Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Owners playing with FIRE this morning. They've locked their facilities and aren't letting players enter.It's one thing to not sign players...but they are basically turning their back on the judge's ruling.I just can't believe that they would be so stupid.

Mr. Jerry Jones, I find you in contempt of court

 

[renesauz]

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 Decertification means that a union will no longer represent a group of individuals for collective bargaining purposes.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.

It's a legal loophole which can only be closed by congress. The players are taking advantage of the laws as they now stand. I despise the morality, but it doesn't make it any less "legal".The owners are fighting this in the wrong place...they should be fighting in Washington, not a midwest courtroom.

Yes, I can't believe how a company's workforce no longer wants to be unionized. Unions are a great thing. So great, that Congress should step in and force them on all companies! [/sarcasm]

Anyone paying attention knows I'm generally (but not completely) anti-union. It's the full application of trust laws to pro sports leagues I find unreasonable. American Needle makes no logical sense, regardless of the specifics of the law. It is this application which grants the real power to the players union. Most unions gain NOTHING in negotiating by decertifying. Sports unions gain everything....sorry, that's wrong.

 

[Hoosier16]

So, how do the owners draw a line in negotiations? What's their "nuclear option?"

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

These two clowns in charge now are pissing me off.Plus the owners are geting bad legal advice and want to take the league back!

 

[zadok]

What, exactly, IS the "league year"? Free agency is not normally open during the draft, so why should it be now?

Yes it is (see the immediate signing of undrafted free agents). It's just by the time the draft occurs, FA has been going on for nearly 2 months normally and all the guys worth a damn are already signed. The "league year" begins when players conrtacts from the previous year expire. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So, how do the owners draw a line in negotiations? What's their "nuclear option?"

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

they are the owners, they could just close up shop, thats the real nuclear option

 

[Mello]

So, how do the owners draw a line in negotiations? What's their "nuclear option?"

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

they are the owners, they could just close up shop, thats the real nuclear option

Neither one of them would work. All 32 teams closing shop would be collusion and likely in violation of the injunction. An MLS type structure would make the NFL a monopoly and any anti-competitive practices could be challenged. The only reason MLS players allow the structure is because previous US soccer leagues have folded because owners always spent above what their income could support.

 

[massraider]

A few things...

3) Honestly I find it all hard to believe. Owners who are as stupid as this shock me, to take this case to court and let them decertify, how they even got rich in the first place with these horrible biz practices. Am I wrong for enjoying watching old rich selfish men suffer brutal beats like this in court.

So, how do the owners draw a line in negotiations? What's their "nuclear option?" The owners DID deperately want to keep this out of the courts.

I said this before:

They've had zero negotiating power until this point. If they had not done this, what would the owners have done? Stalled, waited the players out, and assumed the players would get nervous, start bickering, as usual.

The owners opted out of the CBA quite a while ago, has the presence of a union helped the negotiations? Have you heard of any major concessions the league has made? All I heard was less % of revenue sharing, (after we take X amount off the top), hey, maybe two more games, and a rookie wage scale.

The players were not in a position of power, they HAD to do this because the NFL was certainly in no rush. Now, going nuclear might be bad long term for both sides, but the league REALLY doesn't want it.

It's funny, the CBA the owners opted out of doesn't look so bad now.

The owners didn't desperately want anything. They assumed they would beat down the players through attrition, as they always had in the past.

 

[fatness]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Same here.

 

[jbobbett]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

Really? What is Manning likely to get, a 6 year contract at $25M per or something like that? What if Dan Snyder offered him 8 years at $40M per? Do you think he would turn that down? Or is it that you think even the richest and/or most aggressive owners won't make such a pitch? Irsay is just fortunate that Jerry Jones has a QB good enough to keep him from going after him...

I just don't think any other owner will offer so much more to Peyton that he would leave. He is a rare exception though.

