Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[David Dodds]

The owners can make this go away easily if they really want it to:

Propose this to the players and this thing gets settled in minutes:

1. Sell the Thursday games on the open market and generate another $1B per year

2. Implement an 18 game schedule starting in 2012. This add $0.5 B a year to revenue

3. Implement a rookie salary cap that impacts the top 15-20 positions. Both sides actually want this. Unknown savings

4. Of this additional $1.5B a year revenue, keep $1B for the owners (their supposed need that they never documented, and way more than the $400K they were supposedly willing to take on their last deal in mediation) and give $0.5B to the players.

5. Keep most everything from the original CBA in place (salary cap, restricted FA, draft, etc) and sign a deal lasting another 5+ years.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT - I disagree that the owners want radical changes.

I don't think the owners want radical changes. I just think that the changes they want are more substantial than the changes the players want (because the players seem to be fine without any changes at all).

I happen to be pro owner because I truly believe economic realities are such that the players should concede part of that back, because I think owners and players aren't partners, and because I think the players have chosen the more dangerous route in trying to gain leverage.

I think the players should cede part of it back; but how much? I think the owners are looking at potentially declining profits for a few reasons. (1) Cities aren't subsidizing them as much. (2) Owners are overspending on stadiums, maybe because they got used to the subsidies. (3) The NFL Network is a drain on the coffers.I think the players should chip in for #1.On numbers 2 and 3, I think the players should chip in for smart spending on stadiums, but not for stupid spending on stadiums; and I think the players should chip in for smart spending on the NFLN, but not for stupid spending on the NFLN. And while I'm not in a very good position to judge, if I were forced to give an opinion, it'd be that a lot of the spending on #2 and #3 appears to be stupider than the owners are willing to admit. That's where I think the sticking point is.When economic realities change so that it's tougher to run a profitable football league, it's legitimate to cut labor costs, and for the owners to therefore "take a little extra off the top." But when the owners make stupid business decisions, they can't automatically bail themselves out by "taking a little extra off the top." I think there's some of both going on in the owners' proposals; hence the players' request to open the books. (And no, I don't believe that the players, if given access to the books, would evaluate them reasonably or objectively. They're every bit as biased as the owners.)I think the two sides can work things out with the help of their lawyers and a mediator. But I think it will take some time, and a great deal of effort by the mediator, before the owners realize that they're not entitled to juicy profits even when they make lousy business decisions, and before the players realize that they're not entitled to raises every year when non-labor costs increase faster than gross revenues. I think there's a sense of entitlement on both sides that will have to be dropped.The reason I blame the players a bit less is that the current situation is largely a result of the two sides' apparent disagreement on what the outcome in court will be; and I think the owners have miscalculated that a bit worse in that regard than the players have. (Although it's still up in the air, of course.) The likely outcome in court is the baseline that will drive settlement negotiations. And when settlement is difficult because the two sides strongly disagree on the likely outcome, I assign more blame to the side whose anticipation of the likely outcome is in greater error. It remains to be seen which side that is, but again, if I were forced to give an opinion right now, I think it's the owners. (I could easily be wrong about that, though.)

 

[Wadsworth]

I have concerns that the owners have put all other all revenue concerns on the back burner so to speak with the hope of a new agreement with the players bailing them out of other issues. A couple years ago the big revenue vs small revenue teams was an issue, was it ever settled? The NFLN hasn't become a source of revenue yet. New stadiums are an issue in many market and extremely expensive existing stadiums present their own issues. Are the owners working to address these and other issues on their own? It doesn't seem like it. It appears that the owners are counting on a cash grab to solve all these problems. Which might happen, but what if it doesn't?

It's important for any such negotiation to have both a unified vision of what you want and what you will accept. I suspect the owners are unified in what they want, but with all these other issues on the back burner I doubt there is any unified vision of what they will accept. Which mean that if the players have some success with the courts and keep their membership in line, the owners could be negotiating simultaneously with the players and themselves. Which makes the process more difficult to be sure.

 

[jbobbett]

This has been the most reasonable this thread has been for a while! What happened?

Good points on both sides. Reasonable people can disagree.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

MT - I disagree that the owners want radical changes.

I don't think the owners want radical changes. I just think that the changes they want are more substantial than the changes the players want (because the players seem to be fine without any changes at all).

I happen to be pro owner because I truly believe economic realities are such that the players should concede part of that back, because I think owners and players aren't partners, and because I think the players have chosen the more dangerous route in trying to gain leverage.

