Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

Everyone should dispute this. If you believe this, what teams were they that lost money? Revenue sharing from the TV deal practically guarantees the owners profitability. The average profitability of NFL teams also increased from 2006 to 2010. Not only revenue but profits also. There is a waiting list of people looking to buy an NFL team. All teams in the league could be sold for more now than in 2006.The owners decided 2 years ago to cancel the CBA and made provisions with the networks to keep money coming in. They were ready for a fight. The players want a CBA as much as the owners. The court is just a ploy to gain more leverage. That is what happens during a negotiation. The NFL is not like a coal mine or a factory where workers can be replaced and new employees trained. In the business of the NFL, the players ARE the NFL. They cant be replaced. With the NFL's current setup, any idiot with a checkbook can be an owner. Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in the league, has a small market team, and the Bengals still have $40+ mil a year in operating income. But the system is "broken"?

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

It's all in the accounting. `Forrest Gump' Has Yet to Make a Net Profit That's why the players want the books and one reason the owners don't want to give them up. Accountants can make numbers says almost anything you want them to say.

I'm sorry, this thread goes in/out of relevancy, but this is sort of over-the-top...what on earth does an article from 1995 on Forrest Gump have anything to do with the NFL labor talks?

 

[D.J.]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

Everyone should dispute this. If you believe this, what teams were they that lost money? Revenue sharing from the TV deal practically guarantees the owners profitability. The average profitability of NFL teams also increased from 2006 to 2010. Not only revenue but profits also. There is a waiting list of people looking to buy an NFL team. All teams in the league could be sold for more now than in 2006.The owners decided 2 years ago to cancel the CBA and made provisions with the networks to keep money coming in. They were ready for a fight. The players want a CBA as much as the owners. The court is just a ploy to gain more leverage. That is what happens during a negotiation. The NFL is not like a coal mine or a factory where workers can be replaced and new employees trained. In the business of the NFL, the players ARE the NFL. They cant be replaced. With the NFL's current setup, any idiot with a checkbook can be an owner. Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in the league, has a small market team, and the Bengals still have $40+ mil a year in operating income.

$Cincinnati Bengals$

Sure Forbes is just estimating, but they should be within 10mil or so. How exactly is there a systemwide problem for the owners?

First, I'm not sure why people keep pointing out that the owners were "ready for a fight" like it's a bad thing. The owners were not happy with the CBA as it was so they decided to opt out of the deal, which was an option because the owners knew that they might not like the deal. The provisions with the networks is being ruled illegal because it indicates that the NFL took less money each year to add a provision that allowed the NFL to continue getting payments if there were games missed. The legal issue is that the NFL did not negotiate with the networks to maximize profits, which would be shared with the players. The actual provision is perfectly fine, outisde of the fact that no provision in a contract is free. The owners had a responsibility to maximize profits that would be shared with the players, this is their problem. Second, anyone with an extermely LARGE checkbook can own an NFL team (or one that inherited it, but that is something that will end as income taxes increase. This is rumored to be an issue with the Bears' owners when Virginia passes on).

I imagine running an NFL team is extremely expensive. While we may think that some owners are idiots because they can't build a winning team, it doesn't mean they are actually idiots or bad businessmen. It's like saying Michael Jordan is a horrible basketball player because he can't draft talented players. They are two completely different skillsets.

The economy has changed a lot of things in the business world. As can be seen with the Vikings negotiations for a new stadium, the teams are going to have to start paying a larger portion of stadium prices. Other expenses are also raising costs such as inflation will forcing higher salaries, gas prices making private jets for the teams more expensive, etc. You can make arguements that A LOT of the expenses for an NFL team are silly, but most of these expenses benefit the players. They will expect to continue to get catered meals, free transportation, top of the line equipment and treatment. The money for these things come from the owners "profits."

I know I sound like an owner homer, maybe I am, but the owners have the right to negotiate for a larger piece of the pie. The players have the right to fight against the owners. If, as fans, we take a step back and ignore that we could miss games of our favorite sport I think most can see that both sides have the right to fight for what they think they deserve.

With all of that said, it's clear that the best way for this situation to be solved is through negotiations. The courtroom will not produce the results that either side want.

I will step off my soapbox now. Carry on.

 

[atl3695]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

Everyone should dispute this. If you believe this, what teams were they that lost money? Revenue sharing from the TV deal practically guarantees the owners profitability. The average profitability of NFL teams also increased from 2006 to 2010. Not only revenue but profits also. There is a waiting list of people looking to buy an NFL team. All teams in the league could be sold for more now than in 2006.The owners decided 2 years ago to cancel the CBA and made provisions with the networks to keep money coming in. They were ready for a fight. The players want a CBA as much as the owners. The court is just a ploy to gain more leverage. That is what happens during a negotiation. The NFL is not like a coal mine or a factory where workers can be replaced and new employees trained. In the business of the NFL, the players ARE the NFL. They cant be replaced. With the NFL's current setup, any idiot with a checkbook can be an owner. Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in the league, has a small market team, and the Bengals still have $40+ mil a year in operating income. But the system is "broken"?

