Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.

It can't really be shut down. During the lockout, the owners have no control over what the players can or can't do on their own. The players don't work for the owners.

Shut down? by whom? If a bucnh of people want to get together and work out, they can. This isnt russia buddy

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.

It can't really be shut down. During the lockout, the owners have no control over what the players can or can't do on their own. The players don't work for the owners.

Shut down? by whom? If a bucnh of people want to get together and work out, they can. This isnt russia buddy

I am sure that Saints ownership can’t be pleased. What if Brees or someone else gets hurt during these rouge minicamps? Who is responsible? How does it affects guaranteed contracts? Can they be voided? Do they have the necessary training staff, safeguards, strength and conditioning people? This isn't high school ball.

 

[D.J.]

if anyone wants to shut it down, its the *nflpa, the players practicing is good for the nfl! Assuming there is a season, there will be less of a dropoff in quality if the players are working out and learning the playbooks.

 

[D.J.]

Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.

It can't really be shut down. During the lockout, the owners have no control over what the players can or can't do on their own. The players don't work for the owners.

Shut down? by whom? If a bucnh of people want to get together and work out, they can. This isnt russia buddy

I am sure that Saints ownership can’t be pleased. What if Brees or someone else gets hurt during these rouge minicamps? Who is responsible? How does it affects guaranteed contracts? Can they be voided? Do they have the necessary training staff, safeguards, strength and conditioning people? This isn't high school ball.

if someone gets hurt it is on them, it goes as a "non-football related injury." The owners owe them nothing

 

[Raiderfan32904]

if anyone wants to shut it down, its the *nflpa, the players practicing is good for the nfl! Assuming there is a season, there will be less of a dropoff in quality if the players are working out and learning the playbooks.

Remember when Jamarcus Russell was “allowed” to play in the first weekend minicamp before getting cut? The Raiders essentially risked $6.5 million that Russell wouldn’t twist his knee and score some big money. The rules of compensation under CBA protect both the player and the owner. In this case, the owner risked big and got away with it. In Brees case, he’s playing outside of contract parameters, but also subjecting his teammates to similar risk under less than agreed upon ideal NFL conditions.

 

[massraider]

Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.

It can't really be shut down. During the lockout, the owners have no control over what the players can or can't do on their own. The players don't work for the owners.

Shut down? by whom? If a bucnh of people want to get together and work out, they can. This isnt russia buddy

I am sure that Saints ownership can’t be pleased. What if Brees or someone else gets hurt during these rouge minicamps? Who is responsible? How does it affects guaranteed contracts? Can they be voided? Do they have the necessary training staff, safeguards, strength and conditioning people? This isn't high school ball.

Guaranteed contracts? This isn't baseball, either.

 

[David Dodds]

Well if the stay is indeed granted, I am anxious to read the words. I don't for a minute think the owners would be harmed to open up business right now and this has a feeling of "rigged" to me.

I have also felt that if this stay gets granted, I would put the odds at a successful appeal at about 85% (not based on merit, but that same feeling that this is rigged). So we should have a complete stalemate by July (and possibly this gets booted to the NLRB). I get people are saying that this would be the perfect time to get a CBA done. But I have a feeling the owners will indeed hold through on their promise to offer less with every week that passes. This was their plan all along.

I think the chance for no football in 2011 now got very real. I don't see the owners willing to offer anything resembling fair.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.

It can't really be shut down. During the lockout, the owners have no control over what the players can or can't do on their own. The players don't work for the owners.

Shut down? by whom? If a bucnh of people want to get together and work out, they can. This isnt russia buddy

I am sure that Saints ownership can’t be pleased. What if Brees or someone else gets hurt during these rouge minicamps? Who is responsible? How does it affects guaranteed contracts? Can they be voided? Do they have the necessary training staff, safeguards, strength and conditioning people? This isn't high school ball.

Guaranteed contracts? This isn't baseball, either.

Yes, I understand. But you don't think the owners lawyers will try to go after signing bonus money?

