Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[Maurile Tremblay]

UPDATE: The motion to stay pending appeal was just granted by the 8th Circuit. It was a 2-1 decision. So the lockout will continue until probably at least until mid June or early July.

The text of the decision should be posted here shortly.

 

[JFurby]

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.

I'm not a lawyer. In fact, I'm not even smart but reading through the Clarett decision leads me to believe any underclassman could easily challenge the "3 years out of high school" rule in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement.

 

[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.

I'm not a lawyer. In fact, I'm not even smart but reading through the Clarett decision leads me to believe any underclassman could easily challenge the "3 years out of high school" rule in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Yes, but not in the non-absence of a collective bargaining agreement. (I think that was the question being discussed above.)

 

[The Comedian]

Stay has been ruled on - lockout will stay in place through the appeal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's the opinion.

 

[JFurby]

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.

I'm not a lawyer. In fact, I'm not even smart but reading through the Clarett decision leads me to believe any underclassman could easily challenge the "3 years out of high school" rule in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Yes, but not in the non-absence of a collective bargaining agreement. (I think that was the question being discussed above.)

I still am optimistic that this whole mess ends in a new CBA. But if we make it to next spring without a new agreement in place, it would be interesting to see if any underclassmen that are in a Clarett-like situation try to challenge the 3 year rule as part of or separate from any challenge of the draft itself.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Skimming through the opinion . . .

This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.

In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination of those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not a lawyer. In fact, I'm not even smart but reading through the Clarett decision leads me to believe any underclassman could easily challenge the "3 years out of high school" rule in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Yes, but not in the non-absence of a collective bargaining agreement. (I think that was the question being discussed above.)

Maurile, what are the obligations of a union to do the best it can for all of its members? Could incoming members challenge the CBA and have a chance of winning if they could demonstrate real harm to their earnings power? I'm thinking that in light of the notoriously short careers of pro football players, these claims might be seen with increasing sympathy -- assuming they have grounds to begin with, of course.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

 

[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 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.

A minumum salary creates a distortion in the job market that adversely effects the top salaries in the league. Also, I think it would serve as a wake-up call to many of the veterans. As for the drug testing, or really any of this, I fail to see the upside for the individual teams. Of course, I also think a salary cap generally isn't in the interest of the owners, but that's something else entirely.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

 

[JFurby]

[QUOTE='United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT]Both sides raise valid points, and this is a case in which one party or the other likely will suffer some degree of irreparable harm no matter how this court resolves the motion for a stay pending appeal. We do not agree, however, with the district court’s apparent view that the balance of the equities tilts heavily in favor of the Players. The district court gave little or no weight to the harm caused to the League by an injunction issued in the midst of an ongoing dispute over terms and conditions of employment. The court found irreparable harm to the Players because the lockout prevents free agents from negotiating contracts with any team, but gave no weight to harm that would be caused to the League by player transactions that would occur only with an injunction against the lockout. The court gave full weight to affidavit evidence submitted by the Players, although that proof was untested by cross examination at a hearing.
[/QUOTE]Seems like a lot of similar thoughts are peppered throughout the court of appeals opinion that Judge Nelson ignored or under-weighted many of the owner arguments. If nothing else, the owners seem to have gained a more level playing field.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile, what are the obligations of a union to do the best it can for all of its members? Could incoming members challenge the CBA and have a chance of winning if they could demonstrate real harm to their earnings power?

I think there's such a thing as negotiating such bad terms for prospective employees that it amounts to a breach of duty to them by the union. But I think it's generally a difficult claim.Leon Wood challenged the NBA draft on those grounds. He wasn't a member of the union when the CBA was negotiated, and he felt that the draft was unfair to incoming players. The appellate court rejected Wood's arguments, observing that new union members often find themselves disadvantaged vis-a-vis more senior union members, and that collective bargaining units commonly disadvantage prospective employees about to enter the union. It's just business as usual.

 

[Hoosier16]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

It sure reads like a big win for the owners is coming. It also sounded like a decision would occur pretty quickly (it almost sounded like they have already made it, even though they stressed otherwise). I don't see how this doesn't affect the players and their willingness to negotiate again.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

I think the court seems to be leaning in that direction, yes. (Then we may get a rehearing en banc from the full 8th Circuit . . .)

 

[CalBear]

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, Giants

Ravens, 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.

"Made the playoffs" is not the right metric, because it's a lot easier to make the playoffs in the NFL (12 of 32 teams vs. 8 of 32 teams). By any reasonable metric, bottom-feeder teams are just as successful in MLB as they are in the NFL. In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

The owners dont want a fair deal, I think they want to break the players and dictate terms. The player just watn the old system. Im hoping the court of appeals doesnt reverse the decision because if they do, I doubt we have football on time

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

And that's the experience around the world too. Parity is irrelevant to the success of sports leagues.Fans here who favor the owners pretend otherwise, but it's just not true.

 

[dparker713]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

The owners dont want a fair deal, I think they want to break the players and dictate terms. The player just watn the old system. Im hoping the court of appeals doesnt reverse the decision because if they do, I doubt we have football on time

The owners claim the old deal wasn't a fair deal to them. Neither side wants fair. They both want more.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

The owners dont want a fair deal, I think they want to break the players and dictate terms. The player just watn the old system. Im hoping the court of appeals doesnt reverse the decision because if they do, I doubt we have football on time

The owners claim the old deal wasn't a fair deal to them. Neither side wants fair. They both want more.

This cant be claimed when you/nobody is allowed to see the actual finances.

