Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[Orange Crush]

League year likely to start Monday with free agency, details to be announced sometime during the day tomorrow (Friday). Per NFL.com.

No word yet on cap, franchise tags, RFAs, or any other details.

Pretty good timing by the NFL on all that. They got the season started before the draft which they had to do or the crowd would've been (more) hostile at the draft tonight when the draft itself should be the show. Vets reporting tomorrow, details being announced tomorrow -- good timing if you ask me.

Yes. I'm dying to find out those details, though.Partly because I need to figure out what the rules are going to be for my salary cap dynasty league so we can start our own off-season.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Hey AJ, thanks for screwing over the entire NFL when you made it a point to screw over Vincent Jackson.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3202/vincent-jackson

 

[jbobbett]

Last year$9 billion total$4.2 billion to owners ($1 billion plus 40% of the remaining $8 billion)$4.8 billion to players (60% of the $8 billion)Owner's proposal$9 billion total$5.7 billion to owners ($2.4 billion plus 50% of the remaining $6.6 billion)$3.3 billion to players (50% of the $6.6 billion)Are those numbers essentially correct?

Wouldn't the owners frame it this way:Last year$9 billion total$1B invest in the game for benefit of both sides$3.2B to owners (40% of the remaining $8 billion)$4.8B to players (60% of the $8 billion)This year$9 billion total$2.4B invest in the game for benefit of both sides$3.3B to owners (50% of the $6.6 billion)$3.3B to players (50% of the $6.6 billion)That doesn't seem right either but I don't know all the details. I thought they were asking for $2B not $2.4B. Anyway, do we know if the players object to the $2B amount being invested in the game or if they don't believe the $2B will actually be invested and suspect the owners will just pocket it? Is that what they mean when they say they want the books opened?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I saw that too, and couldn't believe it. It was obvious that the rules were completely unfair and that AJS's abuse of them was as well. But the real world just never really seems to work poetic justice into the mix.

Would be nice if the Chargers were on the hook for triple damages here, but I'm guessing that'd be the NFL if Jackson wins his anti-trust case?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

And I understand this sentiment, but what would happen if you realized your "salting the earth/drive the enemy into the sea" would make your own existence less profitable? How about the fact that you have to rely (at some level) on this enemy for your meal money?

Yeah - I don't believe any of that is true. As I understand it (and feel free to produce evidence to the contrary), that hasn't been the experience in other leagues without caps. The distribution of money would certainly change, but likewise the total salary would almost certainly increase. As a fan I actually support the CBA and like that small-market teams can compete.And if I were a player I'd still do a CBA. I'd just inflict as much legal and financial damage for past actions as I possibly could in addition to a new CBA. So that 25 years from now when the owners forget the lessons of 2011 and feel the testosterone and greed coursing through their veins again they have a really good reason to take a deep breath and find someone else to mess with.

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

 

[Orange Crush]

And I understand this sentiment, but what would happen if you realized your "salting the earth/drive the enemy into the sea" would make your own existence less profitable? How about the fact that you have to rely (at some level) on this enemy for your meal money?

Yeah - I don't believe any of that is true. As I understand it (and feel free to produce evidence to the contrary), that hasn't been the experience in other leagues without caps. The distribution of money would certainly change, but likewise the total salary would almost certainly increase. As a fan I actually support the CBA and like that small-market teams can compete.And if I were a player I'd still do a CBA. I'd just inflict as much legal and financial damage for past actions as I possibly could in addition to a new CBA. So that 25 years from now when the owners forget the lessons of 2011 and feel the testosterone and greed coursing through their veins again they have a really good reason to take a deep breath and find someone else to mess with.

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

I actually agree with IB here. The players have certainly made some mistakes by a) taking things personally instead of repeating the mantra that "this is business and we're negotiating a deal", and b) not doing anywhere close to what they could have in public relations to portray themselves as on the fans side. Their stunt with trying to get rookies to avoid the draft was idiotic, as a for instance, as was Smith's "worst offer in the history of pro sports" comment. Instead, they've taken some public stances that appear to be purely out of spite. They had their feelings hurt, so they're lashing out and potentially causing things to get personal on the other side of the table. There's a way to kick your opponent's behind in court and still appear magnanimous and work towards a settlement.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

First, I don't believe (based on your many posts here) that you're really very concerned about some players getting smaller salaries.But more generally, if you're right and this approach would hurt the players I expect they won't do that. I was just making the point that a new CBA doesn't require that the players drop their anti-trust suit(s). Barring relief from the appeals court, the owners have boxed themselves into a corner here and need a new CBA badly enough that they don't have a lot of leverage now. And based on their tactics up to this point I personally wouldn't be inclined to help them out - I'd extract everything I could that was in my long-term interest.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I actually agree with IB here. The players have certainly made some mistakes by a) taking things personally instead of repeating the mantra that "this is business and we're negotiating a deal", and b) not doing anywhere close to what they could have in public relations to portray themselves as on the fans side. Their stunt with trying to get rookies to avoid the draft was idiotic, as a for instance, as was Smith's "worst offer in the history of pro sports" comment. Instead, they've taken some public stances that appear to be purely out of spite. They had their feelings hurt, so they're lashing out and potentially causing things to get personal on the other side of the table. There's a way to kick your opponent's behind in court and still appear magnanimous and work towards a settlement.

Agreed re: the PR. I'm not suggesting the players SAY what I'm saying. Just that they press their advantage all the way this time, and use the leverage they've got to maximize their long-term interest (whatever that may be - I'm not in a position to judge). I do think inflicting punitive financial losses on the owners is the most likely way to keep things like this from happening in the future, but I could be wrong about that too.

 

[Orange Crush]

That doesn't seem right either but I don't know all the details. I thought they were asking for $2B not $2.4B. Anyway, do we know if the players object to the $2B amount being invested in the game or if they don't believe the $2B will actually be invested and suspect the owners will just pocket it? Is that what they mean when they say they want the books opened?