 

[massraider]

Yes, I understand. But you don't think the owners lawyers will try to go after signing bonus money?

No. Playing in the NFL is a year-round job, and players work out all offseason (if they want to succeed). Whether they work out together, or alone at a gym, it makes no difference. This isn't the same as suiting up for the UFL, or engaging in bullfighting in Mexico.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Well if the stay is indeed granted, I am anxious to read the words. I don't for a minute think the owners would be harmed to open up business right now and this has a feeling of "rigged" to me.I have also felt that if this stay gets granted, I would put the odds at a successful appeal at about 85% (not based on merit, but that same feeling that this is rigged). So we should have a complete stalemate by July (and possibly this gets booted to the NLRB). I get people are saying that this would be the perfect time to get a CBA done. But I have a feeling the owners will indeed hold through on their promise to offer less with every week that passes. This was their plan all along.I think the chance for no football in 2011 now got very real. I don't see the owners willing to offer anything resembling fair.

yep and even if the owners lose here, they will appeal again right? basically its kind of feeling like that if the Stay is granted, we will not have football unless the players cave.

 

[D.J.]

Well if the stay is indeed granted, I am anxious to read the words. I don't for a minute think the owners would be harmed to open up business right now and this has a feeling of "rigged" to me.I have also felt that if this stay gets granted, I would put the odds at a successful appeal at about 85% (not based on merit, but that same feeling that this is rigged). So we should have a complete stalemate by July (and possibly this gets booted to the NLRB). I get people are saying that this would be the perfect time to get a CBA done. But I have a feeling the owners will indeed hold through on their promise to offer less with every week that passes. This was their plan all along.I think the chance for no football in 2011 now got very real. I don't see the owners willing to offer anything resembling fair.

yep and even if the owners lose here, they will appeal again right? basically its kind of feeling like that if the Stay is granted, we will not have football unless the players cave.

Hasn't this been the owners goal the whole time? If the players start missing game checks they cave, right? Presumably, the players know this would be inevitable and they will be willing to try to strike a deal in mediation. The owners may over play their hand here, but they want a deal too. Missing football isn't good for their wallets either...

 

[renesauz]

Brees running OTAsThis is probably legal. But it seems like the players are already breaking ranks with the intent of the lockout. Drew Brees is conducting his own Saints mini-camp at Tulane University for 39 Saints players and footing the bill. For those players that followed the advice of the players association and sat tight awaiting the resolution, they are behind the 8-ball. Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2011/05/new_orleans_saints_quarterback_96.html

GOOD FOR BREES!

 

[Idiot Boxer]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

And the statement was directed directly at Dodds, who assumes that if the owners win, the process must be rigged, but makes no such assumption when the ruling matches his ideology.

 

[renesauz]

Well if the stay is indeed granted, I am anxious to read the words. I don't for a minute think the owners would be harmed to open up business right now and this has a feeling of "rigged" to me.I have also felt that if this stay gets granted, I would put the odds at a successful appeal at about 85% (not based on merit, but that same feeling that this is rigged). So we should have a complete stalemate by July (and possibly this gets booted to the NLRB). I get people are saying that this would be the perfect time to get a CBA done. But I have a feeling the owners will indeed hold through on their promise to offer less with every week that passes. This was their plan all along.I think the chance for no football in 2011 now got very real. I don't see the owners willing to offer anything resembling fair.

I think you may be confused David. The stay doesn't OK the lockout, it just lets it continue until a new court gets to hear the same case the lower court already ruled on....which was very specific and limited. The decision of the lower court was based on who gets hurt more by a lockout, and if that harm is irreperable. It's not even really on the legality of the lockout!Lifting the lockout removes all negotiating power from the owners. Under such a scenario, the owners would either have to lay down and accept whatever terms the players dictate (which is fundamentally WRONG), or fight in the courts.Leaving the lockout keeps some negotiating power in the owners hands, and gives the players such motivation to actually negotiate (instead of dictate). To this point, the players have DICTATED while owners have (at times) tried to NEGOTIATE.Forcing the owners to open business might very well harm them more then the players.I've already seen the owners offer something "resembling fair". While it wasn't as good as their last deal, the owners late offers were certainly resembling fair. The players refusal to go one inch backwards in pay, or even to place more restrictive limits on future pay raises than they've enjoyed in the past is, IMHO, unfair.

