Labor Dispute Master Thread (3 Viewers)

[renesauz]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

by not ruling, they are making a ruling to not lift the temporary stay.

Yes they are agreeing to keep the stay without having to show their work on these 4 points. That's why I think it's lame beyond words. Public interest clearly does not favor the stay. Players are harmed. Number two might be a tossup, but the owners are acting like they really want a season and will be forced to enact their rules at some point if there is one. And I don't believe the owners can win on merits (bullet 1).This is going to get tossed to the NLRB.

and this is what I mean by rigged. The NFL had dialogue with at least some of these appeals judges way before now so they knew this court would rule to push it to the NLRB. It won't be overturned by the merits. It will be thrown out on some loophole that the NFL knew would happen.

Significant chunks of the public are more interested in maintaining parity and league health than in the immediate gratification of football, so your statement, while it has merit, is certainly NOT a slam dunk.As for the players, they DECERTIFIED and walked away from the table. A pretty strong argument could be made that they are every bit as responsible for the "harm" being done to them by a work stoppage. In fact, I would argue that they are primarily responsible, since they are well aware that the NFL CAN'T operate under it's normal rules legally without their union. It is the decertification which threatens the league directly, so it is the PLAYERS who have done the most "irreperable harm" to the players.

Your statement only holds up if the owners last offer was forcing significant pay cuts. SOme have said that it did include a 10% real pay cut, but I haven't seen anything concrete to back that up, and it's certainly debateable how significant 10% is. If players rejected a deal within 10% of their previous pay, it's disingenuous AT BEST to put all blame on the owners. If the last offer gaurenteed raises, than the players have no leg whatsoever to stand on in the "irreperable harm" category.

THe players have been holding the owners by the nuts, and squeezing. A stay on the lockut reduces the pressure, but the players still have plenty of negotiating power...it's time to get back to the table and actually NEGOTIATE instead of demand.

 

[scoobygang]

And on the issue of what constitutes a sham, she applied the NLRB's previous opinions, which also contained no requirement of intent to remain decertified indefinitely. (And even if they did, it would be easy to produced uncontradicted declarations from players evidencing such an intent.)

I don't know if you've read the NFL's pleadings in the case, but they cite plenty of public statements from union reps that would arguably contradict those declarations.

 

[jbobbett]

At the end of the day I think all we (all of us fans) want is for football to continue and for the structure of the league to remain similar to what it was in 2010. We want a healthy league. IMO the owners have a vested interest in keeping the league healthy, but the players do not. The players have a vested interest in Getting Paid while they have the chance. It's for this reason more than any other that I generally favor the owners in this situation, but I also try to keep in mind the conditions that got us here.

This statement really sums it up for me as well. If there were a group of rogue rich owners trying to change the structure of the league to their advantage and the players were fighting to keep competitive balance for their own long term interest then I would be on the players side.

The 2010 rules had no salary cap. That's what you would like to see going forward?

Okay, 2009 then. You know what we are saying with "healthy" and "balance". Jeeze.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

And on the issue of what constitutes a sham, she applied the NLRB's previous opinions, which also contained no requirement of intent to remain decertified indefinitely. (And even if they did, it would be easy to produced uncontradicted declarations from players evidencing such an intent.)

I don't know if you've read the NFL's pleadings in the case, but they cite plenty of public statements from union reps that would arguably contradict those declarations.

I seem to recall Wes Welker's being particularly on point.

 

[renesauz]

I am pretty sure the owners will lose at the NLRB too, but I doubt the players will be able to stand two years of not getting paid. This was the owner's plan all along. Game the TV money and bleed the players out. Take our 20% pay cut terms or watch us continually lower the offer to you.The owners position is you can sue us, but it must be heard by the NLRB which won't hear the case until 2012. This is all I mean by using the word "rigged". The NFL doesn't want the NLRB to rule on this either. But they prefer them ruling on it because it's so far in the future.

While I agree with most of the fact of this post, it's unfair to call it "rigged"...its a strategy every bit as much as decertification was. The owners were looking for the nut grab the players have had since the 80's. They haven't found it yet, but they're close with a wrok stoppage.I don't believe for one second that the owners ever had the belief that they could ram a 20% pay cut down the players throats. They can't ram ANYTHING down the players throats while the players hold all the real power. The owners real hopes were for a more modest cut (a couple points) and a restructuring of the plan which would allow their portion to grow more than it has.If the players right now decided to take the owners last offer, the owners would have to do it, or be castrated by the public. (Also...at that point, I would agree with the "irreperable harm" argument from earlier!) The owners aren't likely to go backwards in their offers unless something very significant changes in the courts.....and a stay isn't it.