I think this is why the two sides switched to a fixed dollar amount instead of a variable dollar amount late in their negotiations. The owners don't want the players to second guess their business decisions, and the players don't want the owners calling things an investment that may not be and thus taking money out of their pocket. So the two sides were instead making offers of a set dollar amount, guaranteeing the players a set number and letting the owners spend the rest however they chose. The negotiation then focused on the expected growth of the league's revenues, and what to do if actual growth deviated significantly from those expected numbers. That's what was on the table when the negotiations were suspended.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

First, I don't believe (based on your many posts here) that you're really very concerned about some players getting smaller salaries.But more generally, if you're right and this approach would hurt the players I expect they won't do that. I was just making the point that a new CBA doesn't require that the players drop their anti-trust suit(s). Barring relief from the appeals court, the owners have boxed themselves into a corner here and need a new CBA badly enough that they don't have a lot of leverage now. And based on their tactics up to this point I personally wouldn't be inclined to help them out - I'd extract everything I could that was in my long-term interest.

Just because I feel that economic realities of the current marketplace make sense that the players should be willing to discuss some reduction in the overall compensation scheme doesn't mean I favor getting rid of minimum salaries. Quite to contrary. I favor those protections as well as a salary floor to ensure teams are spending a requisite minimum on player talent. I'm not anti-players. I'm pro-maintaining the current NFL system, in the most part. I genuinely believe the economy and the way stadium deals are financed has put an additional burden on ownership that wasn't there 10 years ago and I think players' shares need to be adjusted to reflect that reality. I believe there is a difference between an owner and a player, yet I respect the risk both take. I do believe that the owners should be allowed to make economic investments in the future of the NFL, even if that takes money out of the present pot for players today. I don't think the owners should be able to operate un-monitored, however and that some third-party oversight/audit is necessary to make sure there is no fraud (TV deals, for one). I think more money should be spent on player pensions and less on rookie salaries. I believe in long slow kisses that last three days. I believe in the G-spot.I don't like the tactics either have employed...the players a little moreso than the owners. And I think your strategy is dangerous and counter-productive. And I think if they do it, no amount of PR will convince halfway-intelligent people that they were just doing the right thing and not being greedy.

 

[Hoosier16]

I actually agree with IB here. The players have certainly made some mistakes by a) taking things personally instead of repeating the mantra that "this is business and we're negotiating a deal", and b) not doing anywhere close to what they could have in public relations to portray themselves as on the fans side. Their stunt with trying to get rookies to avoid the draft was idiotic, as a for instance, as was Smith's "worst offer in the history of pro sports" comment. Instead, they've taken some public stances that appear to be purely out of spite. They had their feelings hurt, so they're lashing out and potentially causing things to get personal on the other side of the table. There's a way to kick your opponent's behind in court and still appear magnanimous and work towards a settlement.

Agreed re: the PR. I'm not suggesting the players SAY what I'm saying. Just that they press their advantage all the way this time, and use the leverage they've got to maximize their long-term interest (whatever that may be - I'm not in a position to judge). I do think inflicting punitive financial losses on the owners is the most likely way to keep things like this from happening in the future, but I could be wrong about that too.

I think that would be a huge mistake by the players. If a new CBA is signed and the players continue their quest, they will alienate the fans. The only part they should continue is getting damages from the hidden TV money. I think all fans are firmly behind them on that issue.

 

[roarlions]

That doesn't seem right either but I don't know all the details. I thought they were asking for $2B not $2.4B. Anyway, do we know if the players object to the $2B amount being invested in the game or if they don't believe the $2B will actually be invested and suspect the owners will just pocket it? Is that what they mean when they say they want the books opened?

I think this is why the two sides switched to a fixed dollar amount instead of a variable dollar amount late in their negotiations. The owners don't want the players to second guess their business decisions, and the players don't want the owners calling things an investment that may not be and thus taking money out of their pocket. So the two sides were instead making offers of a set dollar amount, guaranteeing the players a set number and letting the owners spend the rest however they chose. The negotiation then focused on the expected growth of the league's revenues, and what to do if actual growth deviated significantly from those expected numbers. That's what was on the table when the negotiations were suspended.

I really hope this is where negotiations start once they resume. The idea of fixed amounts for the salary cap seems like it should be really appealing for the owners. It gives them more certainty about what they will be spending in the future and if it eliminates the need for monitoring league costs, even better. Basing the fixed cap amounts on fairly conservative growth rates also minimizes the risk of slower revenue growth to the owners. However, those conservative forecasts of revenue growth increase the "risk" that revenue could grow much more quickly. If that was the case, there has to be an equitable sharing of the "excess" revenue coming into the league. I think it was reported that the NFLPA wanted the excess revenue split evenly but that the owners did not make a counter-offer before the union decertified. If the 2 sides could agree to fixed amounts for a number of years and agree to reasonable sharing of any excess, it seems like it would be a good deal for both sides.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

That doesn't seem right either but I don't know all the details. I thought they were asking for $2B not $2.4B. Anyway, do we know if the players object to the $2B amount being invested in the game or if they don't believe the $2B will actually be invested and suspect the owners will just pocket it? Is that what they mean when they say they want the books opened?

I think this is why the two sides switched to a fixed dollar amount instead of a variable dollar amount late in their negotiations. The owners don't want the players to second guess their business decisions, and the players don't want the owners calling things an investment that may not be and thus taking money out of their pocket. So the two sides were instead making offers of a set dollar amount, guaranteeing the players a set number and letting the owners spend the rest however they chose. The negotiation then focused on the expected growth of the league's revenues, and what to do if actual growth deviated significantly from those expected numbers. That's what was on the table when the negotiations were suspended.

I really hope this is where negotiations start once they resume. The idea of fixed amounts for the salary cap seems like it should be really appealing for the owners. It gives them more certainty about what they will be spending in the future and if it eliminates the need for monitoring league costs, even better. Basing the fixed cap amounts on fairly conservative growth rates also minimizes the risk of slower revenue growth to the owners. However, those conservative forecasts of revenue growth increase the "risk" that revenue could grow much more quickly. If that was the case, there has to be an equitable sharing of the "excess" revenue coming into the league. I think it was reported that the NFLPA wanted the excess revenue split evenly but that the owners did not make a counter-offer before the union decertified. If the 2 sides could agree to fixed amounts for a number of years and agree to reasonable sharing of any excess, it seems like it would be a good deal for both sides.