 

[renesauz]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

I don't want football this year at "all costs"

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

I don't want football this year at "all costs"

UmThe owners dont want the MLB model. Maybe the players do, Im not sure. But they are using that tactic to get leverage.

 

[roadkill1292]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

There haven't been many in these threads advocating for an NFL modeled after MLB. But there have been a surprising number of us advocating for some changes to heretofore sacred institutions like the draft.

 

[renesauz]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

I don't want football this year at "all costs"

UmThe owners dont want the MLB model. Maybe the players do, Im not sure. But they are using that tactic to get leverage.

Umm....right...I think you misread the posts. I'd rather have the year off than full FA, no draft, etc. A protracted battle in the courts (which is the likely result if the lockout is lifted) could lead to the destruction of the things which made the NFL so great. A lockout all but gaurentees the players come back to the table and negotiate, even if it places THIS SEASON in more danger.I'm not willing to risk the future for the sake of the present. I'm not willing to risk the draft/limits on FA, etc. to ensure we play football Sep. 11 this year. I'd rather risk this year to keep the draft, etc.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

Well if the stay is indeed granted, I am anxious to read the words. I don't for a minute think the owners would be harmed to open up business right now and this has a feeling of "rigged" to me.I have also felt that if this stay gets granted, I would put the odds at a successful appeal at about 85% (not based on merit, but that same feeling that this is rigged). So we should have a complete stalemate by July (and possibly this gets booted to the NLRB). I get people are saying that this would be the perfect time to get a CBA done. But I have a feeling the owners will indeed hold through on their promise to offer less with every week that passes. This was their plan all along.I think the chance for no football in 2011 now got very real. I don't see the owners willing to offer anything resembling fair.

Do you think that the final offer made to the players prior to the decertification was fair?

 

[renesauz]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

There haven't been many in these threads advocating for an NFL modeled after MLB. But there have been a surprising number of us advocating for some changes to heretofore sacred institutions like the draft.

But most of these ideas being advocated face the same labor and anti-trust challenges. An auction style draft, for example, is just as fundamentally illegal as the draft sans a CBA.

 

[roadkill1292]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I want whats best for me, and that is football this year. Dont really care who wins in court.From reading from the legal begals around here it seems that the stay is usually granted and that the law is on the side of the players.

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

I don't want football this year at "all costs"

UmThe owners dont want the MLB model. Maybe the players do, Im not sure. But they are using that tactic to get leverage.

Umm....right...I think you misread the posts. I'd rather have the year off than full FA, no draft, etc. A protracted battle in the courts (which is the likely result if the lockout is lifted) could lead to the destruction of the things which made the NFL so great. A lockout all but gaurentees the players come back to the table and negotiate, even if it places THIS SEASON in more danger.I'm not willing to risk the future for the sake of the present. I'm not willing to risk the draft/limits on FA, etc. to ensure we play football Sep. 11 this year. I'd rather risk this year to keep the draft, etc.

I'm sure we've covered this before but what limits on free agency are you concerned about losing?c.i.l.cilthedraft

 

[renesauz]

I'm sure we've covered this before but what limits on free agency are you concerned about losing?c.i.l.cilthedraft