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

It's all in the accounting. `Forrest Gump' Has Yet to Make a Net Profit That's why the players want the books and one reason the owners don't want to give them up. Accountants can make numbers says almost anything you want them to say.

A perfect example of this is the Dolphins mentioned above. The Dolphins number included a large debt that they refinanced. "The deal, arranged by Goldman Sachs, contains a credit reserve that is significantly bigger than it otherwise would have been to account for the possibility of a work stoppage in 2011."

They were already planning for a lockout in 2008. The year before they made $27 mil and averaged over $25 mil the 4 years before. There is a reason the owners don't want to release their books.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

And you think all business owners inherently deserve to be profitable? Is it maybe just a little bit possible that the Detroit Lions aren't running their business as well as the more successful owners?

 

[cobalt_27]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

Everyone should dispute this. If you believe this, what teams were they that lost money? Revenue sharing from the TV deal practically guarantees the owners profitability. The average profitability of NFL teams also increased from 2006 to 2010. Not only revenue but profits also. There is a waiting list of people looking to buy an NFL team. All teams in the league could be sold for more now than in 2006.The owners decided 2 years ago to cancel the CBA and made provisions with the networks to keep money coming in. They were ready for a fight. The players want a CBA as much as the owners. The court is just a ploy to gain more leverage. That is what happens during a negotiation. The NFL is not like a coal mine or a factory where workers can be replaced and new employees trained. In the business of the NFL, the players ARE the NFL. They cant be replaced. With the NFL's current setup, any idiot with a checkbook can be an owner. Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in the league, has a small market team, and the Bengals still have $40+ mil a year in operating income. But the system is "broken"?

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

It's all in the accounting. `Forrest Gump' Has Yet to Make a Net Profit That's why the players want the books and one reason the owners don't want to give them up. Accountants can make numbers says almost anything you want them to say.

A perfect example of this is the Dolphins mentioned above. The Dolphins number included a large debt that they refinanced. "The deal, arranged by Goldman Sachs, contains a credit reserve that is significantly bigger than it otherwise would have been to account for the possibility of a work stoppage in 2011."

They were already planning for a lockout in 2008. The year before they made $27 mil and averaged over $25 mil the 4 years before. There is a reason the owners don't want to release their books.

There are a lot of reasons not to open their books.Interesting to look at sample from 2005 v. 2008 and 2010 Forbes estimates. The player expenditures definitely seem to outpace the operating revenues. I don't have the patience to get Excel to sort out the summary, but that's just how it seemed.

Also interesting to see the net value of 20 franchises go down (3 by more than 10%), 12 went up (none by more than 10%).

They should continue talking.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

And you think all business owners inherently deserve to be profitable? Is it maybe just a little bit possible that the Detroit Lions aren't running their business as well as the more successful owners?

Sure. And, that's why opening the books won't make any difference to the players. They'll just tell the owners to do their jobs better. It's all a red herring...not like the players are going to ever say, "Ohhh, we see now, ok we'll settle." Bottom line, the owners want to recoup more money, and the players like how things have been going, especially since 06.

 

[Benchwarmers]

I think the players should be paid by performance. If they don't perform then they lose money. If someone performs then pay them. Rookies get a 3 year contract at a base plus performance incentives. After 3 years player gets paid by performance. This way players don't need agents.

 

[Wadsworth]

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

And you think all business owners inherently deserve to be profitable? Is it maybe just a little bit possible that the Detroit Lions aren't running their business as well as the more successful owners?

Sure. And, that's why opening the books won't make any difference to the players. They'll just tell the owners to do their jobs better. It's all a red herring...not like the players are going to ever say, "Ohhh, we see now, ok we'll settle." Bottom line, the owners want to recoup more money, and the players like how things have been going, especially since 06.

The players want the public to think that the owners don't want to open their books solely because they are making more money than they are letting on. And that's a reasonable position for the players to take during a negotiation. But there are many reasons for the owners not wanting to open their books, it goes far beyond simply hiding earnings.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

And you think all business owners inherently deserve to be profitable? Is it maybe just a little bit possible that the Detroit Lions aren't running their business as well as the more successful owners?

Sure. And, that's why opening the books won't make any difference to the players. They'll just tell the owners to do their jobs better. It's all a red herring...not like the players are going to ever say, "Ohhh, we see now, ok we'll settle." Bottom line, the owners want to recoup more money, and the players like how things have been going, especially since 06.