Just as a hypothetical -- how much do you think Peyton would be worth to, say, the Jaguars? They've been seen as underperforming the past few years and have been struggling to sell tickets, even after blocking off portions of their stadium and slashing ticket prices. Signing Peyton would instantly make them a contender, it would shift the balance in the division, devastating a rival, and would generate instant interest in the local fanbase to promote ticket sales, and increased ticket prices. It may even save the Jaguars for Jacksonville. In 2009 (the last year for which I've got Forbes financials), the Jaguars earned $30M less than the league average in revenue, though they were still profitable to the tune of $26M. You think Peyton is worth $30M a year to them? More? How about to a team who is also in need of a QB, showed a surprising strength to the rest of the squad, and is owned by a man who isn't afraid of pissing off the rest of the league like the Oakland Raiders? They had the lowest revenue in the league in '09 at $33M below average. How much would Al Davis be willing to throw at Peyton (especially if there was no cap)?

I think Peyton would be worth a lot to a lot of teams. With no salary cap, the best of the best are going to see some really juicy offers. Its possible some rich owner makes it extremely tempting to pry him away from the Colts. For a team like the Jaguars, the pain to the Colts would be double as they are also a Division opponent.

You guys supposing Peyton Manning to the Jaguars or Raiders must not follow baseball. Top players don't go to struggling small market teams. They are worth more to a big city team with big city ticket prices.

 

[Hoosier16]

An MLS type structure would make the NFL a monopoly and any anti-competitive practices could be challenged. The only reason MLS players allow the structure is because previous US soccer leagues have folded because owners always spent above what their income could support.

I'm not sure that's a legal reason to deny the NFL.

 

[fatness]

Redskin players locked out today.

So far Thursday morning, linebacker Lorenzo Alexander and center Casey Rabach both attempted to enter the facility but left shortly after they arrived. Defensive end Vonnie Holliday, who had served as team representative for the defunct players’ union, said he has been told Redskins Park’s doors will remain closed.

“The doors are still closed and as I understand it, they will remain closed until the appeals process is completed,” Holliday said in a phone interview.

The owners, or the Redskin owners, are nuts if they continue the lockout until June.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

 

[renesauz]

The owners didn't desperately want anything. They assumed they would beat down the players through attrition, as they always had in the past.

And it's been sooooooo bad for the players in the past, right? Players salaries have been roughly in line (revenue vs. payroll) with other pro sports leagues more closely approximating a "free market". Nobody can convince me that parity isn't the key to maintaining and growing those revenues, so for players to threaten the key practices which promote that parity is suicidal. (Or it would be, if it weren't for the fact that they aren't screwing themselves as much as the NEXT GENERATION of players...who, by the way, have every bit as much of a right to have their salaries maximized also!) The players are every bit as guilty as the owners for threatening the golden goose.

IN the end, it all comes down to whether you view the NFL as 32 individual businesses, which is how the law is being applied, or 1 business with 32 subsidiaries, which more closely approximates reality. It is not fully one or the other, but the LAW allows no intermediate state. That's a problem.

 

[renesauz]

Redskin players locked out today.

So far Thursday morning, linebacker Lorenzo Alexander and center Casey Rabach both attempted to enter the facility but left shortly after they arrived. Defensive end Vonnie Holliday, who had served as team representative for the defunct players’ union, said he has been told Redskins Park’s doors will remain closed.

“The doors are still closed and as I understand it, they will remain closed until the appeals process is completed,” Holliday said in a phone interview.

The owners, or the Redskin owners, are nuts if they continue the lockout until June.

I may be on the owners side philosophically, but this is just stupid. They're going to take it in the nuts if they continue.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think there is a demand for him.Regarding bidding up his pay, like Dodds in auction leagues, I think the Pats getting stuck with two QBs would be funny.

Maybe we can see a QB Squeeze?

That really only works in best-ball leagues (or start-2-QB leagues).

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ok could someone clear something up for me here. Let's say they play this year with 2010 rules or whatever. So if there is no union and there is no CBA after this year, why do the owners have to split any money with the players?If this becomes a "free market" can't the owners keep all the revenue since it will become more like andemployer/employee relationship than it was previously?

Teams can't pay their players zero. For one thing, no player would agree to play for zero; and even if some players did agree to it, it would violate state and federal minimum-wage laws.

Won't this in turn actually hurt the players more? Sure the big names will make the money wherever they go but overall won't players lose all the revenu money?

Competition between teams for players (by getting rid of restrictions on free agency, etc.) leads to increased pay for players, not decreased pay.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I wonder how much influence Jim Irsay currently has amongst the owners. Because he's probably buying Tums by the truckload at the idea of losing the franchise tag and having Peyton Manning hit the free agency market, in the year in which Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl no less. I can just picture him on the conference calls threatening to kill all 31 other owners unless he gets to keep Peyton.