TO be honest, I'm not too concerned about FA limits. I'd rather see the RFA system go away than stay the way it has. But ideally it would just be revamped to make sure crap like what happened with Vincent Jackson can't ever happen again (see...I'm not COMPLETELY on the owners side ) It just so happens that most of the parity-encouraging systems also happen to be illegal without a CBA. RFA does help with parity, even if it's not the most important element.I'm not sold that the traditional draft is the only way to disburse rookie talent (an auction system could certainly work just as effectively), but I am convinced that a free-for-all rookie free agency would be bad for competitive balance. That teams choose the rookies, rather than the other way around, is important.The salary cap/minimum is crucial. It has to be retained. It is the key element leading to parity, even more important than the draft.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Vegas is also of the opinion that the season is in jeopardy. Latest odds relating to the upcoming NFL season:

If there is a lockout, how many games will be lost?1 game +2002 games +2003 games +2504 games +2205 games +3506 games +3007 games +4008+ games +300If there is a lockout, when will it end?On August 6, 2011 or before +120Between August 7 and September 8, 2011 +150On September 9, 2011 or after +120Will the 2011 NFL regular season start on time?Yes +180No -220Will there be an NFL lockout in 2011? Yes -500No +350

Basically if you bet $1 on -500, you get a 20 cent return, and if you bet $1 on +200, you win $2.The odds on "will there be an NFL lockout" I guess means that there will be no season.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if anyone wants to shut it down, its the *nflpa, the players practicing is good for the nfl! Assuming there is a season, there will be less of a dropoff in quality if the players are working out and learning the playbooks.

Remember when Jamarcus Russell was “allowed” to play in the first weekend minicamp before getting cut? The Raiders essentially risked $6.5 million that Russell wouldn’t twist his knee and score some big money. The rules of compensation under CBA protect both the player and the owner. In this case, the owner risked big and got away with it. In Brees case, he’s playing outside of contract parameters, but also subjecting his teammates to similar risk under less than agreed upon ideal NFL conditions.

Jamarcus Russell was taking part in activities organized by the team. He's protected against injury in that case.Brees is currently taking part in activities not organized or approved by the team. If he gets hurt, it's a non-football injury. He's on his own.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

yep and even if the owners lose here, they will appeal again right? basically its kind of feeling like that if the Stay is granted, we will not have football unless the players cave.

If the owners lose before the 8th Circuit's three-judge panel on the issue of the preliminary injunction, the lockout will be lifted.After that, the owners can appeal higher than that, but a further stay wouldn't automatically be granted. They'd have to apply for one again. I believe it gets harder to get a stay the further up the chain of command you go.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm sure we've covered this before but what limits on free agency are you concerned about losing?

c.i.l.cilthedraft

TO be honest, I'm not too concerned about FA limits. I'd rather see the RFA system go away than stay the way it has. But ideally it would just be revamped to make sure crap like what happened with Vincent Jackson can't ever happen again (see...I'm not COMPLETELY on the owners side ) It just so happens that most of the parity-encouraging systems also happen to be illegal without a CBA. RFA does help with parity, even if it's not the most important element.I'm not sold that the traditional draft is the only way to disburse rookie talent (an auction system could certainly work just as effectively), but I am convinced that a free-for-all rookie free agency would be bad for competitive balance. That teams choose the rookies, rather than the other way around, is important.

The salary cap/minimum is crucial. It has to be retained. It is the key element leading to parity, even more important than the draft.

I think there's nearly universal agreement with your bolded conclusion. The area of biggest disparity in opinions here appears to lie in that of rookie procurement. We range from those thinking that the draft is absolutely needed to encourage parity to those thinking that the salary cap is sufficient in and of itself to promote parity (my side of things). That may sound like a gaping chasm but in reality we're not all that far apart.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'm sure we've covered this before but what limits on free agency are you concerned about losing?

c.i.l.cilthedraft

TO be honest, I'm not too concerned about FA limits. I'd rather see the RFA system go away than stay the way it has. But ideally it would just be revamped to make sure crap like what happened with Vincent Jackson can't ever happen again (see...I'm not COMPLETELY on the owners side ) It just so happens that most of the parity-encouraging systems also happen to be illegal without a CBA. RFA does help with parity, even if it's not the most important element.I'm not sold that the traditional draft is the only way to disburse rookie talent (an auction system could certainly work just as effectively), but I am convinced that a free-for-all rookie free agency would be bad for competitive balance. That teams choose the rookies, rather than the other way around, is important.