I think the players should cede part of it back; but how much? I think the owners are looking at potentially declining profits for a few reasons. (1) Cities aren't subsidizing them as much. (2) Owners are overspending on stadiums, maybe because they got used to the subsidies. (3) The NFL Network is a drain on the coffers.I think the players should chip in for #1.On numbers 2 and 3, I think the players should chip in for smart spending on stadiums, but not for stupid spending on stadiums; and I think the players should chip in for smart spending on the NFLN, but not for stupid spending on the NFLN. And while I'm not in a very good position to judge, if I were forced to give an opinion, it'd be that a lot of the spending on #2 and #3 appears to be stupider than the owners are willing to admit. That's where I think the sticking point is.When economic realities change so that it's tougher to run a profitable football league, it's legitimate to cut labor costs, and for the owners to therefore "take a little extra off the top." But when the owners make stupid business decisions, they can't automatically bail themselves out by "taking a little extra off the top." I think there's some of both going on in the owners' proposals; hence the players' request to open the books. (And no, I don't believe that the players, if given access to the books, would evaluate them reasonably or objectively. They're every bit as biased as the owners.)I think the two sides can work things out with the help of their lawyers and a mediator. But I think it will take some time, and a great deal of effort by the mediator, before the owners realize that they're not entitled to juicy profits even when they make lousy business decisions, and before the players realize that they're not entitled to raises every year when non-labor costs increase faster than gross revenues. I think there's a sense of entitlement on both sides that will have to be dropped.The reason I blame the players a bit less is that the current situation is largely a result of the two sides' apparent disagreement on what the outcome in court will be; and I think the owners have miscalculated that a bit worse in that regard than the players have. (Although it's still up in the air, of course.) The likely outcome in court is the baseline that will drive settlement negotiations. And when settlement is difficult because the two sides strongly disagree on the likely outcome, I assign more blame to the side whose anticipation of the likely outcome is in greater error. It remains to be seen which side that is, but again, if I were forced to give an opinion right now, I think it's the owners. (I could easily be wrong about that, though.)

I agree with most of this, though I probably think there is less (but still some) stupid spending on stadiums and NFLN than you. In fact, until you get down to the point of assigning blame, I'm onboard with the whole thing. You seem to have a results-oriented sense of blame. You're assigning blame based upon who you think is more likely to prevail in their legal jockeying for leverage. In my mind, and based upon all of the logic you recited leading up to your blame paragraph, the players and the owners SHOULD have been able to settle on an appropriate CBA long before we tested the legal waters. It was the sense of entitlement that each have that prevented them from doing so, but in my opinion, it was the sense of entitlement of the players that prevented it MORE. Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

 

[cvnpoka]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations (only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

 

[Obie Wan]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations (only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

The 6 month wait to decertify was tied to expiration of the CBA.As long as the CBA was extended, the 6 month wait was extended as well.Pretty hard to argue that insufficent progress was being made when on the day of decertification, the owners made major concessions which the players did not consider as it interefered with their race to the court house.

 

[cvnpoka]

so did the owners show willingness to extend the cba? or was it more of a "take it or leave it" type thing?

 

[cobalt_27]

so did the owners show willingness to extend the cba? or was it more of a "take it or leave it" type thing?

I heard Jeff Pash say two important things on the Monday that followed the players decertifying: (1) "This was not a final-final offer" and (2) We offered to extend negotiations.I don't think anyone's ever contended that the owners made the offer under the suggestion that it was take it or leave it.

 

[cobalt_27]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations

(only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

Hard to figure how they arrived at that conclusion, given that they weren't budging and inch, and the owners made significant movement in their direction that Friday. Other than the philosophical backing of the owners, I think those of us in the pro-owner group are still seriously pissed that they chose not to continue negotiating at that point. Had the owners held steadfast and not moved, I might be less pissed at the NFLPA, and I'm sure there are a few here (and around the country) who would feel similarly.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations

(only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

Hard to figure how they arrived at that conclusion, given that they weren't budging and inch, and the owners made significant movement in their direction that Friday. Other than the philosophical backing of the owners, I think those of us in the pro-owner group are still seriously pissed that they chose not to continue negotiating at that point. Had the owners held steadfast and not moved, I might be less pissed at the NFLPA, and I'm sure there are a few here (and around the country) who would feel similarly.

I don't think it's hard to see how the players figured that the negotiations had been a waste of time. No significant progress had been made during the week until the last minute when it was too late. If subsequent extensions were agreed to, would the same pattern hold each time? If so, what's the point? (And it wasn't up to the players to budge an inch without being given a reason. They were happy with the old deal. If the owners wanted the players to budge, it was up to the owners to give them a reason — to make an argument based on numbers shown from their books. There was disagreement about the extent to which the owners should open their books, and that agreement would have to be worked out. The players were asking for too much while the owners were offering too little. But until it was worked out, and until some numerical support for the owners' claims was provided, it wasn't reasonable for the players' to make blind concessions. The ball was in the owners' court.)

 

[David Dodds]

Mediation resumes on Monday. Maybe both sides will take this serious and we will see some progress.

 

[cobalt_27]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations

(only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

Hard to figure how they arrived at that conclusion, given that they weren't budging and inch, and the owners made significant movement in their direction that Friday. Other than the philosophical backing of the owners, I think those of us in the pro-owner group are still seriously pissed that they chose not to continue negotiating at that point. Had the owners held steadfast and not moved, I might be less pissed at the NFLPA, and I'm sure there are a few here (and around the country) who would feel similarly.

I don't think it's hard to see how the players figured that the negotiations had been a waste of time. No significant progress had been made during the week until the last minute when it was too late. If subsequent extensions were agreed to, would the same pattern hold each time? If so, what's the point? (And it wasn't up to the players to budge an inch without being given a reason. They were happy with the old deal. If the owners wanted the players to budge, it was up to the owners to give them a reason — to make an argument based on numbers shown from their books. There was disagreement about the extent to which the owners should open their books, and that agreement would have to be worked out. The players were asking for too much while the owners were offering too little. But until it was worked out, and until some numerical support for the owners' claims was provided, it wasn't reasonable for the players' to make blind concessions. The ball was in the owners' court.)