 

[renesauz]

At the end of the day I think all we (all of us fans) want is for football to continue and for the structure of the league to remain similar to what it was in 2010. We want a healthy league. IMO the owners have a vested interest in keeping the league healthy, but the players do not. The players have a vested interest in Getting Paid while they have the chance. It's for this reason more than any other that I generally favor the owners in this situation, but I also try to keep in mind the conditions that got us here.

This statement really sums it up for me as well. If there were a group of rogue rich owners trying to change the structure of the league to their advantage and the players were fighting to keep competitive balance for their own long term interest then I would be on the players side.

The 2010 rules had no salary cap. That's what you would like to see going forward?

He clearly meant 2009....although saying that 2010 had no cap is misleading. The one year change in the RFA system limited FAs so badly that a single year was simply not even remotely close to enough time for the lack of a cap to make a differance. With those RFA rules, it would take 3 -5 years before significant imbalance would occur. The cap was far more friendly to the players than those RFA rules, oddly enough.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And on the issue of what constitutes a sham, she applied the NLRB's previous opinions, which also contained no requirement of intent to remain decertified indefinitely. (And even if they did, it would be easy to produced uncontradicted declarations from players evidencing such an intent.)

I don't know if you've read the NFL's pleadings in the case, but they cite plenty of public statements from union reps that would arguably contradict those declarations.

Other than having skimmed the complaint, I haven't read any pleadings by any party.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And on the issue of what constitutes a sham, she applied the NLRB's previous opinions, which also contained no requirement of intent to remain decertified indefinitely. (And even if they did, it would be easy to produced uncontradicted declarations from players evidencing such an intent.)

I don't know if you've read the NFL's pleadings in the case, but they cite plenty of public statements from union reps that would arguably contradict those declarations.

I seem to recall Wes Welker's being particularly on point.

Wes Welker said he's enjoying the time off. That's relevant to the issue of whether the lockout is causing him substantial harm. I don't think it's relevant to whether, when he voted to decertify, he intended the decertification to last only a fixed duration.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

The 2010 rules had no salary cap. That's what you would like to see going forward?

That's not what I said at all.EDIT: Apparently it was what I said.

I misspoke. What I meant was having the league go forward with a workable salary cap structure in place.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

He clearly meant 2009....although saying that 2010 had no cap is misleading. The one year change in the RFA system limited FAs so badly that a single year was simply not even remotely close to enough time for the lack of a cap to make a differance. With those RFA rules, it would take 3 -5 years before significant imbalance would occur. The cap was far more friendly to the players than those RFA rules, oddly enough.

Clearly....but I will be more careful in my posting the future. It's not fair top post one thing and mean another. A little snarky on Mr. Dodds part, maybe, but I can't really blame him

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And here is the 8th Circuit's webpage containing updates on the case. The ruling on the stay should be linked to from there whenever it's available.

Update. This link now has a lot of stuff that wasn't there before, including the parties' briefs on the motion for the stay.Here is the owners' reply brief, for example, which is a succinct summary of their arguments. Their jurisdictional arguments do look stronger, IMO, as presented in their brief than they did when summarized by Judge Nelson.

 

[cobalt_27]

Good link above. I hope everyone who reads this understand how silly it would gave been to open the flood gates of free agency and league business immediately after Nelson's ruling.

I think the owners are going to win the next couple of rounds here.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Good link above. I hope everyone who reads this understand how silly it would gave been to open the flood gates of free agency and league business immediately after Nelson's ruling.I think the owners are going to win the next couple of rounds here.

I'll make no such predictions, but I hope this puts to rest the whole "NFL wasn't prepard, hahaha, all they have is an egg-scrambling metaphor" chant. The NFL certainly seems ready and seems to have presented a well thought out argument supported by law (as you would expect they would do - and I expect the answer from the players to be equally thought out). Seems ridiculous for those who assumed the legal parties would be unprepared.

 

[Hoosier16]

Good link above. I hope everyone who reads this understand how silly it would gave been to open the flood gates of free agency and league business immediately after Nelson's ruling.I think the owners are going to win the next couple of rounds here.

I'll make no such predictions, but I hope this puts to rest the whole "NFL wasn't prepard, hahaha, all they have is an egg-scrambling metaphor" chant. The NFL certainly seems ready and seems to have presented a well thought out argument supported by law (as you would expect they would do - and I expect the answer from the players to be equally thought out). Seems ridiculous for those who assumed the legal parties would be unprepared.