The salary cap/minimum is crucial. It has to be retained. It is the key element leading to parity, even more important than the draft.

I think there's nearly universal agreement with your bolded conclusion. The area of biggest disparity in opinions here appears to lie in that of rookie procurement. We range from those thinking that the draft is absolutely needed to encourage parity to those thinking that the salary cap is sufficient in and of itself to promote parity (my side of things). That may sound like a gaping chasm but in reality we're not all that far apart.

This isn't even an issue with regard to a CBA. Neither side is advocating for the elimination of the draft. This ONLY comes out of a no-holds-barred/no CBA league, and in such scenario, you have no cap.Not sure why it is in this discussion.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

if anyone wants to shut it down, its the *nflpa, the players practicing is good for the nfl! Assuming there is a season, there will be less of a dropoff in quality if the players are working out and learning the playbooks.

Remember when Jamarcus Russell was “allowed” to play in the first weekend minicamp before getting cut? The Raiders essentially risked $6.5 million that Russell wouldn’t twist his knee and score some big money. The rules of compensation under CBA protect both the player and the owner. In this case, the owner risked big and got away with it. In Brees case, he’s playing outside of contract parameters, but also subjecting his teammates to similar risk under less than agreed upon ideal NFL conditions.

Jamarcus Russell was taking part in activities organized by the team. He's protected against injury in that case.Brees is currently taking part in activities not organized or approved by the team. If he gets hurt, it's a non-football injury. He's on his own.

That's exactly the point I was making. The player was protected under CBA rules of that team activity. Brees isn't protected, but the owner is also risking his players injury under conditions that he cannot optimize or control. Those players are investments/commodities to the owner, and he should have the right to expect reasonable protection of his investment, with players undergoing activities under direct supervision.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So, when the district court rules overwhelmingly in favor of the players, it is just 'the law is the law' but if the court of appeals finds for the owners, its' 'rigged'

I'm not an expert on this stuff, but based on what I do know, I think the issue of the stay pending appeal is a toss-up, while the issue of the preliminary injunction favors the players.If the court grants the stay, I don't think that means things are rigged. If I were a judge on the panel, I'd be about 50% likely to grant the stay myself. I think it's a close call.

 

[David Dodds]

Well if the stay is indeed granted, I am anxious to read the words. I don't for a minute think the owners would be harmed to open up business right now and this has a feeling of "rigged" to me.I have also felt that if this stay gets granted, I would put the odds at a successful appeal at about 85% (not based on merit, but that same feeling that this is rigged). So we should have a complete stalemate by July (and possibly this gets booted to the NLRB). I get people are saying that this would be the perfect time to get a CBA done. But I have a feeling the owners will indeed hold through on their promise to offer less with every week that passes. This was their plan all along.I think the chance for no football in 2011 now got very real. I don't see the owners willing to offer anything resembling fair.

Do you think that the final offer made to the players prior to the decertification was fair?

Had they given it to the players with enough time to actually discuss it....probably. The NFLPA had to either extend the clock, sign a new deal or decertify on that Friday when it was offered. The owners waited until the last second (literally with about an hour left), never offered to extend the talks and threw together a proposal with all kinds of new things that they knew the players would not be able to digest in order to sign that day. It was all a charade. The owners absolutely forced the players to decertify or the lockout would be on. Since then the owners said that any future offers would keep being lower as more time is missed.This is why I feel like this thing was rigged from day 1. The owners stand to gain billions of dollars per year if they redo everything to how they want it. When challenged to show why they need the extra dollars off the top, they provided no documentation. Their last "offer" even came way down on the needed $1 to $1.5 Billion off the top substantially showing that this number was indeed made up.Funny how this the stay needs to be in place, but this also needs to be expedited. Why is that? The owners are orchestrating this to "solve" this in late July or early August. Nice way to put every one of the athletes in harm's way in an increasingly violent game. No practices, no medical treatments, no one knowing the playbook, etc. Awesome. This is going to be great football for everyone this year.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm sure we've covered this before but what limits on free agency are you concerned about losing?