Agreed.Which is why the scorched earth approach is so dangerous.(although, this gives players all upside and no downside risk)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I saw that too, and couldn't believe it. It was obvious that the rules were completely unfair and that AJS's abuse of them was as well. But the real world just never really seems to work poetic justice into the mix. Would be nice if the Chargers were on the hook for triple damages here, but I'm guessing that'd be the NFL if Jackson wins his anti-trust case?

No, it would be neither one. Jackson can't get damages for stuff that's not an antitrust violation, and it's not an antitrust violation to follow the rules of a collective bargaining agreement.Jackson is suing for 2011 stuff, not for 2010 stuff.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And I understand this sentiment, but what would happen if you realized your "salting the earth/drive the enemy into the sea" would make your own existence less profitable? How about the fact that you have to rely (at some level) on this enemy for your meal money?

Yeah - I don't believe any of that is true. As I understand it (and feel free to produce evidence to the contrary), that hasn't been the experience in other leagues without caps. The distribution of money would certainly change, but likewise the total salary would almost certainly increase. As a fan I actually support the CBA and like that small-market teams can compete.And if I were a player I'd still do a CBA. I'd just inflict as much legal and financial damage for past actions as I possibly could in addition to a new CBA. So that 25 years from now when the owners forget the lessons of 2011 and feel the testosterone and greed coursing through their veins again they have a really good reason to take a deep breath and find someone else to mess with.

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

I actually agree with IB here. The players have certainly made some mistakes by a) taking things personally instead of repeating the mantra that "this is business and we're negotiating a deal", and b) not doing anywhere close to what they could have in public relations to portray themselves as on the fans side. Their stunt with trying to get rookies to avoid the draft was idiotic, as a for instance, as was Smith's "worst offer in the history of pro sports" comment. Instead, they've taken some public stances that appear to be purely out of spite. They had their feelings hurt, so they're lashing out and potentially causing things to get personal on the other side of the table. There's a way to kick your opponent's behind in court and still appear magnanimous and work towards a settlement.

I agree with this as well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

First, I don't believe (based on your many posts here) that you're really very concerned about some players getting smaller salaries.But more generally, if you're right and this approach would hurt the players I expect they won't do that. I was just making the point that a new CBA doesn't require that the players drop their anti-trust suit(s). Barring relief from the appeals court, the owners have boxed themselves into a corner here and need a new CBA badly enough that they don't have a lot of leverage now. And based on their tactics up to this point I personally wouldn't be inclined to help them out - I'd extract everything I could that was in my long-term interest.

Yes, it absolutely would. A CBA, at this point, can come about only as part of a settlement of the antitrust suit. When you settle a lawsuit, it gets dismissed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think anyone has linked to this yet. Here is the order denying the stay.

 

[jbobbett]

Who would invest in their team if half of the revenue goes to someone else?

People who like money? The players have gotten more than 50% of the revenues in the past, but the owners have still gotten a great return on their investments.Whether something like that can work in the future as well as it has in the past is up for discussion; but there's no reason to reject it just on principle.

There is a reason to reject it just on principle: it wouldn't work at all and investment would dry up. The original statement was this:

For example, it was reported that the NFLPA offered to accept 50% of revenues without any cost deductions by the owners. I think they have been receiving between 50% and 55% of the revenues when the cost deductions are accounted for...

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Who would invest in their team if half of the revenue goes to someone else?

People who like money? The players have gotten more than 50% of the revenues in the past, but the owners have still gotten a great return on their investments.Whether something like that can work in the future as well as it has in the past is up for discussion; but there's no reason to reject it just on principle.

There is a reason to reject it just on principle: it wouldn't work at all and investment would dry up.

That's not rejecting it on principle. That's rejecting it on (alleged) facts.

The original statement was this:

For example, it was reported that the NFLPA offered to accept 50% of revenues without any cost deductions by the owners. I think they have been receiving between 50% and 55% of the revenues when the cost deductions are accounted for...

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

It's more favorable to the owners than the previous CBA was. Yes, I think that makes it a reasonable, good-faith offer.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I saw that too, and couldn't believe it. It was obvious that the rules were completely unfair and that AJS's abuse of them was as well. But the real world just never really seems to work poetic justice into the mix. Would be nice if the Chargers were on the hook for triple damages here, but I'm guessing that'd be the NFL if Jackson wins his anti-trust case?

No, it would be neither one. Jackson can't get damages for stuff that's not an antitrust violation, and it's not an antitrust violation to follow the rules of a collective bargaining agreement.Jackson is suing for 2011 stuff, not for 2010 stuff.

Yeah, the 2010 stuff was LEGAL, and was within the rules all parties agreed to. No real issue there.On the other hand, the offer was so ridiculous that a federal judge made her decision based in part on how ridiculous it was. But Jackson was the one that was held up as being "crazy" for not taking it or being happy about it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

On the other hand, the offer was so ridiculous that a federal judge made her decision based in part on how ridiculous it was. But Jackson was the one that was held up as being "crazy" for not taking it or being happy about it.

Judge Nelson didn't say the offer was ridiculous. She said that the RFA rules cost Jackson a lot of money. She's right, but that doesn't make the RFA rules ridiculous (within the context of a bargained-for CBA); and it certainly doesn't make using the rules to the teams' advantage ridiculous, given the existence of those rules. That's what the rules were there for: to be used to the teams' advantage. It's no different from the players using the antitrust laws to their advantage now that the CBA was opted out of.Certain people didn't like the RFA rules in 2010. Certain people don't like the antitrust laws now. But you can't blame the beneficiaries of those rules, in either case, from using them to their advantage. JMHO.

 

[Ksquared]

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

First, I don't believe (based on your many posts here) that you're really very concerned about some players getting smaller salaries.But more generally, if you're right and this approach would hurt the players I expect they won't do that. I was just making the point that a new CBA doesn't require that the players drop their anti-trust suit(s). Barring relief from the appeals court, the owners have boxed themselves into a corner here and need a new CBA badly enough that they don't have a lot of leverage now. And based on their tactics up to this point I personally wouldn't be inclined to help them out - I'd extract everything I could that was in my long-term interest.