Anyone interested in this mess ought to read the owners' reply referenced by MT. It really becomes apparent who hired the best attorney. It looks like they completely shredded the District Court's opinion.It's also funny how often players' comments are refernced to support arguments against them. The 32 owners had to be laughing every time one of the 1800 or so players opened their mouth.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You guys who have read the owners' reply, you should read the players' brief as well. It's also very good. I can't link to it from my phone, but it's the one with like twelve exhibits.

 

[David Dodds]

You guys who have read the owners' reply, you should read the players' brief as well. It's also very good. I can't link to it from my phone, but it's the one with like twelve exhibits.

Here is a link to the Player's case: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782366.0.pdf

 

[Jason Wood]

Good link above. I hope everyone who reads this understand how silly it would gave been to open the flood gates of free agency and league business immediately after Nelson's ruling.I think the owners are going to win the next couple of rounds here.

I'll make no such predictions, but I hope this puts to rest the whole "NFL wasn't prepard, hahaha, all they have is an egg-scrambling metaphor" chant. The NFL certainly seems ready and seems to have presented a well thought out argument supported by law (as you would expect they would do - and I expect the answer from the players to be equally thought out). Seems ridiculous for those who assumed the legal parties would be unprepared.

It's one thing to suggest that the owners overvalued the strength of their case (because in legal disputes one side usually does, right?) but I agree that the whole line of rhetoric about the owners being ill prepared was silly, at best.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:

--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)

--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)

--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)

And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.

ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

Im sure the dudes a good lawyer, but based on anti-trust law, I dont see how they will win.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

Im sure the dudes a good lawyer, but based on anti-trust law, I dont see how they will win.

More than half of the argument is jurisdictional, not anti-trust law.

 

[Ksquared]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

Im sure the dudes a good lawyer, but based on anti-trust law, I dont see how they will win.

More than half of the argument is jurisdictional, not anti-trust law.

That was the point of the article I mentioned yesterday. Is the collective bargaining processes under the coverage of the Judicial Branch or just the Legislative Branch of govt. The NFL states Legislative Branch and the NFLPA says Judicial Branch. As to the politics of this, in general terms the conservative philosophical judges tend to be very cautious about expanding the Judicial Branches power (requiring the Executive or Legislative Branch to take control of what the Constitution implies/states is their role), while the more liberal philosophy judges tend to make rulings giving the Judicial Branch more areas of oversight thus giving them more power. Thus a more conservative leaning Appeals Court could easily find significant differences in their opinion and a more liberal leaning District Court Justice. On last thing I think many are glossing over, these decisions will have the potential to be precedent setting. So focusing on just the NFL labor strife issue is not what the justices will solely use in their decision, instead it will be equally important that they do not produce a decision that becomes precedent setting for all collective bargaining in all industries in the future.

 

[fatness]

I don't know if you've read the NFL's pleadings in the case, but they cite plenty of public statements from union reps that would arguably contradict those declarations.

What statements were included in the pleading?Thanks.

 

[Mello]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

Im sure the dudes a good lawyer, but based on anti-trust law, I dont see how they will win.

More than half of the argument is jurisdictional, not anti-trust law.

That was the point of the article I mentioned yesterday. Is the collective bargaining processes under the coverage of the Judicial Branch or just the Legislative Branch of govt. The NFL states Legislative Branch and the NFLPA says Judicial Branch. As to the politics of this, in general terms the conservative philosophical judges tend to be very cautious about expanding the Judicial Branches power (requiring the Executive or Legislative Branch to take control of what the Constitution implies/states is their role), while the more liberal philosophy judges tend to make rulings giving the Judicial Branch more areas of oversight thus giving them more power. Thus a more conservative leaning Appeals Court could easily find significant differences in their opinion and a more liberal leaning District Court Justice. On last thing I think many are glossing over, these decisions will have the potential to be precedent setting. So focusing on just the NFL labor strife issue is not what the justices will solely use in their decision, instead it will be equally important that they do not produce a decision that becomes precedent setting for all collective bargaining in all industries in the future.

What's the legal argument to force a union to stay a union if their members vote to decertify and give up their collective bargaining rights?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

Im sure the dudes a good lawyer, but based on anti-trust law, I dont see how they will win.

More than half of the argument is jurisdictional, not anti-trust law.