On a fundamental level, I have a hard time understanding the "it was too late" argument. This isn't their first rodeo, and they know how these things always come down to the final, down-to-the-wire, last moment. If stock traders can make snap decisions on a moment's notice regarding gazillions of dollars of investments, I see no reason why a simple agreement to extend negotiations couldn't have been settled immediately. Perhaps the offer wasn't to their liking, but it was a tangible move in their direction. And, this all seems part and parcel of any negotiation, whether we're dealing with collective bargaining or trades or anything.As you eluded to, the players never felt compelled to negotiate a new deal. They felt entitled to the previous deal, which is sort of understandable, given that it was a pretty sweet package. And, no opening of the books would change this sense of entitlement. Even if the owners were able to demonstrate the worst-case scenario, they'd say tough ####. We like our deal, and we're going to squeeze you guys in the courts. Their legal strategy puts the very foundation of the NFL at risk. So, I don't buy at all this "it was too late" thing. They had no intention of negotiating this deal in the first place.

 

[cobalt_27]

Mediation resumes on Monday. Maybe both sides will take this serious and we will see some progress.

I sincerely doubt the players are going to negotiate anything that deviates from the previous deal. I have no optimism that they're open to negotiating bubkis.

 

[Cripster]

Mediation resumes on Monday. Maybe both sides will take this serious and we will see some progress.

I sincerely doubt the players are going to negotiate anything that deviates from the previous deal. I have no optimism that they're open to negotiating bubkis.

I believe nothing will happen until the June 3rd ruling comes down. Last night while reading NFL news I caught an article talking about a radio interview De Smith did I believe Thursday. The writer walked away with the impression that Smith is not going to compromise or back down and was prepared to go the distance. I realize this is not anything to rely on. But I don't think you will see the player's compromise unless the members start putting pressure on Smith and his lawyers. I hate to agree with Chris Collingsworth, but maybe we are headed towards an 8 game season starting early November.

 

[roarlions]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations (only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

The 6 month wait to decertify was tied to expiration of the CBA.As long as the CBA was extended, the 6 month wait was extended as well.Pretty hard to argue that insufficent progress was being made when on the day of decertification, the owners made major concessions which the players did not consider as it interefered with their race to the court house.

This idea that the owners made significant concessions on the day the union decertified keeps getting repeated but just isn't backed by evidence. See the end of this article, which has been referred to numerous times in the various threads:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/Pay particular attention to this part:On Friday, the league offered to “split the difference” between $131 million and $151 million, with a figure of $141 million. We’re told, however, that the Friday offer omitted any additional money based on whether the league exceeds its projected revenue growth.So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.The players’ characterization of the issues that prevented a deal address this point, explaining that the “NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.”As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

 

[cobalt_27]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations (only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

The 6 month wait to decertify was tied to expiration of the CBA.As long as the CBA was extended, the 6 month wait was extended as well.Pretty hard to argue that insufficent progress was being made when on the day of decertification, the owners made major concessions which the players did not consider as it interefered with their race to the court house.

This idea that the owners made significant concessions on the day the union decertified keeps getting repeated but just isn't backed by evidence. See the end of this article, which has been referred to numerous times in the various threads:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/Pay particular attention to this part:On Friday, the league offered to “split the difference” between $131 million and $151 million, with a figure of $141 million. We’re told, however, that the Friday offer omitted any additional money based on whether the league exceeds its projected revenue growth.So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.The players’ characterization of the issues that prevented a deal address this point, explaining that the “NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.”As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

But, it is backed by the evidence, as it does represent an improvement from where they started. Those familiar even loosely with how negotiations work, both sides start out unreasonably high/low, and then the process of talking works folks toward the middle. The owners did this and moved (in addition to other concessions regarding health care, training/OTA requirements, and other things the players asked for). The players responded by walking away. Even if it wasn't the offer they wanted, it would have been enough of a shift to continue talking...that is, if the players were even open to the negotiations in the first place. But, it's pretty clear they had no intention of working out a negotiation deal without squeezing their balls in court, first.

 

[Cripster]

I am not on any side, because I believe both sides have acted in bad faith. We all know what the owners have done. But I dont believe for one minute that all the players want is the CBA rules from 2009 back. This article from PFW bothers me. Arkush has been on the players side from the get go. But this article about De Smith got my attention. From the beginning, I think this guy has been interested in De's legacy first, De's bank account Second and then maybe the players. Just my opinion. Now, I think the owners are exactly the same. There is no moral high ground to me.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/03/smith-jeopardizing-players-position

 

[renesauz]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations

(only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

Hard to figure how they arrived at that conclusion, given that they weren't budging and inch, and the owners made significant movement in their direction that Friday. Other than the philosophical backing of the owners, I think those of us in the pro-owner group are still seriously pissed that they chose not to continue negotiating at that point. Had the owners held steadfast and not moved, I might be less pissed at the NFLPA, and I'm sure there are a few here (and around the country) who would feel similarly.