Just because I feel that economic realities of the current marketplace make sense that the players should be willing to discuss some reduction in the overall compensation scheme doesn't mean I favor getting rid of minimum salaries. Quite to contrary. I favor those protections as well as a salary floor to ensure teams are spending a requisite minimum on player talent. I'm not anti-players. I'm pro-maintaining the current NFL system, in the most part. I genuinely believe the economy and the way stadium deals are financed has put an additional burden on ownership that wasn't there 10 years ago and I think players' shares need to be adjusted to reflect that reality. I believe there is a difference between an owner and a player, yet I respect the risk both take. I do believe that the owners should be allowed to make economic investments in the future of the NFL, even if that takes money out of the present pot for players today. I don't think the owners should be able to operate un-monitored, however and that some third-party oversight/audit is necessary to make sure there is no fraud (TV deals, for one). I think more money should be spent on player pensions and less on rookie salaries. I believe in long slow kisses that last three days. I believe in the G-spot.I don't like the tactics either have employed...the players a little moreso than the owners. And I think your strategy is dangerous and counter-productive. And I think if they do it, no amount of PR will convince halfway-intelligent people that they were just doing the right thing and not being greedy.

Not , but GREAT. Much better and concise statement of my feelings about this whole scenario. I mostly want the NFL we have now protected and not dramatically changed. But I pretty much agree with all of the above sentiments. I do think Goodell has gotten way too much blame in this process. With the number of characters/egos he has to deal with, I am surprised he has done as well as he has in this situation. Tags could never get the owners to agree on much financially and he had built up a lot a cache over time with them. He is dealing with 32 divergent owners of which at least 12 are very independent and ego driven. When 3/4 of the owners have to vote for any agreement, good luck at getting a voting block to agree on much unless it is a home run. And I do question how much he is really in control of the decisions being made. I have a sneaking suspicion Jones, Snyder, Richardson, etc are directing the decisions behind the scenes and Goodell gets to be the face of those decisions.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

On the other hand, the offer was so ridiculous that a federal judge made her decision based in part on how ridiculous it was. But Jackson was the one that was held up as being "crazy" for not taking it or being happy about it.

Judge Nelson didn't say the offer was ridiculous. She said that the RFA rules cost Jackson a lot of money. She's right, but that doesn't make the RFA rules ridiculous (within the context of a bargained-for CBA); and it certainly doesn't make using the rules to the teams' advantage ridiculous. That's what the rules were there for: to be used to the teams' advantage. It's no different from the players using the antitrust laws to their advantage now that the CBA was opted out of.

What advantage? The point is the same now as it always has been for me on this issue. An offer within the rules is not the same thing as a "reasonable" offer.It is within the rules for a team to offer the #1 overall draft pick $1/year for 5 years and tell him to take it or leave it. But a player will leave it, because it's not a fair offer DESPITE the team having almost all of the "leverage" in the negotiations. That player can only play for one team - the team making the offer. Jackson could only play for one team - the Chargers (if the Chargers wanted it that way, which they did). But he felt like $3M was not legitimate compensation for his services. The fact that we now know at least one team was willing to give $18M for two years PLUS compensation back to the Chargers kind of bears opinion out.Just because a guy is a RFA doesn't mean he shouldn't expect something at least in the same ballpark as his FA market value. The previous (and potential future) RFAs, generally receive offers MUCH closer to their actual market value (for a variety of reasons), even ignoring the whole wacky uncapped year induced RFA status.To bring it back to the CBA discussion, I am really more in the owner's camp than the players for the most part, but the Jackson situation really did bring to light something that probably needs to be addressed in any future CBA. But of course, Smith could have made any offer he wanted to, so in some ways the system "worked". One party made a lowball offer, the other part refused to accept it, and everybody lost. It's hard to enforce "reasonableness" in a negotiation like that.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Thanks Maurile, I thought the anti-trust suit was for 2010. How are the players filing anti-trust for 2011 already? I thought the league hasn't announced rules governing the season yet. And how do Mankins, VJax figure into this if it's forward looking.

 

[Jene Bramel]

@MikeSilver I'm hearing from pretty good source that a stay may be coming from the 8th circuit as soon as this morning

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It is within the rules for a team to offer the #1 overall draft pick $1/year for 5 years and tell him to take it or leave it. But a player will leave it, because it's not a fair offer DESPITE the team having almost all of the "leverage" in the negotiations. That player can only play for one team - the team making the offer. Jackson could only play for one team - the Chargers (if the Chargers wanted it that way, which they did). But he felt like $3M was not legitimate compensation for his services. The fact that we now know at least one team was willing to give $18M for two years PLUS compensation back to the Chargers kind of bears opinion out.

Yes, I agree with all of that. It's in a rookie's interest to forgo an offer for the league minimum because if he declines, he goes back into the draft the following year and would get a better offer from another team. That makes a rookie's situation different from VJ's situation last year. If VJ sat out the whole year, he likely would have been an RFA again (although it wasn't certain since the CBA was ending). I think it would have been in Jackson's best interest to accept the $3.3 million and then become a UFA. I don't think it would be in a rookie's best interest to accept the league minimum and then not become a UFA.

Just because a guy is a RFA doesn't mean he shouldn't expect something at least in the same ballpark as his FA market value.

I think it means exactly that.

The previous (and potential future) RFAs, generally receive offers MUCH closer to their actual market value (for a variety of reasons), even ignoring the whole wacky uncapped year induced RFA status.

There are no cases to go on, so far as I know. Most RFAs are offered multi-year deals, which have to be closer to market value because the player won't become a UFA the following year if he signs it. Jackson's offer was for one year. I know of no similar, prior situations. But for a one-year deal, I don't think it makes sense to offer an RFA anything near his "market" value. (Because of the lack of prior cases it may not mean much, but I believe that the Chargers set an NFL record last year for the highest one-year offer ever made to an RFA.)

 

[-jb-]

.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thanks Maurile, I thought the anti-trust suit was for 2010. How are the players filing anti-trust for 2011 already? I thought the league hasn't announced rules governing the season yet. And how do Mankins, VJax figure into this if it's forward looking.