That was the point of the article I mentioned yesterday. Is the collective bargaining processes under the coverage of the Judicial Branch or just the Legislative Branch of govt. The NFL states Legislative Branch and the NFLPA says Judicial Branch. As to the politics of this, in general terms the conservative philosophical judges tend to be very cautious about expanding the Judicial Branches power (requiring the Executive or Legislative Branch to take control of what the Constitution implies/states is their role), while the more liberal philosophy judges tend to make rulings giving the Judicial Branch more areas of oversight thus giving them more power. Thus a more conservative leaning Appeals Court could easily find significant differences in their opinion and a more liberal leaning District Court Justice. On last thing I think many are glossing over, these decisions will have the potential to be precedent setting. So focusing on just the NFL labor strife issue is not what the justices will solely use in their decision, instead it will be equally important that they do not produce a decision that becomes precedent setting for all collective bargaining in all industries in the future.

What's the legal argument to force a union to stay a union if their members vote to decertify and give up their collective bargaining rights?

Its a Scham!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That was the point of the article I mentioned yesterday. Is the collective bargaining processes under the coverage of the Judicial Branch or just the Legislative Branch of govt. The NFL states Legislative Branch and the NFLPA says Judicial Branch.

This really doesn't have anything to do with the legislative branch of government. The NLRB is an independent agency that, for constitutional purposes, is part of the executive branch.

As to the politics of this, in general terms the conservative philosophical judges tend to be very cautious about expanding the Judicial Branches power (requiring the Executive or Legislative Branch to take control of what the Constitution implies/states is their role), while the more liberal philosophy judges tend to make rulings giving the Judicial Branch more areas of oversight thus giving them more power. Thus a more conservative leaning Appeals Court could easily find significant differences in their opinion and a more liberal leaning District Court Justice.

I don't think the scope of judicial review is much of a political issue.There is often conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government. When a Republican is in the White House, conservatives favor giving more power to the executive branch to act independently of Congress, while liberals favor limiting the powers of the executive branch. When a Democrat is in the White House, the arguments are reversed.

But I don't remember hearing any arguments from the mainstream segments of either party about the scope of judicial review, at least since about the time of Marbury v. Madison.

(You certainly do hear some people complain about courts inventing new rights, or reading their own views into the constitution, or what have you; but that's not a jurisdictional issue.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What's the legal argument to force a union to stay a union if their members vote to decertify and give up their collective bargaining rights?

Nobody's arguing that the union has to stay a union. The argument, rather, is that — either because the decertification was a sham, or because it just happened very recently — the owners are still entitled to the antitrust exemption that employers typically enjoy when dealing with a union.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so are we to assume that the temporary stay will not be lifted?

 

[renesauz]

Something I've been mulling over this AM:

The owners were forced to negotiate a CBA in the 80's in order to maintain an NFL remotely close to what they wanted/had had in the past. Players used trust/labor laws to force a CBA from the owners that was more liberal than the NFL had operated in the past.

Now, by decertifying, the owners can't operate even as they did under the last CBA (legally). This is an obvious and transparent negotiating tactic. Unless the players specifically say they want the draft abolished, all limits on FA abolished, and salary caps/minimums abolished, than the players are also implying (very clearly, mind you) that they want a CBA.

For them to then go to court to force the NFL to open its doors is than a direct contradiction to the players real goals (a CBA). The lockout, than, is NOT universally detrimental to the players, as they have argued in court, because the alternative is in fact, detrimental to at least some of the players long term intentions and goals. It is quite obviously, however, damaging to the owners since the owners are forced to either dramatically change its normal procedures (go to free for all free market) OR RISK TREBLE DAMAGES in lawsuits if no CBA is reached. Since the owners want a CBA, and forcing them to lift the lockout dramatically alters their negotiating position, their is real damage to the owners in such a ruling. Financially, such damages would be every bit as difficult to compute as the players damages are with the lockout.

Further, it's unreasonable that the NFL was REQUIRED to operate with a CBA before, yet now is being asked to be REQUIRED to operate without the CBA (the players are asking the courts to require). While some lawyers believe in the free market system before competitive balance, I find it very hard to believe that every player buys into that theory; nor is the theory fair to owners given the much shorter term outlook/perspective of players (in contrast to other businesses where a career could last decades, vice 5 -10 years).

Unless the players have a vote in which the majority votes to pursue abolishment of draft, FA limits, caps, etc., and the institution of a free for all free market system....the decertification really should be considered a sham, and the NFL should be allowed to have its lockout. The courts should not allow decertification to be used as a negotiating tactic in a CBA dispute. This is the real problem here. If such a tactic is legal, it should not be.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)

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)

Why not just split it 50/50?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:

--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)

--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)

--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)

And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.

ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

By the way, Boies and Olsen are adversaries again. Olsen is representing the NFL players in this case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Now, by decertifying, the owners can't operate even as they did under the last CBA (legally). This is an obvious and transparent negotiating tactic.