The players want the public to think that the owners don't want to open their books solely because they are making more money than they are letting on. And that's a reasonable position for the players to take during a negotiation. But there are many reasons for the owners not wanting to open their books, it goes far beyond simply hiding earnings.

Yup, I agree. And, I'm not exactly sure that hiding earnings is even reason 1, 2, or 3. But, as a company, you're really opening up a whole new can of worms by exposing all the intricate details entailed in D2D business.

 

[fatness]

Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this.

Who are you trying to kid? The NFL made record profits last year, and has offered no evidence that teams were losing money.

 

[fatness]

It looks like the NFL doesn't even have to go by their own lockout rules. What an honorable, believable bunch they are.

Teams have tampered with undrafted players

Six NFL agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told PFW that teams were contacting them in regard to their undrafted free-agent clients after the draft, a violation of NFL lockout rules.

With the league in the midst of a work stoppage, NFL teams are not allowed to have any contact with any undrafted players. In a typical season, teams will contact undrafted players and their agents in a mad dash at the conclusion of the draft in order to sign them during a free-for-all period.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed to PFW that any contact between teams and agents or players currently would constitute tampering.

Of the six agents that PFW spoke to, three said that representatives of NFL clubs even used personal cell phones to contact the agents following the conclusion of last weekend's draft, as opposed to calling from team-issued lines where evidence of tampering might be easier to trace via phone records in any official NFL audit. Two more agents said that teams called players directly in a few cases.

"It was almost like a normal year in terms of contact, a little less (phone contact) than normal maybe, only without the signed contracts at the end," one of the agents said.

And a player confirms this.

Of Missouri’s undrafted players, center Tim Barnes was considered the most likely to get picked this weekend. With the NFL lockout putting free agency on hold, Barnes and MU’s other undrafted players must wait until the lockout is lifted and teams are allowed to conduct personnel business before they can sign contracts. Barnes said he was contacted by the Ravens after the draft and was also in touch with the Dolphins and Bengals.

"We can do anything we want. We're college students the NFL."

 

[cobalt_27]

Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this.

Who are you trying to kid? The NFL made record profits last year, and has offered no evidence that teams were losing money.

Forbes pretty much cleared this up for the Lions and Dolphins, the latter of which is under some scrutiny due to a large refinance. Be that as it may, the valuation of teams went down last year, growth of operating revenue stalled, and many teams dropped from the prior year's level. Whom are you trying to kid?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It looks like the NFL doesn't even have to go by their own lockout rules. What an honorable, believable bunch they are.

Teams have tampered with undrafted players

Six NFL agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told PFW that teams were contacting them in regard to their undrafted free-agent clients after the draft, a violation of NFL lockout rules.

With the league in the midst of a work stoppage, NFL teams are not allowed to have any contact with any undrafted players. In a typical season, teams will contact undrafted players and their agents in a mad dash at the conclusion of the draft in order to sign them during a free-for-all period.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed to PFW that any contact between teams and agents or players currently would constitute tampering.

Of the six agents that PFW spoke to, three said that representatives of NFL clubs even used personal cell phones to contact the agents following the conclusion of last weekend's draft, as opposed to calling from team-issued lines where evidence of tampering might be easier to trace via phone records in any official NFL audit. Two more agents said that teams called players directly in a few cases.

"It was almost like a normal year in terms of contact, a little less (phone contact) than normal maybe, only without the signed contracts at the end," one of the agents said.

And a player confirms this.

Of Missouri's undrafted players, center Tim Barnes was considered the most likely to get picked this weekend. With the NFL lockout putting free agency on hold, Barnes and MU's other undrafted players must wait until the lockout is lifted and teams are allowed to conduct personnel business before they can sign contracts. Barnes said he was contacted by the Ravens after the draft and was also in touch with the Dolphins and Bengals.

"We can do anything we want. We're college students the NFL."

No doubt this subset of teams is in the wrong (or is it all of them? Like all players are greed-driven hold out drunk drivers?) Yet you support a tactic that very likely leads to an NFL that can't set rules for maintaining a competitive balance among owners.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

It looks like the NFL doesn't even have to go by their own lockout rules. What an honorable, believable bunch they are.

Teams have tampered with undrafted players

Six NFL agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told PFW that teams were contacting them in regard to their undrafted free-agent clients after the draft, a violation of NFL lockout rules.

With the league in the midst of a work stoppage, NFL teams are not allowed to have any contact with any undrafted players. In a typical season, teams will contact undrafted players and their agents in a mad dash at the conclusion of the draft in order to sign them during a free-for-all period.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed to PFW that any contact between teams and agents or players currently would constitute tampering.