The players are suing to get a court order saying that the league isn't allowed to have restrictions on free agency in 2011 (and following). Jackson is a named plaintiff because he's particularly affected by the issue. He's been franchise-tagged for 2011. (Same with Mankins.)

 

[David Dodds]

@MikeSilver I'm hearing from pretty good source that a stay may be coming from the 8th circuit as soon as this morning

This pretty much guarantees a long protracted lockout if that is the case.

 

[renesauz]

This scorched earth approach could very well come back and bite them in the ###. It is exactly what I'm worried about because it leaves few options for the owners. More likely in this scenario, no CBA will be done and 'free-market' football will come to pass. And a number of players will likely not like what comes along.

First, I don't believe (based on your many posts here) that you're really very concerned about some players getting smaller salaries.But more generally, if you're right and this approach would hurt the players I expect they won't do that. I was just making the point that a new CBA doesn't require that the players drop their anti-trust suit(s). Barring relief from the appeals court, the owners have boxed themselves into a corner here and need a new CBA badly enough that they don't have a lot of leverage now. And based on their tactics up to this point I personally wouldn't be inclined to help them out - I'd extract everything I could that was in my long-term interest.

Just because I feel that economic realities of the current marketplace make sense that the players should be willing to discuss some reduction in the overall compensation scheme doesn't mean I favor getting rid of minimum salaries. Quite to contrary. I favor those protections as well as a salary floor to ensure teams are spending a requisite minimum on player talent. I'm not anti-players. I'm pro-maintaining the current NFL system, in the most part. I genuinely believe the economy and the way stadium deals are financed has put an additional burden on ownership that wasn't there 10 years ago and I think players' shares need to be adjusted to reflect that reality. I believe there is a difference between an owner and a player, yet I respect the risk both take. I do believe that the owners should be allowed to make economic investments in the future of the NFL, even if that takes money out of the present pot for players today. I don't think the owners should be able to operate un-monitored, however and that some third-party oversight/audit is necessary to make sure there is no fraud (TV deals, for one). I think more money should be spent on player pensions and less on rookie salaries. I believe in long slow kisses that last three days. I believe in the G-spot.I don't like the tactics either have employed...the players a little moreso than the owners. And I think your strategy is dangerous and counter-productive. And I think if they do it, no amount of PR will convince halfway-intelligent people that they were just doing the right thing and not being greedy.

Very well stated

 

[renesauz]

On the other hand, the offer was so ridiculous that a federal judge made her decision based in part on how ridiculous it was. But Jackson was the one that was held up as being "crazy" for not taking it or being happy about it.

Judge Nelson didn't say the offer was ridiculous. She said that the RFA rules cost Jackson a lot of money. She's right, but that doesn't make the RFA rules ridiculous (within the context of a bargained-for CBA); and it certainly doesn't make using the rules to the teams' advantage ridiculous, given the existence of those rules. That's what the rules were there for: to be used to the teams' advantage. It's no different from the players using the antitrust laws to their advantage now that the CBA was opted out of.Certain people didn't like the RFA rules in 2010. Certain people don't like the antitrust laws now. But you can't blame the beneficiaries of those rules, in either case, from using them to their advantage. JMHO.

Some people hate both!

 

[Ksquared]

@MikeSilver I'm hearing from pretty good source that a stay may be coming from the 8th circuit as soon as this morning

This pretty much guarantees a long protracted lockout if that is the case.

There were a lot of legal beagles wrong on a lot of stuff in this process, but a large % implied that a "stay" would be the norm in a case like this. And the judge not doing the "norm" could be grounds "review or reversal of the case" due to over reaching actions by the judge. All of this dried up as the NFL was pounded again by the judges decision. I am afraid David is correct though, this could really extend the lockout.I know if I was a coach in the NFL, I would have been on the phone with players from the time the NFL said you could have contact to get play books, "buddy systems" for rookies that are drafted, etc to get as much covered as possible before a possible stay was granted.

 

[renesauz]

On the other hand, the offer was so ridiculous that a federal judge made her decision based in part on how ridiculous it was. But Jackson was the one that was held up as being "crazy" for not taking it or being happy about it.

Judge Nelson didn't say the offer was ridiculous. She said that the RFA rules cost Jackson a lot of money. She's right, but that doesn't make the RFA rules ridiculous (within the context of a bargained-for CBA); and it certainly doesn't make using the rules to the teams' advantage ridiculous. That's what the rules were there for: to be used to the teams' advantage. It's no different from the players using the antitrust laws to their advantage now that the CBA was opted out of.

What advantage? The point is the same now as it always has been for me on this issue. An offer within the rules is not the same thing as a "reasonable" offer.It is within the rules for a team to offer the #1 overall draft pick $1/year for 5 years and tell him to take it or leave it. But a player will leave it, because it's not a fair offer DESPITE the team having almost all of the "leverage" in the negotiations. That player can only play for one team - the team making the offer. Jackson could only play for one team - the Chargers (if the Chargers wanted it that way, which they did). But he felt like $3M was not legitimate compensation for his services. The fact that we now know at least one team was willing to give $18M for two years PLUS compensation back to the Chargers kind of bears opinion out.Just because a guy is a RFA doesn't mean he shouldn't expect something at least in the same ballpark as his FA market value. The previous (and potential future) RFAs, generally receive offers MUCH closer to their actual market value (for a variety of reasons), even ignoring the whole wacky uncapped year induced RFA status.To bring it back to the CBA discussion, I am really more in the owner's camp than the players for the most part, but the Jackson situation really did bring to light something that probably needs to be addressed in any future CBA. But of course, Smith could have made any offer he wanted to, so in some ways the system "worked". One party made a lowball offer, the other part refused to accept it, and everybody lost. It's hard to enforce "reasonableness" in a negotiation like that.