I think it's appropriate, when engaged in negotiations, to use negotiating tactics.

 

[3nOut]

I have a few questions regarding the $9B. I was understanding that this was the amount of revenue brought in by the league not profit. And of the remaining revenue after the $1B the league ook off the top ($8B), 60% went to the users as salaries. What if the league only brought in, say $2B, would the players salaries drop? I would assume that many players would have to be dropped and they would have to re-sign or sign with other teams at a much lower salary in order to fit under the cap. I would also assume that this is why there can't be any guaranteed contracts, since the league woould not have enough money to pay the players if the revenue dropped. Are these correct assumptions?

Also, who pays taxes on the $9B in revenues? Do the owners pay taxes on the $1B and the remaining 40% and do the players pay taxes (aside from their income taxes since this is revenue not income at this point) or do the owners pay taxes on the entire $9B? My guess is that te players don't pay one cent.

I have been on the 'owners side' since the beginning and if they pay 100% of the taxes, it only shows that the players are not partners in any sense. They are employees. Without these players the league could still exist, I am not sure the players would fare as well without this league.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have a few questions regarding the $9B. I was understanding that this was the amount of revenue brought in by the league not profit. And of the remaining revenue after the $1B the league ook off the top ($8B), 60% went to the users as salaries. What if the league only brought in, say $2B, would the players salaries drop? I would assume that many players would have to be dropped and they would have to re-sign or sign with other teams at a much lower salary in order to fit under the cap. I would also assume that this is why there can't be any guaranteed contracts, since the league woould not have enough money to pay the players if the revenue dropped. Are these correct assumptions?

Under the old CBA, the salary cap was a percentage of the previous year's revenues. If revenues decreased, the salary cap would have also decreased.Guaranteed contracts are allowed. They're uncommon, but there's no rule against them.

Also, who pays taxes on the $9B in revenues? Do the owners pay taxes on the $1B and the remaining 40% and do the players pay taxes (aside from their income taxes since this is revenue not income at this point) or do the owners pay taxes on the entire $9B? My guess is that te players don't pay one cent.

There's no such thing as a revenue tax. The owners pay based on their profits, and the players pay based on their income.

 

[fatness]

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)

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)

Why not just split it 50/50?

If the league made that their opening idea in negotiations it would have gone much better, don't you think? I bet the whole thing would be settled by now. But the league has planned for a lockout for 2 years, with the idea being they'd bleed off some TV billions for themselves and force the players to give in due to protracted financial hardship.

 

[Mello]

Something I've been mulling over this AM:

The owners were forced to negotiate a CBA in the 80's in order to maintain an NFL remotely close to what they wanted/had had in the past. Players used trust/labor laws to force a CBA from the owners that was more liberal than the NFL had operated in the past.

Now, by decertifying, the owners can't operate even as they did under the last CBA (legally). This is an obvious and transparent negotiating tactic. Unless the players specifically say they want the draft abolished, all limits on FA abolished, and salary caps/minimums abolished, than the players are also implying (very clearly, mind you) that they want a CBA.

For them to then go to court to force the NFL to open its doors is than a direct contradiction to the players real goals (a CBA). The lockout, than, is NOT universally detrimental to the players, as they have argued in court, because the alternative is in fact, detrimental to at least some of the players long term intentions and goals. It is quite obviously, however, damaging to the owners since the owners are forced to either dramatically change its normal procedures (go to free for all free market) OR RISK TREBLE DAMAGES in lawsuits if no CBA is reached. Since the owners want a CBA, and forcing them to lift the lockout dramatically alters their negotiating position, their is real damage to the owners in such a ruling. Financially, such damages would be every bit as difficult to compute as the players damages are with the lockout.

Further, it's unreasonable that the NFL was REQUIRED to operate with a CBA before, yet now is being asked to be REQUIRED to operate without the CBA (the players are asking the courts to require). While some lawyers believe in the free market system before competitive balance, I find it very hard to believe that every player buys into that theory; nor is the theory fair to owners given the much shorter term outlook/perspective of players (in contrast to other businesses where a career could last decades, vice 5 -10 years).

Unless the players have a vote in which the majority votes to pursue abolishment of draft, FA limits, caps, etc., and the institution of a free for all free market system....the decertification really should be considered a sham, and the NFL should be allowed to have its lockout. The courts should not allow decertification to be used as a negotiating tactic in a CBA dispute. This is the real problem here. If such a tactic is legal, it should not be.