Yes this stuff is comical. But I can't imagine any team being able to offer something where Peyton would leave anyway. But like Dave on Storage Wars, I think bidding up the Colts would be pretty fun.

Really? What is Manning likely to get, a 6 year contract at $25M per or something like that? What if Dan Snyder offered him 8 years at $40M per? Do you think he would turn that down? Or is it that you think even the richest and/or most aggressive owners won't make such a pitch? Irsay is just fortunate that Jerry Jones has a QB good enough to keep him from going after him...

I just don't think any other owner will offer so much more to Peyton that he would leave. He is a rare exception though.

Just as a hypothetical -- how much do you think Peyton would be worth to, say, the Jaguars? They've been seen as underperforming the past few years and have been struggling to sell tickets, even after blocking off portions of their stadium and slashing ticket prices. Signing Peyton would instantly make them a contender, it would shift the balance in the division, devastating a rival, and would generate instant interest in the local fanbase to promote ticket sales, and increased ticket prices. It may even save the Jaguars for Jacksonville. In 2009 (the last year for which I've got Forbes financials), the Jaguars earned $30M less than the league average in revenue, though they were still profitable to the tune of $26M. You think Peyton is worth $30M a year to them? More? How about to a team who is also in need of a QB, showed a surprising strength to the rest of the squad, and is owned by a man who isn't afraid of pissing off the rest of the league like the Oakland Raiders? They had the lowest revenue in the league in '09 at $33M below average. How much would Al Davis be willing to throw at Peyton (especially if there was no cap)?

I think Peyton would be worth a lot to a lot of teams. With no salary cap, the best of the best are going to see some really juicy offers. Its possible some rich owner makes it extremely tempting to pry him away from the Colts. For a team like the Jaguars, the pain to the Colts would be double as they are also a Division opponent.

You guys supposing Peyton Manning to the Jaguars or Raiders must not follow baseball. Top players don't go to struggling small market teams. They are worth more to a big city team with big city ticket prices.

Redskins or Bears, imo.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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

Can they sign free agents and trade players with the anti-trust lawsuit hanging over their heads? Would they even want to risk doing anything that can later be used against them in court? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the law, but since there is no CBA right now wouldn't they have to comply with Labor laws in which trades are deemed illegal?

Antitrust laws don't prevent teams from signing free agents or making trades. Just the opposite: antitrust laws prevent teams from colluding not to do so.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Won't this in turn actually hurt the players more? Sure the big names will make the money wherever they go but overall won't players lose all the revenu money?

Competition between teams for players (by getting rid of restrictions on free agency, etc.) leads to increased pay for players, not decreased pay.

At least at the top end.

 

[jbobbett]

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.

and if their goal is to eventually get a CBA that's not going to help.The owners said they were for HGH testing (while most of said this was BS and a ruse to gain support from fans). It will be interesting if they implement this.

I'm not so certain. If they implement rules that the players can live with, then the players may decide to forego a CBA and keep the current status quo. Inflicting maximum pain on players with their rules for the season may be the fastest way to not only get a new CBA, but one that the owners can actually feel ok about.

That's an interesting angle. I could see some of these to attempt to divide the players: - Minimum league salary to be a lot less and giving no preference to years of service.- Harsher violations of the drug and conduct policy- New contracts to be very performance-based.

That's what I would do if I were advising the owners -- take advantage of the minimum salary disappearing. I read somewhere that 2/3 of the players are at or near the league minimum. I would sign a couple of those 54th, 55th guys that didn't make the 53 man roster for $100k contracts and renegotiate or cut the 52nd, 53rd guys that I had. There would be a snowball effect and ~half the players may be forced to take lower salaries. That would put some pressure on the players and gain the owners back some leverage.Yes the top guys are going to get more, maybe a lot more, but there are a lot of players supported by that artificial minimum salary that a free market will give less to.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Interesting point is that he states that the issue of a salary cap has not been determined to violate anti-trust law (he posits that it does, but that it hasn't been decided). This is counter to Maurile's assertion that a salary cap is a 'per se' violation.

The test for whether something is a per se violation isn't whether it's already been litigated. It's whether it falls into one of several categories deemed to be per se violations — such as price-fixing.