I think the whole Jackson fiasco should provide an impetus to significantly revising the RFA system. I like the draft, and I like the salary cap, but I do understand the need and desire to allow some free market principle to play out in fairness to players. While it's reasonable to me that a team should be able to use extra pressure to KEEP a player it drafted, that pressure should never result in a player making less than 1/2 of his free market value. Either ditch the RFA system, or appoint an arbitrator with executive power to mediate situations like Jackson's.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

@MikeSilver I'm hearing from pretty good source that a stay may be coming from the 8th circuit as soon as this morning

This pretty much guarantees a long protracted lockout if that is the case.

There were a lot of legal beagles wrong on a lot of stuff in this process, but a large % implied that a "stay" would be the norm in a case like this. And the judge not doing the "norm" could be grounds "review or reversal of the case" due to over reaching actions by the judge. All of this dried up as the NFL was pounded again by the judges decision. I am afraid David is correct though, this could really extend the lockout.I know if I was a coach in the NFL, I would have been on the phone with players from the time the NFL said you could have contact to get play books, "buddy systems" for rookies that are drafted, etc to get as much covered as possible before a possible stay was granted.

interesting

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The NFL has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite the appeal, and if that stay is granted (and ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio reported that the ruling for a temporary stay could come as soon as this afternoon), then we go into a holding pattern.

The next deadline from the courts is that the players have been directed to file a response to the motion for a stay by noon Central Time on Friday. After that, the league’s reply to the response is due by 9 a.m. Central on Monday.

That seems a little weird. If the players' deadline to respond is tomorrow, why would a ruling come down "as soon as" today? I'd think a court would want to receive argument from both sides before ruling.

From Florio this morning:

A timetable has been set for submitting documents regarding the motion for a stay. As to the motion for a stay until the motion for a stay can be decided, the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled.

I have no experience with staying injunctions. But if the bolded part isn't a typo (which it could be), I gather that the 8th Circuit will ultimately rule on the stay sometime following Monday morning, when it has received argument from each party. But it could issue a very temporary stay from now until Monday (or whenever it ultimately rules on the stay).Does that sound right to anyone more familiar with this stuff?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The NFL has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite the appeal, and if that stay is granted (and ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio reported that the ruling for a temporary stay could come as soon as this afternoon), then we go into a holding pattern.

The next deadline from the courts is that the players have been directed to file a response to the motion for a stay by noon Central Time on Friday. After that, the league’s reply to the response is due by 9 a.m. Central on Monday.

That seems a little weird. If the players' deadline to respond is tomorrow, why would a ruling come down "as soon as" today? I'd think a court would want to receive argument from both sides before ruling.

From Florio this morning:

A timetable has been set for submitting documents regarding the motion for a stay. As to the motion for a stay until the motion for a stay can be decided, the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled.

I have no experience with staying injunctions. But if the bolded part isn't a typo (which it could be), I gather that the 8th Circuit will ultimately rule on the stay sometime following Monday morning, when it has received argument from each party. But it could issue a very temporary stay which would be in effect from the time it is issued until the time it ultimately rules on the stay — maybe Monday.Does that sound right (to anyone more familiar with this stuff)?

So a stay to rule on the stay? Yikes.

 

[Jene Bramel]

The NFL has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite the appeal, and if that stay is granted (and ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio reported that the ruling for a temporary stay could come as soon as this afternoon), then we go into a holding pattern.

The next deadline from the courts is that the players have been directed to file a response to the motion for a stay by noon Central Time on Friday. After that, the league’s reply to the response is due by 9 a.m. Central on Monday.

That seems a little weird. If the players' deadline to respond is tomorrow, why would a ruling come down "as soon as" today? I'd think a court would want to receive argument from both sides before ruling.

From Florio this morning:

A timetable has been set for submitting documents regarding the motion for a stay. As to the motion for a stay until the motion for a stay can be decided, the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled.

I have no experience with staying injunctions. But if the bolded part isn't a typo (which it could be), I gather that the 8th Circuit will ultimately rule on the stay sometime following Monday morning, when it has received argument from each party. But it could issue a very temporary stay from now until Monday (or whenever it ultimately rules on the stay).Does that sound right to anyone more familiar with this stuff?

@SportsLawGuy If granted, ruling today would stay the injunction just a little bit longer,until they have time to rule on stay lasting til appeal

 

[Holy Schneikes]

It is within the rules for a team to offer the #1 overall draft pick $1/year for 5 years and tell him to take it or leave it. But a player will leave it, because it's not a fair offer DESPITE the team having almost all of the "leverage" in the negotiations. That player can only play for one team - the team making the offer. Jackson could only play for one team - the Chargers (if the Chargers wanted it that way, which they did). But he felt like $3M was not legitimate compensation for his services. The fact that we now know at least one team was willing to give $18M for two years PLUS compensation back to the Chargers kind of bears opinion out.

Yes, I agree with all of that. It's in a rookie's interest to forgo $12K a year or whatever (it would have to at least meet minimum wage requirements), because if he declines, he goes back into the draft the following year and would get a better offer from another team. That makes a rookie's situation different from VJ's situation last year. If VJ sat out the whole year, he likely would have been an RFA again (although it wasn't certain since the CBA was ending). I think it would have been in Jackson's best interest to accept the $3.3 million and then become a UFA. I don't think it would be in a rookie's best interest to accept $12K and then not become a UFA.

Just because a guy is a RFA doesn't mean he shouldn't expect something at least in the same ballpark as his FA market value.

I think it means exactly that.

The previous (and potential future) RFAs, generally receive offers MUCH closer to their actual market value (for a variety of reasons), even ignoring the whole wacky uncapped year induced RFA status.

There are no cases to go on, so far as I know. Most RFAs are offered multi-year deals, which have to be closer to market value because the player won't become a UFA the following year if he signs it. Jackson's offer was for one year. I know of no similar, prior situations. But for a one-year deal, I don't think it makes sense to offer an RFA anything near his "market" value.