I don't think it's hard to see how the players figured that the negotiations had been a waste of time. No significant progress had been made during the week until the last minute when it was too late. If subsequent extensions were agreed to, would the same pattern hold each time? If so, what's the point? (And it wasn't up to the players to budge an inch without being given a reason. They were happy with the old deal. If the owners wanted the players to budge, it was up to the owners to give them a reason — to make an argument based on numbers shown from their books. There was disagreement about the extent to which the owners should open their books, and that agreement would have to be worked out. The players were asking for too much while the owners were offering too little. But until it was worked out, and until some numerical support for the owners' claims was provided, it wasn't reasonable for the players' to make blind concessions. The ball was in the owners' court.)

The argument that "they were happy with the old deal" is kind of a straw man. In ANY CBA negotiation, one side is going to "give". In most previous deals, the owners were the ones giving (although to be fair, most of the time both sides give something.) I don't think the "They were happy" argument is a very good one....at all.

 

[renesauz]

I am not on any side, because I believe both sides have acted in bad faith. We all know what the owners have done. But I dont believe for one minute that all the players want is the CBA rules from 2009 back. This article from PFW bothers me. Arkush has been on the players side from the get go. But this article about De Smith got my attention. From the beginning, I think this guy has been interested in De's legacy first, De's bank account Second and then maybe the players. Just my opinion. Now, I think the owners are exactly the same. There is no moral high ground to me. http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/03/smith-jeopardizing-players-position

Interesting take considering the author betrays a very clear pro-player bias. It's nice to know that folkks in that camp are questiong Smith. Personally, I think the guys a turd who will ruin the game given the chance.

 

[cobalt_27]

I am not on any side, because I believe both sides have acted in bad faith. We all know what the owners have done. But I dont believe for one minute that all the players want is the CBA rules from 2009 back. This article from PFW bothers me. Arkush has been on the players side from the get go. But this article about De Smith got my attention. From the beginning, I think this guy has been interested in De's legacy first, De's bank account Second and then maybe the players. Just my opinion. Now, I think the owners are exactly the same. There is no moral high ground to me. http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/03/smith-jeopardizing-players-position

Interesting take considering the author betrays a very clear pro-player bias. It's nice to know that folkks in that camp are questiong Smith. Personally, I think the guys a turd who will ruin the game given the chance.

He has political aspirations. I don't think that should be factored in lightly here, particularly given the sheer hyperbole that careens out of his mouth every time he talks. I admit, I become more and more biased against the NFLPA every time I hear him speak.

 

[Wadsworth]

I am not on any side, because I believe both sides have acted in bad faith. We all know what the owners have done. But I dont believe for one minute that all the players want is the CBA rules from 2009 back. This article from PFW bothers me. Arkush has been on the players side from the get go. But this article about De Smith got my attention. From the beginning, I think this guy has been interested in De's legacy first, De's bank account Second and then maybe the players. Just my opinion. Now, I think the owners are exactly the same. There is no moral high ground to me. http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/03/smith-jeopardizing-players-position

Interesting take considering the author betrays a very clear pro-player bias. It's nice to know that folkks in that camp are questiong Smith. Personally, I think the guys a turd who will ruin the game given the chance.

He has political aspirations. I don't think that should be factored in lightly here, particularly given the sheer hyperbole that careens out of his mouth every time he talks. I admit, I become more and more biased against the NFLPA every time I hear him speak.

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between Smith wants a political career so he's going to ruin the most popular sports league in the US. I'm pretty sure "the guy that ruined the NFL" isn't going to win any election that matters.

 

[Cripster]

I am not on any side, because I believe both sides have acted in bad faith. We all know what the owners have done. But I dont believe for one minute that all the players want is the CBA rules from 2009 back. This article from PFW bothers me. Arkush has been on the players side from the get go. But this article about De Smith got my attention. From the beginning, I think this guy has been interested in De's legacy first, De's bank account Second and then maybe the players. Just my opinion. Now, I think the owners are exactly the same. There is no moral high ground to me. http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/03/smith-jeopardizing-players-position

Interesting take considering the author betrays a very clear pro-player bias. It's nice to know that folkks in that camp are questiong Smith. Personally, I think the guys a turd who will ruin the game given the chance.

He has political aspirations. I don't think that should be factored in lightly here, particularly given the sheer hyperbole that careens out of his mouth every time he talks. I admit, I become more and more biased against the NFLPA every time I hear him speak.

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between Smith wants a political career so he's going to ruin the most popular sports league in the US. I'm pretty sure "the guy that ruined the NFL" isn't going to win any election that matters.

I don't know about his political goals. I am thinking he is hoping to get a take of any lawsuit settlements as attorney for the former union.

 

[cobalt_27]

I am not on any side, because I believe both sides have acted in bad faith. We all know what the owners have done. But I dont believe for one minute that all the players want is the CBA rules from 2009 back. This article from PFW bothers me. Arkush has been on the players side from the get go. But this article about De Smith got my attention. From the beginning, I think this guy has been interested in De's legacy first, De's bank account Second and then maybe the players. Just my opinion. Now, I think the owners are exactly the same. There is no moral high ground to me. http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/05/03/smith-jeopardizing-players-position

Interesting take considering the author betrays a very clear pro-player bias. It's nice to know that folkks in that camp are questiong Smith. Personally, I think the guys a turd who will ruin the game given the chance.