c.i.l.cilthedraft

TO be honest, I'm not too concerned about FA limits. I'd rather see the RFA system go away than stay the way it has. But ideally it would just be revamped to make sure crap like what happened with Vincent Jackson can't ever happen again (see...I'm not COMPLETELY on the owners side ) It just so happens that most of the parity-encouraging systems also happen to be illegal without a CBA. RFA does help with parity, even if it's not the most important element.I'm not sold that the traditional draft is the only way to disburse rookie talent (an auction system could certainly work just as effectively), but I am convinced that a free-for-all rookie free agency would be bad for competitive balance. That teams choose the rookies, rather than the other way around, is important.

The salary cap/minimum is crucial. It has to be retained. It is the key element leading to parity, even more important than the draft.

I think there's nearly universal agreement with your bolded conclusion. The area of biggest disparity in opinions here appears to lie in that of rookie procurement. We range from those thinking that the draft is absolutely needed to encourage parity to those thinking that the salary cap is sufficient in and of itself to promote parity (my side of things). That may sound like a gaping chasm but in reality we're not all that far apart.

This isn't even an issue with regard to a CBA. Neither side is advocating for the elimination of the draft. This ONLY comes out of a no-holds-barred/no CBA league, and in such scenario, you have no cap.Not sure why it is in this discussion.

Because I want it to be. I'm gonna use any instance of labor instability where another crack might open in the foundation to lobby for my agenda and gain converts to the cause.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Will there be an NFL lockout in 2011? Yes -500No +350

Basically if you bet $1 on -500, you get a 20 cent return, and if you bet $1 on +200, you win $2.The odds on "will there be an NFL lockout" I guess means that there will be no season.

Yeah, I'm not sure what it means. There already has been an NFL lockout in 2011. Maybe they're asking if at least one game will be canceled, or maybe they're asking if training camp will start on time, or maybe they're asking if the whole season will be canceled . . . who knows? It's a stupidly worded prop.

 

[David Dodds]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:

- No "league-wide" salary cap

- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.

The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if anyone wants to shut it down, its the *nflpa, the players practicing is good for the nfl! Assuming there is a season, there will be less of a dropoff in quality if the players are working out and learning the playbooks.

Remember when Jamarcus Russell was “allowed” to play in the first weekend minicamp before getting cut? The Raiders essentially risked $6.5 million that Russell wouldn’t twist his knee and score some big money. The rules of compensation under CBA protect both the player and the owner. In this case, the owner risked big and got away with it. In Brees case, he’s playing outside of contract parameters, but also subjecting his teammates to similar risk under less than agreed upon ideal NFL conditions.

Jamarcus Russell was taking part in activities organized by the team. He's protected against injury in that case.Brees is currently taking part in activities not organized or approved by the team. If he gets hurt, it's a non-football injury. He's on his own.

That's exactly the point I was making. The player was protected under CBA rules of that team activity. Brees isn't protected, but the owner is also risking his players injury under conditions that he cannot optimize or control. Those players are investments/commodities to the owner, and he should have the right to expect reasonable protection of his investment, with players undergoing activities under direct supervision.

While the owner is locking the player out, it's as if the owner has fired the player. After he's done that, he doesn't get to dictate what the player can or can't do. He's not paying him anymore. The employer-employee relationship no longer exists.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

Why? What good is that doing? There will be no CBA under those terms.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

Upshaw (RIP) sold his soul and his players down the river. May God have mercy on his soul.

 

[renesauz]

That's exactly the point I was making. The player was protected under CBA rules of that team activity. Brees isn't protected, but the owner is also risking his players injury under conditions that he cannot optimize or control. Those players are investments/commodities to the owner, and he should have the right to expect reasonable protection of his investment, with players undergoing activities under direct supervision.