You take away that option and I guarantee the players will permanently decertify and force the NFL to work under a different system. I would only agree that decertification shouldn't be used as a tactic if a lockout was also not allowed. It's no less of an obvious negotiating tactic. The owners don't want to shut down their businesses permanently. They just want to withhold paychecks until the players give in to their demands. At least most owners can make money without a CBA. Under a lockout the players have no other option but to agree to the owners' offer or find another job.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Not sure I agree entirely. The opposite of lockout is strike, not decertification. There is no real opposite to decertification.

 

[renesauz]

Now, by decertifying, the owners can't operate even as they did under the last CBA (legally). This is an obvious and transparent negotiating tactic.

I think it's appropriate, when engaged in negotiations, to use negotiating tactics.

So is it a tactic, in which case they don't really want Free for all free market, or do they want a better deal than was offered, in the form of a new CBA?Since they supposedly just want a better deal, it makes no sense to decertify, leaving the NFL no Union to negotiate with.Being an obvious negotiating tactic, it is therefore a sham...it can't (or at least, it shouldn't legally be) BOTH a tactic and legit.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Since they supposedly just want a better deal, it makes no sense to decertify, leaving the NFL no Union to negotiate with.

Last time the players decertified, they got a better deal out of it; so I don't agree that the strategy "makes no sense."

Being an obvious negotiating tactic, it is therefore a sham...it can't (or at least, it shouldn't legally be) BOTH a tactic and legit.

As somebody else mentioned, the lockout is a negotiating tactic. Does that make it a sham that shouldn't be allowed?Pretty much everything that both sides are doing right now is a negotiating tactic.

 

[freshly_shorn]

Pretty much everything that both sides are doing right now is a negotiating tactic.

I don't see much negotiating going on. More like trying to maneuver each other into a corner.

 

[renesauz]

You take away that option and I guarantee the players will permanently decertify and force the NFL to work under a different system. I would only agree that decertification shouldn't be used as a tactic if a lockout was also not allowed. It's no less of an obvious negotiating tactic. The owners don't want to shut down their businesses permanently. They just want to withhold paychecks until the players give in to their demands. At least most owners can make money without a CBA. Under a lockout the players have no other option but to agree to the owners' offer or find another job.

Is it? I mean, in a lockout, the owners don't make money either! The point is that a CBA NEEDS to get done to have a season under anything close to the normal rules we're used to. IN a lockout scenario, BOTH sides feel the pressure to get a deal done. Lift the lockout AND allow the players to decertify, than the players have ZERO pressure to get anything done. Your last statement is quite simply...FALSE. The players still have negotiating power, and the owners are still losing money until the players sign.With decertification, the owners don't even have a legal entity with which to negotiate!Think about that for a second. Under a free for all with no CBA, the owners are better in position to force terms. The owners could very well say screw it...let's pay them 30% of gross. It would take the players years to get compensated via the courts on the "collusion", and that's not 100% gaurenteed.This thing needs to be out of the courts and back to the negotiating table.

 

[renesauz]

Since they supposedly just want a better deal, it makes no sense to decertify, leaving the NFL no Union to negotiate with.

Last time the players decertified, they got a better deal out of it; so I don't agree that the strategy "makes no sense."

Being an obvious negotiating tactic, it is therefore a sham...it can't (or at least, it shouldn't legally be) BOTH a tactic and legit.

As somebody else mentioned, the lockout is a negotiating tactic. Does that make it a sham that shouldn't be allowed?Pretty much everything that both sides are doing right now is a negotiating tactic.

The last time the players decertified was over issues far bigger and more important than just money. AT that point, they had no real free agency. They really were forced to decertify and go to court. Last time, the players had NOTHING to lose.That's not the case this time. The fight isn't over free agency, nor is it over a salary cap, nor a draft. IN fact, the fightis not over ANY of the basic things that make the NFL require a CBA to operate legally. The fight is over pay, and pay alone. Decertification is an atom bomb when the situation calls for small arms. This time, the players have a LOT to lose.

 

[otis68]

Pretty much everything that both sides are doing right now is a negotiating tactic.

I don't see much negotiating going on. More like trying to maneuver each other into a corner.

It is completely about which side will have leverage in negotiations. If the lockout is lifted, either by removing the stay or following the appeal, the players will be able to dictate better terms in the following agreement. Most likely, even with a win, terms will likely move in the owners direction from the past CBA. However, if the lockout remains on through the summer, unless the players win a huge judgement on the TV shenanigans (that isn't encumbered by an appeal), the owners will dictate terms. Either way, the owners will get a better deal than what they had. Not bad for the supposed "victims" of the labor strife.