He has political aspirations. I don't think that should be factored in lightly here, particularly given the sheer hyperbole that careens out of his mouth every time he talks. I admit, I become more and more biased against the NFLPA every time I hear him speak.

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between Smith wants a political career so he's going to ruin the most popular sports league in the US. I'm pretty sure "the guy that ruined the NFL" isn't going to win any election that matters.

If he successfully plays the hard-###, the David against the Goliath, paints the owners as the unreasonable obstructionists, and eventually succeeds in retaining the basic framework of the previous deal for the players...that's enormous political capital. I agree, though, it won't serve him very well if this eventually cuts into games, themselves. Otherwise, this would be a gambit well worth the current frustration(s).

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[roarlions]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations (only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

The 6 month wait to decertify was tied to expiration of the CBA.As long as the CBA was extended, the 6 month wait was extended as well.Pretty hard to argue that insufficent progress was being made when on the day of decertification, the owners made major concessions which the players did not consider as it interefered with their race to the court house.

This idea that the owners made significant concessions on the day the union decertified keeps getting repeated but just isn't backed by evidence. See the end of this article, which has been referred to numerous times in the various threads:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/Pay particular attention to this part:On Friday, the league offered to “split the difference” between $131 million and $151 million, with a figure of $141 million. We’re told, however, that the Friday offer omitted any additional money based on whether the league exceeds its projected revenue growth.So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.The players’ characterization of the issues that prevented a deal address this point, explaining that the “NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.”As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

But, it is backed by the evidence, as it does represent an improvement from where they started. Those familiar even loosely with how negotiations work, both sides start out unreasonably high/low, and then the process of talking works folks toward the middle. The owners did this and moved (in addition to other concessions regarding health care, training/OTA requirements, and other things the players asked for). The players responded by walking away. Even if it wasn't the offer they wanted, it would have been enough of a shift to continue talking...that is, if the players were even open to the negotiations in the first place. But, it's pretty clear they had no intention of working out a negotiation deal without squeezing their balls in court, first.

An improvement, sure, but significant or major concessions, not even close. The owners started out asking for an additional $1 billion off the top, and as the article points out, there was potential for the difference to be $800 million or more based on the owners' final offer. Doesn't sound like a major concession to me, especially when the owners were publicly claiming to have offered to split the difference, which clearly wasn't true. Sure the owners offered some other concessions to the players, but I think we can all agree that those are seen as minor when compared to the sharing of hundreds of millions of dollars. Also important to note that any difference in revenue projections could occur each year, which would mean there would be a cumulative effect in lost revenue sharing for the players, not just a one-time deal.I'm not saying the owners didn't offer concessions, just saying that the perception often offered here of major or significant concessions in the last offer just isn't correct.

 

[cobalt_27]

Much has been made of whether or not the owner's last offer was reasonable and I agree, it wasn't the deal that needed to be done. But it had an appropriate framework for it. But instead of extending, which would have been agreed to, the players headed to court...out of that very sense of entitlement. Not to fight for something noble like free agency, but to fight for more money.

its my understanding that if the players did not "head to court" at that time, then they would have had to wait 6 months to disband and head to court. so there would have been quite a bit of risk in sitting down to negotiate at that point.

Yes, unless there was another week-long (or whatever) extension. There had already been one extension to keep the negotiations going, but it seems that the players thought that insufficient progress was being made in the negotiations (only a few owners even attended), and that they would continue to be a waste of time without the help of a lawsuit to get people serious.

The 6 month wait to decertify was tied to expiration of the CBA.As long as the CBA was extended, the 6 month wait was extended as well.Pretty hard to argue that insufficent progress was being made when on the day of decertification, the owners made major concessions which the players did not consider as it interefered with their race to the court house.

This idea that the owners made significant concessions on the day the union decertified keeps getting repeated but just isn't backed by evidence. See the end of this article, which has been referred to numerous times in the various threads:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/Pay particular attention to this part:On Friday, the league offered to “split the difference” between $131 million and $151 million, with a figure of $141 million. We’re told, however, that the Friday offer omitted any additional money based on whether the league exceeds its projected revenue growth.So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.The players’ characterization of the issues that prevented a deal address this point, explaining that the “NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.”As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

But, it is backed by the evidence, as it does represent an improvement from where they started. Those familiar even loosely with how negotiations work, both sides start out unreasonably high/low, and then the process of talking works folks toward the middle. The owners did this and moved (in addition to other concessions regarding health care, training/OTA requirements, and other things the players asked for). The players responded by walking away. Even if it wasn't the offer they wanted, it would have been enough of a shift to continue talking...that is, if the players were even open to the negotiations in the first place. But, it's pretty clear they had no intention of working out a negotiation deal without squeezing their balls in court, first.

An improvement, sure, but significant or major concessions, not even close. The owners started out asking for an additional $1 billion off the top, and as the article points out, there was potential for the difference to be $800 million or more based on the owners' final offer. Doesn't sound like a major concession to me, especially when the owners were publicly claiming to have offered to split the difference, which clearly wasn't true. Sure the owners offered some other concessions to the players, but I think we can all agree that those are seen as minor when compared to the sharing of hundreds of millions of dollars. Also important to note that any difference in revenue projections could occur each year, which would mean there would be a cumulative effect in lost revenue sharing for the players, not just a one-time deal.I'm not saying the owners didn't offer concessions, just saying that the perception often offered here of major or significant concessions in the last offer just isn't correct.