 

[massraider]

The owners didn't desperately want anything. They assumed they would beat down the players through attrition, as they always had in the past.

And it's been sooooooo bad for the players in the past, right?

And that's the problem with your argument.It's where you lose me, because I agree with your premise that the players shouldn't have their finger on the nuclear button.

You didn't address any of the questions, or explain in what way the owners demonstrated that they acted in good faith. Once it comes down to questions like that, your argument boils down to, "Well, the players have it pretty well, so where do they get off??"

I disagree with that. I think any person in any job is well within their rights to improve their lot in life. Comparing NFL to NBA or MLB doesn't wash, just on the basis of guaranteed contracts, or lack thereof. NFL owners don't have to honor contracts, just be willing to eat a pro-rated bonus from time to time.

NFL players cannot become free agents until what, 5 years in the league? In a league where average career length is what, 4 years?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it. Tagliabue was an idiot and got fleeced by Upshaw. But Tags didn't really care anyway since his legacy only really rested on getting a short term deal done so that all of this stuff didn't go down on his watch. So even if the deal was bad and lead to problems later, he wasn't going to get the blame (and he isn't). Of course the owners were totally complicit in the stupidity since they just trusted Tagliabue and never even read the final proposal from the players that they ended up voting on and approving!Upshaw took advantage of his friendship with Tagliabue in order to score as big as possible for the players, knowing that the owners would almost certainly opt out early, but also knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the league to win back any of those things. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die soon, but the writing was on the wall as far as his time leading the NFLPA. So securing even a short term deal that was a major win for the players would benefit his legacy and help the players going forward, even if it was almost inevitable that it would lead to labor strife at this point.Even if Tagliabue and Upshaw were still around right now, we'd still be in this situation. No way would it be any different. And they're the two that set it in motion.

 

[fatness]

The league has asked the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to put a judge's order lifting the lockout on hold. The NFL contends it is at risk of "irreparable harm, even during the relatively short period" needed for an appeal.

A letter sent to the appeals court Thursday by players attorneys says there is no risk of harm to the league and promised a full rebuttal by midday Friday. Until then, the players asked the appeals court to keep things status quo.

The NFL Players Association is telling players that football operations should resume as normal. A letter from players' attorneys was released Thursday. It points to Wednesday night's ruling by a federal judge in Minnesota that denied the NFL's request to put the lockout back in place. That decision is being appealed, but the NFLPA says the judge's ruling "is in full, immediate force."

It said teams "must open their facilities to allow players to work out, meet with coaches and otherwise perform their jobs." The trade association says teams will be in contempt of court if they fail to do so.

link

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The owners DID deperately want to keep this out of the courts.

Obviously not.

WE've been talking for months how it was odd that the players hired LITIGATORS instead of NEGOTIATORS to represent them.

That's a bit like saying it's odd that somebody called the police instead of a constable. It's the same thing. You can't negotiate effectively without being capable of enforcing your client's legal rights through litigation; and part of serving your client effectively in litigation is being able to identify and procure favorable terms of settlement. Good litigators and good negotiators are the same thing.

HOW do the OWNERS control their own league if the players are, quite literrally, able to dictate terms?

It's not the players who are dictating the terms that the league can operate under without a CBA. It's the law that is dictating the terms.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

I'm not sure that a merger of every major U.S. company in a particular industry would be approved by the FTC.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So, how do the owners draw a line in negotiations? What's their "nuclear option?"

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

they are the owners, they could just close up shop, thats the real nuclear option

Neither one of them would work. All 32 teams closing shop would be collusion and likely in violation of the injunction.

I think closing up shop would work. I don't think any court would force a business to continue operating if it would rather close up shop. It wouldn't even need to be a concerted action for all 32 teams to do it. Once a few teams close up shop, it harms the league and makes the other teams more likely to shut down as well, even if every team is acting individually. The domino effect could shut down all 32 teams.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And it's been sooooooo bad for the players in the past, right?

Why would you think that? The players aren't the ones who opted out of the deal that governed in the past.

 

[fatness]

I think closing up shop would work. I don't think any court would force a business to continue operating if it would rather close up shop. It wouldn't even need to be a concerted action for all 32 teams to do it. Once a few teams close up shop, it harms the league and makes the other teams more likely to shut down as well, even if every team is acting individually. The domino effect could shut down all 32 teams.