Of the six agents that PFW spoke to, three said that representatives of NFL clubs even used personal cell phones to contact the agents following the conclusion of last weekend's draft, as opposed to calling from team-issued lines where evidence of tampering might be easier to trace via phone records in any official NFL audit. Two more agents said that teams called players directly in a few cases.

"It was almost like a normal year in terms of contact, a little less (phone contact) than normal maybe, only without the signed contracts at the end," one of the agents said.

And a player confirms this.

Of Missouris undrafted players, center Tim Barnes was considered the most likely to get picked this weekend. With the NFL lockout putting free agency on hold, Barnes and MUs other undrafted players must wait until the lockout is lifted and teams are allowed to conduct personnel business before they can sign contracts. Barnes said he was contacted by the Ravens after the draft and was also in touch with the Dolphins and Bengals.

"We can do anything we want. We're college students the NFL."

When one team is breaking the rules, (or are there any anymore?) then it's easy to hold that team accountable. But with several teams breaking the intent of the lockout contacting players via cellphone, this looks like anarchy. For both the players and owners. I wonder if UDFA's like Tim Barnes who narked out several teams will see his FA stock crash. Will there be retribution?

 

[jbobbett]

It looks like the NFL doesn't even have to go by their own lockout rules. What an honorable, believable bunch they are.

Teams have tampered with undrafted players

Six NFL agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told PFW that teams were contacting them in regard to their undrafted free-agent clients after the draft, a violation of NFL lockout rules.

With the league in the midst of a work stoppage, NFL teams are not allowed to have any contact with any undrafted players. In a typical season, teams will contact undrafted players and their agents in a mad dash at the conclusion of the draft in order to sign them during a free-for-all period.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed to PFW that any contact between teams and agents or players currently would constitute tampering.

Of the six agents that PFW spoke to, three said that representatives of NFL clubs even used personal cell phones to contact the agents following the conclusion of last weekend's draft, as opposed to calling from team-issued lines where evidence of tampering might be easier to trace via phone records in any official NFL audit. Two more agents said that teams called players directly in a few cases.

"It was almost like a normal year in terms of contact, a little less (phone contact) than normal maybe, only without the signed contracts at the end," one of the agents said.

And a player confirms this.

Of Missouris undrafted players, center Tim Barnes was considered the most likely to get picked this weekend. With the NFL lockout putting free agency on hold, Barnes and MUs other undrafted players must wait until the lockout is lifted and teams are allowed to conduct personnel business before they can sign contracts. Barnes said he was contacted by the Ravens after the draft and was also in touch with the Dolphins and Bengals.

"We can do anything we want. We're college students the NFL."

I would think you would be happy about this. Some owners are betraying each other and going against their own lockout.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this.

Who are you trying to kid? The NFL made record profits last year, and has offered no evidence that teams were losing money.

Forbes pretty much cleared this up for the Lions and Dolphins, the latter of which is under some scrutiny due to a large refinance. Be that as it may, the valuation of teams went down last year, growth of operating revenue stalled, and many teams dropped from the prior year's level. Whom are you trying to kid?

And Lions Im sure had some debt due from the new Stadium. Their ticket sales have been dipped and getting blackout locally now. I bet they made some money in 2010 and will in 2011 if there is a season

 

[Wadsworth]

It looks like the NFL doesn't even have to go by their own lockout rules. What an honorable, believable bunch they are.

Teams have tampered with undrafted players

Six NFL agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told PFW that teams were contacting them in regard to their undrafted free-agent clients after the draft, a violation of NFL lockout rules.

With the league in the midst of a work stoppage, NFL teams are not allowed to have any contact with any undrafted players. In a typical season, teams will contact undrafted players and their agents in a mad dash at the conclusion of the draft in order to sign them during a free-for-all period.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed to PFW that any contact between teams and agents or players currently would constitute tampering.

Of the six agents that PFW spoke to, three said that representatives of NFL clubs even used personal cell phones to contact the agents following the conclusion of last weekend's draft, as opposed to calling from team-issued lines where evidence of tampering might be easier to trace via phone records in any official NFL audit. Two more agents said that teams called players directly in a few cases.

"It was almost like a normal year in terms of contact, a little less (phone contact) than normal maybe, only without the signed contracts at the end," one of the agents said.

And a player confirms this.

Of Missouri’s undrafted players, center Tim Barnes was considered the most likely to get picked this weekend. With the NFL lockout putting free agency on hold, Barnes and MU’s other undrafted players must wait until the lockout is lifted and teams are allowed to conduct personnel business before they can sign contracts. Barnes said he was contacted by the Ravens after the draft and was also in touch with the Dolphins and Bengals.