Not sure I get your point. Generally, players who AREN'T getting appropriate excercise are more likely to be injured when football resumes. That's one of the purposes of OTAs to begin with. ALso, players like Brees who know their teams playbooks inside out can effectively run an OTA/practice without the coaches needing to be involved. BY doing so, he places his team in a advantageous position compared to teams without a leader taking charge w/out coaches. Players dont need a coach to tell them not to drill if they pull something....if anything players will be easier on themselves, taking fewer chances.I see absolutely no downside for owners...no reaosn in the world why they would be even remotely upset about a player taking charge and doing this. The owners' getting all the + upside of OTAs, with only slightly more risk than is normal. Heck, if I were an owner, I'd give him a bonus for it!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

The owners don't need a CBA for any of that. They can implement those rules unilaterally if they want — along with a bunch of rules that would be less favorable to the players (e.g., an 18-game season). So the owners really have nothing to gain by signing a contract that includes those terms. They can get all of those terms without a contract, while still maintaining the flexibility to make further changes whenever they want (20 games . . .), because there's no contract.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

While the owner is locking the player out, it's as if the owner has fired the player. After he's done that, he doesn't get to dictate what the player can or can't do. He's not paying him anymore. The employer-employee relationship no longer exists.

So they aren't technically under contract anymore? If I am fired or laid off from my job, I am free to get another job, right? So, if that is the case, I could up and leave for the UFL just out spite, do a year and come back as a UFA if my goal was to get out of a front loaded contract?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While the owner is locking the player out, it's as if the owner has fired the player. After he's done that, he doesn't get to dictate what the player can or can't do. He's not paying him anymore. The employer-employee relationship no longer exists.

So they aren't technically under contract anymore? If I am fired or laid off from my job, I am free to get another job, right? So, if that is the case, I could up and leave for the UFL just out spite, do a year and come back as a UFA if my goal was to get out of a front loaded contract?

You can go to the UFL. You wouldn't necessarily be a UFA when you came back to the NFL. That depends on what rules the league implements, and on what steps your team takes to retain or give up its exclusive rights to your services.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

That's exactly the point I was making. The player was protected under CBA rules of that team activity. Brees isn't protected, but the owner is also risking his players injury under conditions that he cannot optimize or control. Those players are investments/commodities to the owner, and he should have the right to expect reasonable protection of his investment, with players undergoing activities under direct supervision.

Not sure I get your point. Generally, players who AREN'T getting appropriate excercise are more likely to be injured when football resumes. That's one of the purposes of OTAs to begin with. ALso, players like Brees who know their teams playbooks inside out can effectively run an OTA/practice without the coaches needing to be involved. BY doing so, he places his team in a advantageous position compared to teams without a leader taking charge w/out coaches. Players dont need a coach to tell them not to drill if they pull something....if anything players will be easier on themselves, taking fewer chances.I see absolutely no downside for owners...no reaosn in the world why they would be even remotely upset about a player taking charge and doing this. The owners' getting all the + upside of OTAs, with only slightly more risk than is normal. Heck, if I were an owner, I'd give him a bonus for it!

In an ideal world, a guy like Brees does everything right, and is the better for it. But often overlooked are the strength and conditioning coaching staff that make sure that players are doing thier stretches and not risking injuries caused by poor training techniques. Maybe, probably Brees is doing a fine job. But he can't on his own account for the 38 other Saints players taking shortcuts to the approved regiment.

 

[renesauz]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

OK....and if I was an owner facing that, I'd fire every player and start from scratch. Void every contract. Welcome bids from any football union to be the new exclusive supplier of talent to the new NFL. I'm sure some union will give me a great deal. IN return, they'll get my exclusive contract, and 99% of the old players will beg for entrance to this union, and a job in the NFL even if it's for half of what they made before.Free market principles work both ways. Cut labor costs by 60%, and the NFL would easily survive the temporary (or even permanent) damage to the fan-base.