And shut down the income to the owners of all 32 teams.

 

[Mello]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it. Tagliabue was an idiot and got fleeced by Upshaw. But Tags didn't really care anyway since his legacy only really rested on getting a short term deal done so that all of this stuff didn't go down on his watch. So even if the deal was bad and lead to problems later, he wasn't going to get the blame (and he isn't). Of course the owners were totally complicit in the stupidity since they just trusted Tagliabue and never even read the final proposal from the players that they ended up voting on and approving!Upshaw took advantage of his friendship with Tagliabue in order to score as big as possible for the players, knowing that the owners would almost certainly opt out early, but also knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the league to win back any of those things. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die soon, but the writing was on the wall as far as his time leading the NFLPA. So securing even a short term deal that was a major win for the players would benefit his legacy and help the players going forward, even if it was almost inevitable that it would lead to labor strife at this point.Even if Tagliabue and Upshaw were still around right now, we'd still be in this situation. No way would it be any different. And they're the two that set it in motion.

I think Tags made the best deal for the future of the league and the owners have since become more greedy. If he was still around, he might be able to get the owners to figure out their internal revenue sharing disagreements and keep the league running under a CBA the players could accept.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it. Tagliabue was an idiot and got fleeced by Upshaw. But Tags didn't really care anyway since his legacy only really rested on getting a short term deal done so that all of this stuff didn't go down on his watch. So even if the deal was bad and lead to problems later, he wasn't going to get the blame (and he isn't). Of course the owners were totally complicit in the stupidity since they just trusted Tagliabue and never even read the final proposal from the players that they ended up voting on and approving!Upshaw took advantage of his friendship with Tagliabue in order to score as big as possible for the players, knowing that the owners would almost certainly opt out early, but also knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the league to win back any of those things. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die soon, but the writing was on the wall as far as his time leading the NFLPA. So securing even a short term deal that was a major win for the players would benefit his legacy and help the players going forward, even if it was almost inevitable that it would lead to labor strife at this point.Even if Tagliabue and Upshaw were still around right now, we'd still be in this situation. No way would it be any different. And they're the two that set it in motion.

I think Tags made the best deal for the future of the league and the owners have since become more greedy. If he was still around, he might be able to get the owners to figure out their internal revenue sharing disagreements and keep the league running under a CBA the players could accept.

I think the economic realities of the NFL and the declining economy made the owner's decision for them. Cities are no longer subsidizing new stadium construction. Owners are carrying larger debt loads for these stadiums. The economy is in the tank. What might have worked before doesn't necessarily work now. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to do with greed.

 

[jbobbett]

I think closing up shop would work. I don't think any court would force a business to continue operating if it would rather close up shop. It wouldn't even need to be a concerted action for all 32 teams to do it. Once a few teams close up shop, it harms the league and makes the other teams more likely to shut down as well, even if every team is acting individually. The domino effect could shut down all 32 teams.

And shut down the income to the owners of all 32 teams.

Maybe not all 32 at once. But do you think the owners of the Bills and Jaguars will have income in a "free market" NFL? How about after the TV contracts expire and each team has to negotiate their own?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it.

Rozelle got his butt kicked in court. Goodell is getting his butt kicked in court.Tagliabue knew how to avoid that. Instead of going to court, he just kept the money rolling in — while also keeping beneficial practices in place like the draft, the salary cap, restricted free agency, etc. That's not an easy thing to pull off, but Tagliabue did it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think closing up shop would work. I don't think any court would force a business to continue operating if it would rather close up shop. It wouldn't even need to be a concerted action for all 32 teams to do it. Once a few teams close up shop, it harms the league and makes the other teams more likely to shut down as well, even if every team is acting individually. The domino effect could shut down all 32 teams.

And shut down the income to the owners of all 32 teams.

Yeah, it would be crazy stupid. I just don't think it would be illegal.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it.

Rozelle got his butt kicked in court. Goodell is getting his butt kicked in court.Tagliabue knew how to avoid that. Instead of going to court, he just kept the money rolling in — while also keeping beneficial practices in place like the draft, the salary cap, restricted free agency, etc. That's not an easy thing to pull off, but Tagliabue did it.

why would th owners think its any different this time around? They are being really dumb here.Must be listening to a lawyer

 

[3nOut]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Same here.