"We can do anything we want. We're college students the NFL."

This has been a concern of mine all along. How can the owners come to an agreement with the players when they can't even come to an agreement with themselves. Big Market/Small Market, new stadium/old stadium. aggressive/laid back; there are 32 different situations and almost all are run by big money, big ego highly successful people that aren't accustom to compromising.

 

[jbobbett]

"Rumours fly of a complete NFL shutdown."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/



We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout. Instead, the league essentially would be going out of business.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

"Rumours fly of a complete NFL shutdown."

http://profootballta...e-nfl-shutdown/



We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout. Instead, the league essentially would be going out of business.

Well. Now I know what the opposite of decertification is.Great game of chicken gents.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

NFL Lockout: What Happens from Here?AUTHOR: Zac Snyder | IN: NFL | COMMENTS: None Yet | Tweet The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals may or may not make an announcement regarding that the owners’ request for a stay of Judge Nelson’s lockout injunction. Since they have already granted a preliminary stay, they are not required to make any declaration unless they take it upon themselves to lift the league’s ability to lockout the players. The default action, or inaction in this case, is that the lockout will remain in place until the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case in early June. Where does the labor situation go from here?Gabe Feldman, the director of Tulane’s sports law program, has been a valuable resource on twitter (follow him @SportsLawGuy) due to his ability to lay out the practical implications of each step through the league’s labor process. He gave some insight into the appeals process following the court accepting the league’s request for an expedited appeal:

In denying stay, Nelson noted that appeal could last months. No longer the case. Should be over by mid-June under expedited sked.

Mid-June? Ok, I’d like free agency to start now but waiting a month or so certainly isn’t the end of the world.Pro Football Weekly’s Eric Edholm tweeted some info of his own:

Appeals court clerk told me last week that proceedings would take about 30-45 days. Worst case, resolution could come July 18th-ish.

These two sources put box in the start of football activities somewhere between mid-June and mid-July. Of course, this assumes that the court proceedings play out rather than the two sides coming together to hash out their differences. The best resolution to all of this is that an agreement is reached outside of the courtroom when mediation resumes May 16, but it appears that training camp should start on-time either way.

 

[renesauz]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel. In a lockout, the owners still have incredible incentive to get a deal done. IN a dercetification with a lift, the players have none. (Don't give me the TV money crap...the owners knew that money was gone before the lockout, and even if they hadn't, the money was a LOAN...not profits, not revenue)I keep hearing people talk about the two things as if they were eqivalent, both a nuke...but that's simply not true. I disagree that the owners would have "locked out anyway", but in the end, I don't think it matters a whole lot. A lockout was a scud missile, the decert an ICBM.

 

[Wadsworth]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel. In a lockout, the owners still have incredible incentive to get a deal done. IN a dercetification with a lift, the players have none. (Don't give me the TV money crap...the owners knew that money was gone before the lockout, and even if they hadn't, the money was a LOAN...not profits, not revenue)I keep hearing people talk about the two things as if they were eqivalent, both a nuke...but that's simply not true. I disagree that the owners would have "locked out anyway", but in the end, I don't think it matters a whole lot. A lockout was a scud missile, the decert an ICBM.

What would the owners shutting down the NFL be?

 

[renesauz]

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

And you think all business owners inherently deserve to be profitable? Is it maybe just a little bit possible that the Detroit Lions aren't running their business as well as the more successful owners?

I think every business owner has the right to adjust his costs to become profitable, including labor. When profits sink in most businesses, labor is among the first thing to get slashed.Why is it so wrong for owners to ask for a larger slice of the pie in an environment where even a layman without the books can see that their costs are skyrocketing?

 

[CalBear]

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

And you think all business owners inherently deserve to be profitable? Is it maybe just a little bit possible that the Detroit Lions aren't running their business as well as the more successful owners?

I think every business owner has the right to adjust his costs to become profitable, including labor. When profits sink in most businesses, labor is among the first thing to get slashed.Why is it so wrong for owners to ask for a larger slice of the pie in an environment where even a layman without the books can see that their costs are skyrocketing?

Because even a layman without the books can see that their revenues are skyrocketing, too. The first thing to get slashed in most businesses is unnecessary capital expenditure--like vanity stadium projects.

 

[fatness]

Players lining up advertising income.

The NFLPA’s marketing arm, NFL Players, has signed new one-year deals with NFL sponsors Gatorade, Verizon and Dairy Manufacturers Inc. since the NFL lockout was imposed, and is in talks with several non-NFL sponsors about deals

 

[renesauz]

It looks like the NFL doesn't even have to go by their own lockout rules. What an honorable, believable bunch they are.