Seems to me there are a fair amount of one year offers for RFAs that will become UFAs the following year. That's why the minimum "tenders" are in place. It just that most of the GOOD players that would become RFAs have already been offered realistic contracts (either through the goodwill/self-interest of the team or via hold-out) BEFORE they hit RFA status. But there are many "mediocre" guys who get there and take the minimum tender because it is fairly reasonable for the level of player they are. Not necessarily 100% of FA market value, but something close. Certainly not something on the order of a third of FA market value.But you are absolutely right in saying there are few "comps" for Jackson's situation. It was unique to 2010. That's why the RFA status shouldn't have been the sole determining factor in the negotiations on one side. I'd love to see some scenarios where a guy was offered less than a third of his market value as a RFA and accepted it with a smile on his face. You mentioned multi-year deals, which of course was an option for the Chargers, so I'm not sure how that helps the reasonableness of the offer. You are saying most RFAs get offered multi-year deals, which are close to market value because they have to be, but Jackson wasn't offered a multi-year deal, so his offer was fair. Huh?

As for rookies, yes, they would go back into the draft pool if an agreement can't be reached. And they'd still be (essentially, not technically) RFAs, able to deal with only one team. How does that give them MORE leverage than RFAs who would end up in more or less the same situation as well (and possibly not in Jackson's case)? Sure, the next team may give them a better deal (or they might not), but the player is out a whole year's salary (just like the RFA) with no guarantee of a better offer. But despite that limited leverage, the rookies often hold out for something closer to what they think they "deserve".

I am not denying that RFA status was intended to give the teams the advantage in the negotiation process. That's why it's there. And as such, the RFA shouldn't expect to MAXIMIZE his market value as he otherwise would. But there is a BIG difference between that and suggesting that the minimum offer at a given "level" should be enough regardless of a player's ability and situation. That just doesn't pass the sniff test. It didn't to Jackson, and apparently, it doesn't to the courts.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But there is a BIG difference between that and suggesting that the minimum offer at a given "level" should be enough regardless of a player's ability and situation. That just doesn't pass the sniff test. It didn't to Jackson, and apparently, it doesn't to the courts.

I think we understand each other's positions on this. The only part I'll argue with is the very last part.The court didn't say that Jackson's offer was unfair in light of the 2010 RFA rules. It said that the 2010 RFA rules will cause players irreparable harm if they are carried into 2011 without a CBA. To infer more than that is to read into the opinion stuff that isn't there.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The NFL has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite the appeal, and if that stay is granted (and ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio reported that the ruling for a temporary stay could come as soon as this afternoon), then we go into a holding pattern.

The next deadline from the courts is that the players have been directed to file a response to the motion for a stay by noon Central Time on Friday. After that, the league’s reply to the response is due by 9 a.m. Central on Monday.

That seems a little weird. If the players' deadline to respond is tomorrow, why would a ruling come down "as soon as" today? I'd think a court would want to receive argument from both sides before ruling.

From Florio this morning:

A timetable has been set for submitting documents regarding the motion for a stay. As to the motion for a stay until the motion for a stay can be decided, the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled.

I have no experience with staying injunctions. But if the bolded part isn't a typo (which it could be), I gather that the 8th Circuit will ultimately rule on the stay sometime following Monday morning, when it has received argument from each party. But it could issue a very temporary stay from now until Monday (or whenever it ultimately rules on the stay).Does that sound right to anyone more familiar with this stuff?

@SportsLawGuy If granted, ruling today would stay the injunction just a little bit longer,until they have time to rule on stay lasting til appeal

Thanks.

 

[jonessed]

On the other hand, the offer was so ridiculous that a federal judge made her decision based in part on how ridiculous it was. But Jackson was the one that was held up as being "crazy" for not taking it or being happy about it.

Judge Nelson didn't say the offer was ridiculous. She said that the RFA rules cost Jackson a lot of money. She's right, but that doesn't make the RFA rules ridiculous (within the context of a bargained-for CBA); and it certainly doesn't make using the rules to the teams' advantage ridiculous. That's what the rules were there for: to be used to the teams' advantage. It's no different from the players using the antitrust laws to their advantage now that the CBA was opted out of.

What advantage? The point is the same now as it always has been for me on this issue. An offer within the rules is not the same thing as a "reasonable" offer.It is within the rules for a team to offer the #1 overall draft pick $1/year for 5 years and tell him to take it or leave it. But a player will leave it, because it's not a fair offer DESPITE the team having almost all of the "leverage" in the negotiations. That player can only play for one team - the team making the offer. Jackson could only play for one team - the Chargers (if the Chargers wanted it that way, which they did). But he felt like $3M was not legitimate compensation for his services. The fact that we now know at least one team was willing to give $18M for two years PLUS compensation back to the Chargers kind of bears opinion out.Just because a guy is a RFA doesn't mean he shouldn't expect something at least in the same ballpark as his FA market value. The previous (and potential future) RFAs, generally receive offers MUCH closer to their actual market value (for a variety of reasons), even ignoring the whole wacky uncapped year induced RFA status.To bring it back to the CBA discussion, I am really more in the owner's camp than the players for the most part, but the Jackson situation really did bring to light something that probably needs to be addressed in any future CBA. But of course, Smith could have made any offer he wanted to, so in some ways the system "worked". One party made a lowball offer, the other part refused to accept it, and everybody lost. It's hard to enforce "reasonableness" in a negotiation like that.

I think the whole Jackson fiasco should provide an impetus to significantly revising the RFA system. I like the draft, and I like the salary cap, but I do understand the need and desire to allow some free market principle to play out in fairness to players. While it's reasonable to me that a team should be able to use extra pressure to KEEP a player it drafted, that pressure should never result in a player making less than 1/2 of his free market value. Either ditch the RFA system, or appoint an arbitrator with executive power to mediate situations like Jackson's.

If there is a system to give players more money based on their market worth and not their contract it seems fair to ask the players that if they perform below their contract they give some money back to the owners.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But there is a BIG difference between that and suggesting that the minimum offer at a given "level" should be enough regardless of a player's ability and situation. That just doesn't pass the sniff test. It didn't to Jackson, and apparently, it doesn't to the courts.

I think we understand each other's positions on this. The only part I'll argue with is the very last part.The court didn't say that Jackson's offer was unfair in light of the 2010 RFA rules. It said that the 2010 RFA rules will cause players irreparable harm if they are carried into 2011 without a CBA. To infer more than that is to read into the opinion stuff that isn't there.

