it's request for a stay and it's appeal.

The NFL is going to release rules how 2011 will operate soon UNLESS they get an emergency stay (within days) from the appeals court. The second they release these rules, teams are going to grab the players. What would be their incentive to not sign free agents. The season is on and can only be cancelled if the owners win on appeal. They aren't even going to be heard until June 13th. Add a few weeks to determine the outcome and you expect all of the clubs to hold tight heading into July? No chance it plays out like this. Trades, signings are going to happen. Teams are going to build their core roster, pass out playbooks, negotiate rookie contracts, etc all according to the rules they publish in the next week.

 

[Orange Crush]

AWESOME.

The owners still have the possible hail mary that the appeals court will grant a stay, but I think it's a huge longshot to get that expedited in the next few days.

I don't see this as being 'awesome' because I see this as prolonging this labor dispute further. I do not think that a stay from the appeals court is a hail mary.

It's a longshot to say the least. If the league waits on the appeals court for ruling on the stay, Judge Nelson can not only hold the owners in contempt of court if the stay is also denied at the 8th Crucuit, but with this comes big fines and damages. This was pretty explicit in the 20 page order released this evening that follows up the 89 page opinion she wrote a few days ago. She has made it shockingly hard for the 8th circuit to go against her decision.

All the teams have to do is open their facilities to players and start having talks with agents about free agents and that would be more than enough to show that there is no lockout. The order did not say that unless teams start signing players within days that they will be held in contempt. In the meantime, the NFL moves forward with it's request for a stay and it's appeal.

The teams also need to start paying roster bonuses that were due on the first day of the new fiscal year.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

All the teams have to do is open their facilities to players and start having talks with agents about free agents and that would be more than enough to show that there is no lockout. The order did not say that unless teams start signing players within days that they will be held in contempt. In the meantime, the NFL moves forward with it's request for a stay and it's appeal.

No team is ever forced to sign free agents. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be stupid not to. Teams want to win games. Signing good players before your opponents get them can be a useful means to that end.

 

[Orange Crush]

The owners still have some moves here. As has been brainstormed in this thread, there are a host of rules they can implement that would survive antitrust scrutiny and still be intolerable for the players. We'll see if they have the cojones to implement them. Because right now they are undergoing a public relations catastrophe.