Teams have tampered with undrafted players

Six NFL agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told PFW that teams were contacting them in regard to their undrafted free-agent clients after the draft, a violation of NFL lockout rules.

With the league in the midst of a work stoppage, NFL teams are not allowed to have any contact with any undrafted players. In a typical season, teams will contact undrafted players and their agents in a mad dash at the conclusion of the draft in order to sign them during a free-for-all period.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed to PFW that any contact between teams and agents or players currently would constitute tampering.

Of the six agents that PFW spoke to, three said that representatives of NFL clubs even used personal cell phones to contact the agents following the conclusion of last weekend's draft, as opposed to calling from team-issued lines where evidence of tampering might be easier to trace via phone records in any official NFL audit. Two more agents said that teams called players directly in a few cases.

"It was almost like a normal year in terms of contact, a little less (phone contact) than normal maybe, only without the signed contracts at the end," one of the agents said.

And a player confirms this.

Of Missouri’s undrafted players, center Tim Barnes was considered the most likely to get picked this weekend. With the NFL lockout putting free agency on hold, Barnes and MU’s other undrafted players must wait until the lockout is lifted and teams are allowed to conduct personnel business before they can sign contracts. Barnes said he was contacted by the Ravens after the draft and was also in touch with the Dolphins and Bengals.

"We can do anything we want. We're college students the NFL."

This shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[fatness]

Players want to expand lockout insurance case

On Thursday, Judge Doty will conduct a hearing on the question of the damages to be paid by the NFL to the players for leaving money on the table in 2009. The players have asked for amounts that could approach or surpass $1 billion.

According to Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, the players are now angling for even more.

Kaplan reports that the players want to expand the scope of the ruling to include not just TV deals but all commercial contracts. “One can assume Defendants’ illegal scheme extended to vendor contracts beyond the broadcast contracts at issue here,” the players’ lawyers said last month in a court filing. “Notwithstanding the limited scope of this proceeding, as guardian of the Class, this Court has authority to expand the inquiry beyond the broadcast contracts and redress related violations, in further proceedings.”

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel.

Decertification may be quickly remedied by a new CBA; it could end in a week. A lockout could take years to resolve.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel. In a lockout, the owners still have incredible incentive to get a deal done. IN a dercetification with a lift, the players have none. (Don't give me the TV money crap...the owners knew that money was gone before the lockout, and even if they hadn't, the money was a LOAN...not profits, not revenue)I keep hearing people talk about the two things as if they were eqivalent, both a nuke...but that's simply not true. I disagree that the owners would have "locked out anyway", but in the end, I don't think it matters a whole lot. A lockout was a scud missile, the decert an ICBM.

How does the decertification take “years to unravel”. What does this mean? They already decertified, right? Decision made and acted on in a day. Could be reversed just as quickly.Now if it’s getting the parameters of a new CBA put back together piece by piece, it could take a long time. I hear that both parties in the interest of time would be willing to frame a new CBA on the skeleton of the old one. Or else it’s like writing a 2,000 page book from scratch. They would keep a boilerplate document and pick at the key parameters like rookie salary cap, length of season, profit sharing, etc. But this action doesn’t take even start until there is an agreement in principle.

 

[renesauz]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel. In a lockout, the owners still have incredible incentive to get a deal done. IN a dercetification with a lift, the players have none. (Don't give me the TV money crap...the owners knew that money was gone before the lockout, and even if they hadn't, the money was a LOAN...not profits, not revenue)I keep hearing people talk about the two things as if they were eqivalent, both a nuke...but that's simply not true. I disagree that the owners would have "locked out anyway", but in the end, I don't think it matters a whole lot. A lockout was a scud missile, the decert an ICBM.

What would the owners shutting down the NFL be?

The owners rolling out their ICBMs. I've long said that the owners equivalent to decertification is to dissolve the NFL and start from scratch, open a new Football business and invite players at large to unionize and compete for the new (AMERICAN PRO FOOTBALL.....not NFL) contract.

 

[Faust]

A little more information on what has been reported by Mike Florio:

Owners may completely shut down business operations

Excerpt:

I'll write labor when it seems important, and when I think you'll care. I get the feeling it alternately angers and bores you, from the feedback you send me. That said, on Sunday, Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com reported he's hearing "initial rumblings'' that if the league loses its appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and is forced to open its doors for business sometime this summer, the owners may completely shut down business operations until the players cave and agree to a labor deal. I reached out to a couple of ownership sources Sunday night; both said this was the first they'd heard of such a plan. We'll see if it grows legs as the month goes on. We're still weeks away from the June 3 St. Louis appeals court hearing that could end or extend the lockout.

Interesting development. Float this out in the media to let the players know that the owners have an ace up their sleeves and deny that they have developed this as an organized strategy.