The assertion is that the concessions were significant enough to establish progress had been made. It warranted more talks.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so today they resume court ordered mediation, correct?

 

[cobalt_27]

so today they resume court ordered mediation, correct?

Yup. In theory, anyway. Nothing to get excited about, as the players have opted for this strategy all along and aren't about to negotiate now.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If the players union recertifies and votes on a new CBA, will Adrian Peterson get a full vote or 3/5 vote?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so today they resume court ordered mediation, correct?

Yup. In theory, anyway. Nothing to get excited about, as the players have opted for this strategy all along and aren't about to negotiate now.

LOL neither are the owners. No way they negotiate anything until the appeal is herd.

 

[cobalt_27]

so today they resume court ordered mediation, correct?

Yup. In theory, anyway. Nothing to get excited about, as the players have opted for this strategy all along and aren't about to negotiate now.

LOL neither are the owners. No way they negotiate anything until the appeal is herd.

Word.

 

[dparker713]

That's my serious question to the pro-players side. Aren't you worried about the game being ruined?

People who are worried about the game being ruined should probably be more pro-player than pro-owner, IMO. If the players get what they want, we'll have the same system we had from 2006-2010. They liked things the way they were. It's the owners who want substantial change. The game was good before; the only thing that can ruin it is substantial change.I think some people are mistaking tactical legal positions for actual goals. The players' legal position is that the draft, salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are bogus. But who cares about legal positions? The owners' legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football! Forget legal positions, though, and look at what the parties actually want. They both want football. The players want it to work the same way as it has for the past five years; the owners want a different deal. Neither side wants to ruin the game; but if I had to pick one side to unfairly cast that aspersion against, it would be the owners rather than the players. They're the ones who opted out of the last agreement in order to change things up.

The owner's legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football absent a CBA and I agree with them. Without a CBA, the draft, league-wide drug testing, restricted free agency, minimum salaries and maximum payrolls among others are all fairly blatant anti-trust violations.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's my serious question to the pro-players side. Aren't you worried about the game being ruined?

People who are worried about the game being ruined should probably be more pro-player than pro-owner, IMO. If the players get what they want, we'll have the same system we had from 2006-2010. They liked things the way they were. It's the owners who want substantial change. The game was good before; the only thing that can ruin it is substantial change.I think some people are mistaking tactical legal positions for actual goals. The players' legal position is that the draft, salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are bogus. But who cares about legal positions? The owners' legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football! Forget legal positions, though, and look at what the parties actually want. They both want football. The players want it to work the same way as it has for the past five years; the owners want a different deal. Neither side wants to ruin the game; but if I had to pick one side to unfairly cast that aspersion against, it would be the owners rather than the players. They're the ones who opted out of the last agreement in order to change things up.

The owner's legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football absent a CBA and I agree with them. Without a CBA, the draft, league-wide drug testing, restricted free agency, minimum salaries and maximum payrolls among others are all fairly blatant anti-trust violations.

Drug testing should be fine under the rule of reason. Various restrictions on free agency may or may not pass muster. I don't think anyone would challenge minimum salaries (though I'm not sure why the league would want them). The draft and salary cap are pretty blatant. (I don't think Brady et al. are challenging the draft. I'd have to look at the complaint again.)In any case, your point is well taken. The players don't want a salary cap without a new CBA, and the owners don't want a football season without a new CBA. The qualification is important, but it doesn't change my preference as a self-interested fan. With or without a new CBA, if I had to pick, I would prefer a season without a salary cap over a salary cap without a season.

 

[jbobbett]

That's my serious question to the pro-players side. Aren't you worried about the game being ruined?

People who are worried about the game being ruined should probably be more pro-player than pro-owner, IMO. If the players get what they want, we'll have the same system we had from 2006-2010. They liked things the way they were. It's the owners who want substantial change. The game was good before; the only thing that can ruin it is substantial change.I think some people are mistaking tactical legal positions for actual goals. The players' legal position is that the draft, salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are bogus. But who cares about legal positions? The owners' legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football! Forget legal positions, though, and look at what the parties actually want. They both want football. The players want it to work the same way as it has for the past five years; the owners want a different deal. Neither side wants to ruin the game; but if I had to pick one side to unfairly cast that aspersion against, it would be the owners rather than the players. They're the ones who opted out of the last agreement in order to change things up.

The owner's legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football absent a CBA and I agree with them. Without a CBA, the draft, league-wide drug testing, restricted free agency, minimum salaries and maximum payrolls among others are all fairly blatant anti-trust violations.

Drug testing should be fine under the rule of reason. Various restrictions on free agency may or may not pass muster. I don't think anyone would challenge minimum salaries (though I'm not sure why the league would want them). The draft and salary cap are pretty blatant. (I don't think Brady et al. are challenging the draft. I'd have to look at the complaint again.)In any case, your point is well taken. The players don't want a salary cap without a new CBA, and the owners don't want a football season without a new CBA. The qualification is important, but it doesn't change my preference as a self-interested fan. With or without a new CBA, if I had to pick, I would prefer a season without a salary cap over a salary cap without a season.

Someone else, a college player, will challenge the draft next year.I would prefer a season without a salary cap over a salary cap without a season.