 

[otis68]

Since they supposedly just want a better deal, it makes no sense to decertify, leaving the NFL no Union to negotiate with.

Last time the players decertified, they got a better deal out of it; so I don't agree that the strategy "makes no sense."

Being an obvious negotiating tactic, it is therefore a sham...it can't (or at least, it shouldn't legally be) BOTH a tactic and legit.

As somebody else mentioned, the lockout is a negotiating tactic. Does that make it a sham that shouldn't be allowed?Pretty much everything that both sides are doing right now is a negotiating tactic.

The last time the players decertified was over issues far bigger and more important than just money. AT that point, they had no real free agency. They really were forced to decertify and go to court. Last time, the players had NOTHING to lose.That's not the case this time. The fight isn't over free agency, nor is it over a salary cap, nor a draft. IN fact, the fightis not over ANY of the basic things that make the NFL require a CBA to operate legally. The fight is over pay, and pay alone. Decertification is an atom bomb when the situation calls for small arms. This time, the players have a LOT to lose.

I think you are confused. The LOCKOUT was the atom bomb, decertification was the response.

 

[renesauz]

I think you are confused. The LOCKOUT was the atom bomb, decertification was the response.

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.FACT B: A CBA could still be negotiated in a lockout. Technically, it cannot be negotiated with a decertification. THUS...a lockout encourages negotiation, while a decertification throws everything in turmoil and gets more lawyers and courts involved. WHEN IS MORE LAWYERS AND COURTS EVER A POSITIVE!!!????

FACT C: A lockout hurts the owners every bit as much as the players. THEY LOSE MONEY TOO if games are missed. The owners have deeper pockets, but a lost season would cost them more money than accepting the players last proposal would have. IN a lockout, the players union (if it still existed) would return to the table and a deal would get done.

The real problem is that there is no union to negotiate with, leaving the owners in no-mans-land. The owners are virtually forced to "lockout" and fight in the courts to have the decertification called a sham just so they CAN NEGOTIATE with a legal entity.

SOrry, a lockout is just a temporary work stoppage, easily and quickly lifted without even a need for lawyers, let alone courts. Decertifiaction is much MUCH more complicated an problematic.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Since they supposedly just want a better deal, it makes no sense to decertify, leaving the NFL no Union to negotiate with.

Last time the players decertified, they got a better deal out of it; so I don't agree that the strategy "makes no sense."

Being an obvious negotiating tactic, it is therefore a sham...it can't (or at least, it shouldn't legally be) BOTH a tactic and legit.

As somebody else mentioned, the lockout is a negotiating tactic. Does that make it a sham that shouldn't be allowed?Pretty much everything that both sides are doing right now is a negotiating tactic.

The last time the players decertified was over issues far bigger and more important than just money. AT that point, they had no real free agency. They really were forced to decertify and go to court. Last time, the players had NOTHING to lose.That's not the case this time. The fight isn't over free agency, nor is it over a salary cap, nor a draft. IN fact, the fightis not over ANY of the basic things that make the NFL require a CBA to operate legally. The fight is over pay, and pay alone. Decertification is an atom bomb when the situation calls for small arms. This time, the players have a LOT to lose.

I think you are confused. The LOCKOUT was the atom bomb, decertification was the response.

The decertification occurred before the lockout. Either way, they're both atom bombs.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

FACT B: A CBA could still be negotiated in a lockout. Technically, it cannot be negotiated with a decertification.

The last CBA was negotiated while the players' union was decertified.

The real problem is that there is no union to negotiate with, leaving the owners in no-mans-land. The owners are virtually forced to "lockout" and fight in the courts to have the decertification called a sham just so they CAN NEGOTIATE with a legal entity.

Whether the decertification is a sham has nothing to do with whether there's a legal entity to negotiate with. If the decertification was a sham, that doesn't mean the NFLPA is still a union. It isn't. It just means that the owners would still have the benefit of an antitrust exemption.

 

[otis68]

I think you are confused. The LOCKOUT was the atom bomb, decertification was the response.

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.FACT B: A CBA could still be negotiated in a lockout. Technically, it cannot be negotiated with a decertification. THUS...a lockout encourages negotiation, while a decertification throws everything in turmoil and gets more lawyers and courts involved. WHEN IS MORE LAWYERS AND COURTS EVER A POSITIVE!!!????

FACT C: A lockout hurts the owners every bit as much as the players. THEY LOSE MONEY TOO if games are missed. The owners have deeper pockets, but a lost season would cost them more money than accepting the players last proposal would have. IN a lockout, the players union (if it still existed) would return to the table and a deal would get done.