 

[fatness]

Forbes pretty much cleared this up for the Lions and Dolphins, the latter of which is under some scrutiny due to a large refinance. Be that as it may, the valuation of teams went down last year, growth of operating revenue stalled, and many teams dropped from the prior year's level. Whom are you trying to kid?

The NFL negotiated the contracts with the players union; individual teams did not. If the income derived by the NFL is increasing but some teams are not making out, that's the NFL's income-distribution problem.

 

[renesauz]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel.

Decertification may be quickly remedied by a new CBA; it could end in a week. A lockout could take years to resolve.

These court case can be resolved in a day? Really? That can only happen with a recertification, a new CBA, and an agreement to drop them. The players won't do that if they think they're winning in the courts. How would a lockout take years to resolve? It ends the second the owners say it ends...it needs no courts, no lawyers. It just needs players to come back to the table and NEGOTIATE.If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.If the lockout stays in place, I believe a new CBA will be in place by September, and we'll still have football this year. (Honestly though, I care more about preserving the NFLs competitive balance than football this year.)

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

And you think all business owners inherently deserve to be profitable? Is it maybe just a little bit possible that the Detroit Lions aren't running their business as well as the more successful owners?

I think every business owner has the right to adjust his costs to become profitable, including labor. When profits sink in most businesses, labor is among the first thing to get slashed.Why is it so wrong for owners to ask for a larger slice of the pie in an environment where even a layman without the books can see that their costs are skyrocketing?

Because even a layman without the books can see that their revenues are skyrocketing, too. The first thing to get slashed in most businesses is unnecessary capital expenditure--like vanity stadium projects.

Yes. Clearly there is no need for a new stadium in Minnesota.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The owners rolling out their ICBMs. I've long said that the owners equivalent to decertification is to dissolve the NFL and start from scratch, open a new Football business and invite players at large to unionize and compete for the new (AMERICAN PRO FOOTBALL.....not NFL) contract.

No way in hell that this happens.

 

[zadok]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

 

[Wadsworth]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel. In a lockout, the owners still have incredible incentive to get a deal done. IN a dercetification with a lift, the players have none. (Don't give me the TV money crap...the owners knew that money was gone before the lockout, and even if they hadn't, the money was a LOAN...not profits, not revenue)I keep hearing people talk about the two things as if they were eqivalent, both a nuke...but that's simply not true. I disagree that the owners would have "locked out anyway", but in the end, I don't think it matters a whole lot. A lockout was a scud missile, the decert an ICBM.

What would the owners shutting down the NFL be?

The owners rolling out their ICBMs. I've long said that the owners equivalent to decertification is to dissolve the NFL and start from scratch, open a new Football business and invite players at large to unionize and compete for the new (AMERICAN PRO FOOTBALL.....not NFL) contract.

I don't think I would characterize that as an ICBM. Maybe an IJTMBAGH. I'll Just Take My Ball And Go Home.

 

[renesauz]

The owners rolling out their ICBMs. I've long said that the owners equivalent to decertification is to dissolve the NFL and start from scratch, open a new Football business and invite players at large to unionize and compete for the new (AMERICAN PRO FOOTBALL.....not NFL) contract.

No way in hell that this happens.

Probably not. It would obviously be a huge nightmare legally. But I wouldn't brush it off as impossible.What if a group of players right now formed a new union, and negotiated a deal with the NFL. What if the NFL granted that new union exclusive rights? If that union was big enough, every other player would have to either get on board, or find another career. I wouldn't toss this idea out as impossible. Improbable maybe, but not impossible.

 

[renesauz]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

But also just like last time, SIGNIFICANT changes to the basic structure of the NFL will be the result. Unlike last time, I don't think I'll like those changes. I don't think most players will like those changes, and I don't think most of those in the pro-union camp will like those changes (some of the free market at all costs guys might).I don't want football at any cost. Ruin the competitive balance, lose fans, starting with this one.

 

[jbobbett]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

Does anyone know what actually happened back then? Why were there no antitrust suits? The draft is obviously collusion absent a CBA. Why did not one college player challenge that?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

Does anyone know what actually happened back then? Why were there no antitrust suits? The draft is obviously collusion absent a CBA. Why did not one college player challenge that?

Go back to the top of the last page, reply 1101 for the answer.

 

[zadok]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

But also just like last time, SIGNIFICANT changes to the basic structure of the NFL will be the result. Unlike last time, I don't think I'll like those changes. I don't think most players will like those changes, and I don't think most of those in the pro-union camp will like those changes (some of the free market at all costs guys might).I don't want football at any cost. Ruin the competitive balance, lose fans, starting with this one.

A. Other than player movement rules, what significant changes happened last time? B. You have no idea what those changes would be this time. Nobody does.