I get what you are saying with regard to the legal findings. The "unreasonableness" in terms of LAW in 2010 is not what the judge is referring to. But I do think it's fair to categorize the judge as saying, if we continue down the present course, something like Jackson's situation will happen in the future. A situation like that would be considered irreparable harm in 2011. What sould it be considered in 2010? Within the rules, yes. A reasonable offer, no. It was an offer that didn't come close to reflecting his actual market value, which is what the judge is seeking to avoid going forward. In other words, if it was reasonable in 2010, why would it be something that absolutely needs to be avoided in 2011? What does "unfair" mean, if that isn't it?

 

[David Dodds]

On the other hand, the offer was so ridiculous that a federal judge made her decision based in part on how ridiculous it was. But Jackson was the one that was held up as being "crazy" for not taking it or being happy about it.

Judge Nelson didn't say the offer was ridiculous. She said that the RFA rules cost Jackson a lot of money. She's right, but that doesn't make the RFA rules ridiculous (within the context of a bargained-for CBA); and it certainly doesn't make using the rules to the teams' advantage ridiculous. That's what the rules were there for: to be used to the teams' advantage. It's no different from the players using the antitrust laws to their advantage now that the CBA was opted out of.

What advantage? The point is the same now as it always has been for me on this issue. An offer within the rules is not the same thing as a "reasonable" offer.It is within the rules for a team to offer the #1 overall draft pick $1/year for 5 years and tell him to take it or leave it. But a player will leave it, because it's not a fair offer DESPITE the team having almost all of the "leverage" in the negotiations. That player can only play for one team - the team making the offer. Jackson could only play for one team - the Chargers (if the Chargers wanted it that way, which they did). But he felt like $3M was not legitimate compensation for his services. The fact that we now know at least one team was willing to give $18M for two years PLUS compensation back to the Chargers kind of bears opinion out.Just because a guy is a RFA doesn't mean he shouldn't expect something at least in the same ballpark as his FA market value. The previous (and potential future) RFAs, generally receive offers MUCH closer to their actual market value (for a variety of reasons), even ignoring the whole wacky uncapped year induced RFA status.To bring it back to the CBA discussion, I am really more in the owner's camp than the players for the most part, but the Jackson situation really did bring to light something that probably needs to be addressed in any future CBA. But of course, Smith could have made any offer he wanted to, so in some ways the system "worked". One party made a lowball offer, the other part refused to accept it, and everybody lost. It's hard to enforce "reasonableness" in a negotiation like that.

I think the whole Jackson fiasco should provide an impetus to significantly revising the RFA system. I like the draft, and I like the salary cap, but I do understand the need and desire to allow some free market principle to play out in fairness to players. While it's reasonable to me that a team should be able to use extra pressure to KEEP a player it drafted, that pressure should never result in a player making less than 1/2 of his free market value. Either ditch the RFA system, or appoint an arbitrator with executive power to mediate situations like Jackson's.

If there is a system to give players more money based on their market worth and not their contract it seems fair to ask the players that if they perform below their contract they give some money back to the owners.

That happens all the time. The owners cut the player. These aren't guaranteed contracts.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Temporary stay granted.

 

[David Dodds]

If the appeals court is just issuing a temporary stay until they can make a real determination on the real stay by Monday or Tuesday, I think that's acceptable. If this court does eventually grant a real stay and as told before they can't meet until June 13th then this really is going to lead to an ugly situation.

 

[renesauz]

If there is a system to give players more money based on their market worth and not their contract it seems fair to ask the players that if they perform below their contract they give some money back to the owners.

Ummm....Jackson wasn't UNDER contract? That's kind of the whole point here. Please note that I'm very much on the owner's side in the CBA dispute, but I think the RFA system in 2010 was bogus, and even the normal RFA system of years prior could use some tweaking.

 

[CBower4545]

The NFL has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite the appeal, and if that stay is granted (and ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio reported that the ruling for a temporary stay could come as soon as this afternoon), then we go into a holding pattern.

The next deadline from the courts is that the players have been directed to file a response to the motion for a stay by noon Central Time on Friday. After that, the league’s reply to the response is due by 9 a.m. Central on Monday.

That seems a little weird. If the players' deadline to respond is tomorrow, why would a ruling come down "as soon as" today? I'd think a court would want to receive argument from both sides before ruling.

From Florio this morning:

A timetable has been set for submitting documents regarding the motion for a stay. As to the motion for a stay until the motion for a stay can be decided, the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled.

I have no experience with staying injunctions. But if the bolded part isn't a typo (which it could be), I gather that the 8th Circuit will ultimately rule on the stay sometime following Monday morning, when it has received argument from each party. But it could issue a very temporary stay from now until Monday (or whenever it ultimately rules on the stay).Does that sound right to anyone more familiar with this stuff?

@SportsLawGuy If granted, ruling today would stay the injunction just a little bit longer,until they have time to rule on stay lasting til appeal

Thanks.

Thanks guys for the context. Silver says stay of injuction comes shortly That story almost ruined my day. Further reading looks like no one really knows what is going to happen with the ruling on the stay of the injunction until a final ruling. Though espn seems think the players are in a decent spot. espn's take

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In other words, if it was reasonable in 2010, why would it be something that absolutely needs to be avoided in 2011?

First, the judge isn't saying that it needs to be avoided in 2011. She's saying that if it's not avoided in 2011, the players will suffer harm. She's not saying (yet) that the harm would be illegal. Just that there would be harm — i.e., that players would make less as RFAs than they would as UFAs. That's pretty obvious, and Jackson is a good example. But she's not even ruling on legality at this point, much less reasonableness.The judge is likely to rule, eventually, that the 2010 RFA rules should be avoided in 2011. That's because while they were legal in 2010, they would be illegal in 2011. That's the answer to your question. (I wouldn't use legality as a proxy for reasonableness; but if you're intent on doing so, the only conclusion is that the 2010 offer was reasonable.)

 

[CalBear]

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

Did Meadowlands Stadium need to be built?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

Did Meadowlands Stadium need to be built?

I'm sure if you ask the corporate sponsors who buy the luxury boxes, they'd probably say yes. However, this is the type of scrutiny the players might think they have the right to, but as players, not owners, I BELIEVE they should not.