Interesting, what do you think they would have done differently?

 

[3nOut]

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

I'm not sure that a merger of every major U.S. company in a particular industry would be approved by the FTC.

I think they might. I would compare it to McDonalds where ther is one corporation with different owners running their own franchises. Like McDonalds has competitors in the fast-food industry (not necessarily the hamburger industry), so would the NFL in the professional sports industry. I wouldn;t see them as a monopoly as anyone else can try to create and run their own league.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Same here.

Interesting, what do you think they would have done differently?

Reached an agreement before getting to court.

 

[3nOut]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Same here.

Interesting, what do you think they would have done differently?

Reached an agreement before getting to court.

And thats his fault? Or can he just reach an agreement on his own without the consent of the owners? Is it he that is losing the decisions in court or the owners?

 

[Hoosier16]

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

I'm not sure that a merger of every major U.S. company in a particular industry would be approved by the FTC.

Like satellite radio?

 

[coolnerd]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/28/nfl-teams-plan-to-open-facilities-friday-morning/

Facilities to open on Friday

 

[Orange Crush]

The ultimate nuclear option for the owners would be an MLS type league. The NFL could buy every team and have the owners running 32 separate divisions of the same company. At that point, none of the current antitrust issues exist. It likely would never happen or maybe even be allowed to happen but the threat could at least be used.

I'm not sure that a merger of every major U.S. company in a particular industry would be approved by the FTC.

At least, not under a democrat's administration. The owners should have tried that in '06.

 

[Orange Crush]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it. Tagliabue was an idiot and got fleeced by Upshaw. But Tags didn't really care anyway since his legacy only really rested on getting a short term deal done so that all of this stuff didn't go down on his watch. So even if the deal was bad and lead to problems later, he wasn't going to get the blame (and he isn't). Of course the owners were totally complicit in the stupidity since they just trusted Tagliabue and never even read the final proposal from the players that they ended up voting on and approving!Upshaw took advantage of his friendship with Tagliabue in order to score as big as possible for the players, knowing that the owners would almost certainly opt out early, but also knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the league to win back any of those things. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die soon, but the writing was on the wall as far as his time leading the NFLPA. So securing even a short term deal that was a major win for the players would benefit his legacy and help the players going forward, even if it was almost inevitable that it would lead to labor strife at this point.Even if Tagliabue and Upshaw were still around right now, we'd still be in this situation. No way would it be any different. And they're the two that set it in motion.

I think Tags made the best deal for the future of the league and the owners have since become more greedy. If he was still around, he might be able to get the owners to figure out their internal revenue sharing disagreements and keep the league running under a CBA the players could accept.

I think the economic realities of the NFL and the declining economy made the owner's decision for them. Cities are no longer subsidizing new stadium construction. Owners are carrying larger debt loads for these stadiums. The economy is in the tank. What might have worked before doesn't necessarily work now. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to do with greed.

Yeah. It's such a shame that Jerry Jones won't be making any money on that huge monstrosity of a stadium that was 75% self-financed. Oh, wait. The Cowboys are actually the most profitable team in the entire league. I wonder how that happened.

 

[Hoosier16]

http://profootballta...friday-morning/

Facilities to open on Friday

The way they laid it out might be the smartest thing they have done so far.

 

[Rylenol]

Per espn

"The NFL told its 32 teams Thursday that, pending a ruling on its request that a "temporary stay" of the lower court's ruling lifting the lockout be granted, it should open their facilities to players at 8 a.m. ET on Friday.

Players will be allowed to meet with coaches and teams may distribute playbooks to players and begin OTA and minicamp practices, subject to rules from the last collective bargaining agreement. The NFL said on Friday it would advise its teams on rules for player transactions including the start of the "league year" when those moves can begin to take place."

 

[Orange Crush]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

Upshaw was the head of the union the first time they decertified and sued in court under antitrust laws. It was only after showing his teeth and forcing the NFL to deal with the union as a partner that he was able to widen his mouth into a smile.

 

[David Dodds]

I think the owners are actually getting good legal advise right now. Keep hammering away at trying to get a stay from the Appeals Court. But absent that, open up on Friday. I am guessing if they still don't have a stay (or aren't getting one) then trades and free agent activity will begin around Monday.