ETA:

Go look at the hyperbole from the owners about the doom and gloom of free agency back then.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

But also just like last time, SIGNIFICANT changes to the basic structure of the NFL will be the result. Unlike last time, I don't think I'll like those changes. I don't think most players will like those changes, and I don't think most of those in the pro-union camp will like those changes (some of the free market at all costs guys might).I don't want football at any cost. Ruin the competitive balance, lose fans, starting with this one.

exactly how do you know the bolded? we dont know anything, heck no one knows what the courts will rule

 

[jbobbett]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

Does anyone know what actually happened back then? Why were there no antitrust suits? The draft is obviously collusion absent a CBA. Why did not one college player challenge that?

Go back to the top of the last page, reply 1101 for the answer.

Post 1101 says the CBA ran through 2012. So there was a CBA in place the whole time. Then there is no "just like last time".

 

[zadok]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

Does anyone know what actually happened back then? Why were there no antitrust suits? The draft is obviously collusion absent a CBA. Why did not one college player challenge that?

Go back to the top of the last page, reply 1101 for the answer.

Post 1101 says the CBA ran through 2012. So there was a CBA in place the whole time. Then there is no "just like last time".

Thre was no cba prior to 1993. It was the settlement of the Reggie White case that created it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

This is quite possibly true, but a lockout is a temporary stoppage quickly remedied by a CBA. A decertification makes a CBA problematic and throws everything into the courts, where many institutions the NFL considers central to success can be challenged. A lockout could end in a week. The mess of decertification could take YEARS to unravel.

Decertification may be quickly remedied by a new CBA; it could end in a week. A lockout could take years to resolve.

These court case can be resolved in a day? Really? That can only happen with a recertification, a new CBA, and an agreement to drop them. The players won't do that if they think they're winning in the courts. How would a lockout take years to resolve? It ends the second the owners say it ends...it needs no courts, no lawyers. It just needs players to come back to the table and NEGOTIATE.

I didn't say anything about a court case. But since you asked: yes, really. The court case can be dismissed in a day. It ends the second the players say it ends. It just needs the owners to come back to the table and NEGOTIATE.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

Does anyone know what actually happened back then? Why were there no antitrust suits? The draft is obviously collusion absent a CBA. Why did not one college player challenge that?

There was an antitrust suit. It became clear that the players were going to prevail. That's what led to a new CBA.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If the lockout is lifted, there will be no CBA this year..the whole mess will drag out for years in the courts....JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

And just like last time, there will be NFL football absent a CBA until a new CBA is reached.

Does anyone know what actually happened back then? Why were there no antitrust suits? The draft is obviously collusion absent a CBA. Why did not one college player challenge that?

There was an antitrust suit. It became clear that the players were going to prevail. That's what led to a new CBA.

I think he means during the pendency of the action. If I remember references correctly, there were many years that there was no CBA. How did the NFL set rules that most think were anti-competitive during the time when there was no CBA and the actions were pending?Does anyone think that such would continue to be allowed today? I do not. I think that now that the stopper is out of the bottle and that since this decertification was over nothing more than money that a single player who doesn't like his draft position would blow up the draft if the NFL tried to operate past this year w/o a CBA.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think he means during the pendency of the action. If I remember references correctly, there were many years that there was no CBA. How did the NFL set rules that most think were anti-competitive during the time when there was no CBA and the actions were pending?

I think it was from 1989 to 1993.Without a CBA, the owners can set whatever rules they want. If those rules run afoul of antitrust laws, they'll have to pay damages. But that doesn't occur until after things are adjudicated, and that generally takes a while. In the meantime, the owners make whatever rules they want.So last time, they kept the draft, restrictions on free agency, and everything else they felt like. Then, before any final judgment was executed, they settled by agreeing to a new CBA.The same thing would likely happen this time. If the lockout is lifted and there's no new CBA for 2011, I suspect that the owners would use the same rules as they did in 2010. (Although if I were advising them, I'd have them, at the very least, go back to four years for unrestricted free agency instead of six.) Then, in a year or two, they'll agree to a new CBA to avoid paying antitrust damages.

Does anyone think that such would continue to be allowed today? I do not. I think that now that the stopper is out of the bottle and that since this decertification was over nothing more than money that a single player who doesn't like his draft position would blow up the draft if the NFL tried to operate past this year w/o a CBA.

Without a preliminary injunction against the draft, the draft can still survive for a few years even if it's obviously illegal.

 

[zadok]

Daniel Kaplan is saying the NFL has a "working group" crafting new FA rules for 2011 that will differ from 2010, but will likely not "alter the onfield game". My question is, why wasn't this CRAFTED months ago???