Yeah, but that is not the choice.

 

[roadkill1292]

Someone else, a college player, will challenge the draft next year.

I believe so. Especially if a rookie cap is included in the final CBA.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Someone else, a college player, will challenge the draft next year.

I believe so. Especially if a rookie cap is included in the final CBA.

If there is a union, I dont think incoming members can do that. but who knows

 

[Ksquared]

Someone else, a college player, will challenge the draft next year.

I believe so. Especially if a rookie cap is included in the final CBA.

Would not a new CBA cover the NFL draft from anti-trust eligibility? Otherwise players would have already challenged in past years with a CBA. Or am I missing something that would now change. If there is no CBA, the draft would definitely be anti-trust.As to the items mentioned to likely passing legal muster, what owners are willing to to risk triple damages to find out? I do think it will become a free for all. Do not forget it will take 3/4 of the owners to agree on anything new, and the Snyder/Jones of the league would just love to make it the league a completely open market. That is the reason that I hope somehow (even though I don't think it will happen) the NFL wins in the Appeals Court. It is about the only chance I see of the NFL returning to what it has been like. Because we cannot forget that Kessler has had a goal of making it a complete free market system.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Someone else, a college player, will challenge the draft next year.

I believe so. Especially if a rookie cap is included in the final CBA.

Would not a new CBA cover the NFL draft from anti-trust eligibility? Otherwise players would have already challenged in past years with a CBA. Or am I missing something that would now change. If there is no CBA, the draft would definitely be anti-trust.As to the items mentioned to likely passing legal muster, what owners are willing to to risk triple damages to find out? I do think it will become a free for all. Do not forget it will take 3/4 of the owners to agree on anything new, and the Snyder/Jones of the league would just love to make it the league a completely open market. That is the reason that I hope somehow (even though I don't think it will happen) the NFL wins in the Appeals Court. It is about the only chance I see of the NFL returning to what it has been like. Because we cannot forget that Kessler has had a goal of making it a complete free market system.

they held like 3 or 4 drafts without a CBA in the late 80s

 

[Ksquared]

That was before there was free agency I believe. The difference now I would believe is an individual that is going to become part of the trade association will be granted the rights of all other members. Therefore they would be legally able to have free agency until they sign a contract.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't think Brady et al. are challenging the draft. I'd have to look at the complaint again.

I think it is. I know at least that the formal complaint lists the draft as one of the "anticompetitive" activities engaged in by the league. What I don't recall if, beyond that, there is any language specifically arguing that it be eliminated. If you're able to decode anything more about that, would be much-appreciated.

 

[jbobbett]

Someone else, a college player, will challenge the draft next year.

I believe so. Especially if a rookie cap is included in the final CBA.

Would not a new CBA cover the NFL draft from anti-trust eligibility? Otherwise players would have already challenged in past years with a CBA. Or am I missing something that would now change. If there is no CBA, the draft would definitely be anti-trust.As to the items mentioned to likely passing legal muster, what owners are willing to to risk triple damages to find out? I do think it will become a free for all. Do not forget it will take 3/4 of the owners to agree on anything new, and the Snyder/Jones of the league would just love to make it the league a completely open market. That is the reason that I hope somehow (even though I don't think it will happen) the NFL wins in the Appeals Court. It is about the only chance I see of the NFL returning to what it has been like. Because we cannot forget that Kessler has had a goal of making it a complete free market system.

they held like 3 or 4 drafts without a CBA in the late 80s

There was an anti-trust suit going on during that time. Not sure if it included the draft.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I don't think Brady et al. are challenging the draft. I'd have to look at the complaint again.

I think it is. I know at least that the formal complaint lists the draft as one of the "anticompetitive" activities engaged in by the league. What I don't recall if, beyond that, there is any language specifically arguing that it be eliminated. If you're able to decode anything more about that, would be much-appreciated.

While the draft is IIRC mentioned in the suit, they players are not looking to do away with the draft and I have that from the NFLPA. Could they be lying? Sure.The other danger is, if it's in the lawsuit, it can always be implemented by lawyers anyway.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would prefer a season without a salary cap over a salary cap without a season.

Yeah, but that is not the choice.

Thank goodness. It would be the choice if we were going strictly by the players' and owners' respective legal maneuverings. My point is that we shouldn't be going by those — and thus statements like "if the players get their way, they'll ruin the game by ending the salary cap" are unwarranted. Just as unwarranted as saying that "if the owners get their way, they'll ruin the game by ending football." Both are false. The players and owners both want football on terms similar to what have governed the past few years. They just each want more money, and they're using various negotiating tactics — an antitrust suit and a lockout, respectively — to get it. But the negotiating tactics aren't the goal; a new CBA (containing both a salary cap and the actual playing of football games) is the goal for each side.

 

[dparker713]

That's my serious question to the pro-players side. Aren't you worried about the game being ruined?

People who are worried about the game being ruined should probably be more pro-player than pro-owner, IMO. If the players get what they want, we'll have the same system we had from 2006-2010. They liked things the way they were. It's the owners who want substantial change. The game was good before; the only thing that can ruin it is substantial change.I think some people are mistaking tactical legal positions for actual goals. The players' legal position is that the draft, salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are bogus. But who cares about legal positions? The owners' legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football! Forget legal positions, though, and look at what the parties actually want. They both want football. The players want it to work the same way as it has for the past five years; the owners want a different deal. Neither side wants to ruin the game; but if I had to pick one side to unfairly cast that aspersion against, it would be the owners rather than the players. They're the ones who opted out of the last agreement in order to change things up.