 

[CalBear]

While the owner is locking the player out, it's as if the owner has fired the player. After he's done that, he doesn't get to dictate what the player can or can't do. He's not paying him anymore. The employer-employee relationship no longer exists.

So they aren't technically under contract anymore? If I am fired or laid off from my job, I am free to get another job, right? So, if that is the case, I could up and leave for the UFL just out spite, do a year and come back as a UFA if my goal was to get out of a front loaded contract?

You can go to the UFL. You wouldn't necessarily be a UFA when you came back to the NFL. That depends on what rules the league implements, and on what steps your team takes to retain or give up its exclusive rights to your services.

Two different issues here; the CBA, and individual contracts. The stipulations in an individual's contract probably keep him from going to the UFL, whether or not the NFLPA has a CBA in place.

 

[renesauz]

That's exactly the point I was making. The player was protected under CBA rules of that team activity. Brees isn't protected, but the owner is also risking his players injury under conditions that he cannot optimize or control. Those players are investments/commodities to the owner, and he should have the right to expect reasonable protection of his investment, with players undergoing activities under direct supervision.

Not sure I get your point. Generally, players who AREN'T getting appropriate excercise are more likely to be injured when football resumes. That's one of the purposes of OTAs to begin with. ALso, players like Brees who know their teams playbooks inside out can effectively run an OTA/practice without the coaches needing to be involved. BY doing so, he places his team in a advantageous position compared to teams without a leader taking charge w/out coaches. Players dont need a coach to tell them not to drill if they pull something....if anything players will be easier on themselves, taking fewer chances.I see absolutely no downside for owners...no reaosn in the world why they would be even remotely upset about a player taking charge and doing this. The owners' getting all the + upside of OTAs, with only slightly more risk than is normal. Heck, if I were an owner, I'd give him a bonus for it!

In an ideal world, a guy like Brees does everything right, and is the better for it. But often overlooked are the strength and conditioning coaching staff that make sure that players are doing thier stretches and not risking injuries caused by poor training techniques. Maybe, probably Brees is doing a fine job. But he can't on his own account for the 38 other Saints players taking shortcuts to the approved regiment.

I understand your concern, but I think that the overwhelming majority of these pro athletes (especially the vets) already know quite a bit about strength and conditioning techniques. I think your concern is, as a result, well overblown.

 

[fatness]

We all want football this year. I'd personally give it up for the year, however, if it meant the product we got back was closer to what we have and not the MLB model.

I don't want football this year at "all costs"

Was that you 2 guys at the NFL draft chanting "WE WANT FOOTBALL BUT ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS!"?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While the owner is locking the player out, it's as if the owner has fired the player. After he's done that, he doesn't get to dictate what the player can or can't do. He's not paying him anymore. The employer-employee relationship no longer exists.

So they aren't technically under contract anymore? If I am fired or laid off from my job, I am free to get another job, right? So, if that is the case, I could up and leave for the UFL just out spite, do a year and come back as a UFA if my goal was to get out of a front loaded contract?

You can go to the UFL. You wouldn't necessarily be a UFA when you came back to the NFL. That depends on what rules the league implements, and on what steps your team takes to retain or give up its exclusive rights to your services.

Two different issues here; the CBA, and individual contracts. The stipulations in an individual's contract probably keep him from going to the UFL, whether or not the NFLPA has a CBA in place.

It's not about whether a CBA is in place. It's about whether a lockout is in effect. During a lockout, the terms of an individual contract don't apply. It's impossible to breach an employment contract during a lockout.

 

[fatness]

That's exactly the point I was making. The player was protected under CBA rules of that team activity. Brees isn't protected, but the owner is also risking his players injury under conditions that he cannot optimize or control. Those players are investments/commodities to the owner, and he should have the right to expect reasonable protection of his investment, with players undergoing activities under direct supervision.

You're saying the NFL teams can cancel all team workouts, refuse to let the players in to work out, refuse to pay workout bonuses, and yet control the players working out.