The real problem is that there is no union to negotiate with, leaving the owners in no-mans-land. The owners are virtually forced to "lockout" and fight in the courts to have the decertification called a sham just so they CAN NEGOTIATE with a legal entity.

SOrry, a lockout is just a temporary work stoppage, easily and quickly lifted without even a need for lawyers, let alone courts. Decertifiaction is much MUCH more complicated an problematic.

So, in your preferred world the players should have waited for the CBA to expire, get locked out and then wait until September to decertify? That's clearly what the owners wanted to happen, and it pretty much would have assured a loss of games. Sorry, I don't buy it. The owners exited the CBA THREE years ago with full intention of locking out the players and forcing a much more favorable CBA. As indicated by their hiring of Bettman the lockout specialist. Suggesting the lockout was a response to decertification rather than the cause of it is completely disingenuous. Your assertion that the lockout hurts the owners as much as the players is equally ludicrous. There's a reason one side has sued to end the lockout and the other wants to keep it. Lifting the lockout will speed negotiations much more than keeping it on, since the owners are more than willing to toss out the season, while at the same time the players are more than willing to give the owners better terms on the CBA than they previously had (but not as good of terms as they currently propose).

 

[Cripster]

Players had to decertify and had planned to do so for quite some time. Owners had to lockout to protect themselves from anti-trust allegations and likewise had planned to do so for quite some time. Big games of chicken that no one will win IMO.

 

[renesauz]

I think you are confused. The LOCKOUT was the atom bomb, decertification was the response.

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.FACT B: A CBA could still be negotiated in a lockout. Technically, it cannot be negotiated with a decertification. THUS...a lockout encourages negotiation, while a decertification throws everything in turmoil and gets more lawyers and courts involved. WHEN IS MORE LAWYERS AND COURTS EVER A POSITIVE!!!????

FACT C: A lockout hurts the owners every bit as much as the players. THEY LOSE MONEY TOO if games are missed. The owners have deeper pockets, but a lost season would cost them more money than accepting the players last proposal would have. IN a lockout, the players union (if it still existed) would return to the table and a deal would get done.

The real problem is that there is no union to negotiate with, leaving the owners in no-mans-land. The owners are virtually forced to "lockout" and fight in the courts to have the decertification called a sham just so they CAN NEGOTIATE with a legal entity.

SOrry, a lockout is just a temporary work stoppage, easily and quickly lifted without even a need for lawyers, let alone courts. Decertifiaction is much MUCH more complicated an problematic.

So, in your preferred world the players should have waited for the CBA to expire, get locked out and then wait until September to decertify? That's clearly what the owners wanted to happen, and it pretty much would have assured a loss of games. Sorry, I don't buy it. The owners exited the CBA THREE years ago with full intention of locking out the players and forcing a much more favorable CBA. As indicated by their hiring of Bettman the lockout specialist. Suggesting the lockout was a response to decertification rather than the cause of it is completely disingenuous. Your assertion that the lockout hurts the owners as much as the players is equally ludicrous. There's a reason one side has sued to end the lockout and the other wants to keep it. Lifting the lockout will speed negotiations much more than keeping it on, since the owners are more than willing to toss out the season, while at the same time the players are more than willing to give the owners better terms on the CBA than they previously had (but not as good of terms as they currently propose).

No...in my world the lockout is immaterial. No CBA = no legal way to proceed with football. No legal way to proceed with football = maybe we should stop OTAs and player bonuses until we have a legally binding deal in place (IE: Lockout).Without a CBA, a lockout was absolutely necessary (or more temporary extensions of the last CBA....IMO, this should have been done, and THAT blame falls on both sides)

Lifting the lockout doesn't speed negotiations...it places the players in a position to dictate...that's not negotiating. BUt then again, that's what the players have planned and done from day one! If NEITHER side is making money, BOTH sides have a reason to negotiate. If the players are making money anyway (lifted lockout), and still have the courts to back them up, they have ZERO reason to negotiate. IN such a scenario, we'll have football, but the future of the sport is at serious risk. IN such a scenario, it would be years before a new CBA, and that CBA will be as likely as not to end the salary cap, the draft , and limited FA, because that's what the JA lawyers on the players side want, even if thats not what all the players want.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No CBA = no legal way to proceed with football.

They've proceeded with football without a CBA for a few years in the past.What makes it impossible to proceed with football is a lockout.

Without a CBA, a lockout was absolutely necessary (or more temporary extensions of the last CBA....IMO, this should have been done, and THAT blame falls on both sides)

Temporary extensions of the last CBA weren't needed. By its own terms, it went through 2012 without any extensions.