The owner's legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football absent a CBA and I agree with them. Without a CBA, the draft, league-wide drug testing, restricted free agency, minimum salaries and maximum payrolls among others are all fairly blatant anti-trust violations.

Drug testing should be fine under the rule of reason. Various restrictions on free agency may or may not pass muster. I don't think anyone would challenge minimum salaries (though I'm not sure why the league would want them). The draft and salary cap are pretty blatant. (I don't think Brady et al. are challenging the draft. I'd have to look at the complaint again.)In any case, your point is well taken. The players don't want a salary cap without a new CBA, and the owners don't want a football season without a new CBA. The qualification is important, but it doesn't change my preference as a self-interested fan. With or without a new CBA, if I had to pick, I would prefer a season without a salary cap over a salary cap without a season.

Fairly certain one of the plaintiffs in the case was a top 5-10 draft pick this year, so I believe the draft is on the table as part of the suit. I understand your preference if you're expecting a short time without a CBA. However, the last time it got this ugly it took several years before an agreement could be reached. In that time, the competitive balance could be completely shot for quite some time thereafter.

Also, if Im counsel to one of the teams, I'd advise against working under any conditions that could be construed collusory, including a league administered drug testing program or a minimum salary - treble damages are quite a deterent. For all those people claiming the league could proceed as it did last year, I just don't see how thats even remotely possible.

I have no doubt that the league really has no idea how to proceed if the lockout is lifted. I'm sure they've been working on contingencies for a long time, but without some declaratory judgments, I'd think there would need to be immediate sweeping changes.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Someone else, a college player, will challenge the draft next year.

I believe so. Especially if a rookie cap is included in the final CBA.

If there is a union, I dont think incoming members can do that. but who knows

Incoming members can't successfully challenge the draft if it's part of the CBA. See the Maurice Clarett opinion by Justice Sotomayor.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's my serious question to the pro-players side. Aren't you worried about the game being ruined?

People who are worried about the game being ruined should probably be more pro-player than pro-owner, IMO. If the players get what they want, we'll have the same system we had from 2006-2010. They liked things the way they were. It's the owners who want substantial change. The game was good before; the only thing that can ruin it is substantial change.I think some people are mistaking tactical legal positions for actual goals. The players' legal position is that the draft, salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are bogus. But who cares about legal positions? The owners' legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football! Forget legal positions, though, and look at what the parties actually want. They both want football. The players want it to work the same way as it has for the past five years; the owners want a different deal. Neither side wants to ruin the game; but if I had to pick one side to unfairly cast that aspersion against, it would be the owners rather than the players. They're the ones who opted out of the last agreement in order to change things up.

The owner's legal position is that there shouldn't be any more football absent a CBA and I agree with them. Without a CBA, the draft, league-wide drug testing, restricted free agency, minimum salaries and maximum payrolls among others are all fairly blatant anti-trust violations.

Drug testing should be fine under the rule of reason. Various restrictions on free agency may or may not pass muster. I don't think anyone would challenge minimum salaries (though I'm not sure why the league would want them). The draft and salary cap are pretty blatant. (I don't think Brady et al. are challenging the draft. I'd have to look at the complaint again.)In any case, your point is well taken. The players don't want a salary cap without a new CBA, and the owners don't want a football season without a new CBA. The qualification is important, but it doesn't change my preference as a self-interested fan. With or without a new CBA, if I had to pick, I would prefer a season without a salary cap over a salary cap without a season.

Fairly certain one of the plaintiffs in the case was a top 5-10 draft pick this year, so I believe the draft is on the table as part of the suit.

I just looked at the complaint again. They are indeed asking to do away with the draft. (Paragraph 2 on page 48.)

Also, if Im counsel to one of the teams, I'd advise against working under any conditions that could be construed collusory, including a league administered drug testing program or a minimum salary - treble damages are quite a deterent.

Who is damaged by paying players a minimum salary? Zero, after being trebled, is still zero. A few players may be damaged by a drug-testing program, but a reasonable drug-testing program is almost certainly legal, IMO.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

That's my serious question to the pro-players side. Aren't you worried about the game being ruined? CalBear is okay with a baseball type system. Are you?

What part of the baseball system are you worried about? Before you answer... the last ten MLB and NFL champs-backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox(2), White Sox, Cards, Phillies, Yankees, GiantsRavens, Patriots(3), Tampa Bay, Steelers(2), Colts, Giants, Saints, Packers

Since 1999 every team in the NFL has made the playoff at least one time. In MLB, KC has not made the playoffs since 1985. Washington/Montreal since 1981. Pittsburgh 1992. Toronto 1993. Baltimore 1997.It is not only about how many different teams win it. It is about ALL teams feeling like they have a chance to win or at least make the playoffs every year. I doubt if you talk to any Pirates or Royals fans in March that they have any hope of making the playoffs. I think in the past 6 years there has been an NFL team that finished last the prior year that has won their division the next year.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It looks like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will file a brief in support of the owners.