 

[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, Giants

Ravens, 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.

"Made the playoffs" is not the right metric, because it's a lot easier to make the playoffs in the NFL (12 of 32 teams vs. 8 of 32 teams). By any reasonable metric, bottom-feeder teams are just as successful in MLB as they are in the NFL. In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

Why isn't making the playoffs a reasonable metric? You think that bottom feeder teams like KC and Montreal/Washington can be said to have ANY measure of success in the past 20 years? In the last 15 years the Royals have finished last in their division 8 times, 4th 6 times and 3rd once.

In the last 15 years the Wash/Mon franchise finished last 7 times, 4th 7 times and 2nd once.

In the last 15 years Pitt has finished last 8 times, 5th 4 times and fourth twice and third once.

If making the playoffs is not a reasonable metric,what about the amount of times you finish LAST in your division?

How about finishing with a .500 record?

Pitt last time finished .500 or better - 1992

KC - once in the last 15 years - 2003

Washington(never)/MON - 3 times in last 15 years

So not to be too arguementative but please give me a reasonable metric of success where the Royals or the Pirates can be deemed successful (on the field).

Edited becasue I appartently can't read.

 

[cobalt_27]

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

And that's the experience around the world too. Parity is irrelevant to the success of sports leagues.Fans here who favor the owners pretend otherwise, but it's just not true.

If you had a valid comparison group in any of the major sports (one professional sport that had parity versus one that did not), then you could make this a legitimate argument or at least directly answer whether it's true or not. However, anyone involved in research design would say to you that, in the absence of a valid comparison group, then it's just your opinion. Just as valid as mine, just as valid as anyone else's.But, I can understand as a fan of the players, you pretend to think otherwise.

 

[David Dodds]

At least the Appeal judges ruled. It was looking like they were never going to do that. Although this probably is good news to keep the game intact to how the fans likely want it, I say the chance for lost games (or lost season) definitely is in play now.

 

[cobalt_27]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

The owners dont want a fair deal, I think they want to break the players and dictate terms. The player just watn the old system. Im hoping the court of appeals doesnt reverse the decision because if they do, I doubt we have football on time

If people here want "fairness" I ask that this be operationalized and defined somehow. I don't think that's what the owners want, either. I don't think they care any more than the players do about what's fair. They want a deal that best allows them to securely go about their business and be profitable. The players want the same thing. But, to suggest there's a fairness model here--for either side--just seems like a lost cause.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

And that's the experience around the world too. Parity is irrelevant to the success of sports leagues.Fans here who favor the owners pretend otherwise, but it's just not true.

If you had a valid comparison group in any of the major sports (one professional sport that had parity versus one that did not), then you could make this a legitimate argument or at least directly answer whether it's true or not. However, anyone involved in research design would say to you that, in the absence of a valid comparison group, then it's just your opinion. Just as valid as mine, just as valid as anyone else's.But, I can understand as a fan of the players, you pretend to think otherwise.

Do your own homework. Most leagues in the world don't have parity (in fact, they have anti-parity) and are enormously popular.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

The owners dont want a fair deal, I think they want to break the players and dictate terms. The player just watn the old system. Im hoping the court of appeals doesnt reverse the decision because if they do, I doubt we have football on time

If people here want "fairness" I ask that this be operationalized and defined somehow. I don't think that's what the owners want, either. I don't think they care any more than the players do about what's fair. They want a deal that best allows them to securely go about their business and be profitable. The players want the same thing. But, to suggest there's a fairness model here--for either side--just seems like a lost cause.

most of the owners are making plenty of cash, but want to control the rising salaries. They have that with a cap, etc. I think the 2006 deal isnt as sweet as the previous deal obviously.Im a football fan and I want football this season. I think both sides suck ### and hate the business side of sports. The players have a nuclear option to try and smash the business model in anti-trust court, however that will take awhile and Im not sure the players have the fortitude to withstand no money for a year or more. The Owners have made a calculated risk that they would win in appeal court get to maintain the lockout and dictate terms once the players fold. They even tried to get 4 billion bucks to split among themselves to help ease the pain.Again, i just want to enjoy football this fall so Im rooting for Judge nelsons ruling to be upheld and the season should start.

 

[CalBear]

"Made the playoffs" is not the right metric, because it's a lot easier to make the playoffs in the NFL (12 of 32 teams vs. 8 of 32 teams). By any reasonable metric, bottom-feeder teams are just as successful in MLB as they are in the NFL.

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

Why isn't making the playoffs a reasonable metric? You think that bottom feeder teams like KC and Montreal/Washington can be said to have ANY measure of success in the past 20 years? In the last 15 years the Royals have finished last in their division 8 times, 4th 6 times and 3rd once.

In the last 15 years the Wash/Mon franchise finished last 7 times, 4th 7 times and 2nd once.

In the last 15 years Pitt has finished last 8 times, 5th 4 times and fourth twice and third once.

If making the playoffs is not a reasonable metric,what about the amount of times you finish LAST in your division?

How about finishing with a .500 record?

Pitt last time finished .500 or better - 1992

KC - once in the last 15 years - 2003

Washington(never)/MON - 3 times in last 15 years

So not to be too arguementative but please give me a reasonable metric of success where the Royals or the Pirates can be deemed successful (on the field).

Edited becasue I appartently can't read.

As I said, you can't use making the playoffs as a metric because 50% more teams make the playoffs each year in the NFL compared to MLB. Adding four more playoff spots wouldn't increase MLB parity.If you want examples of NFL futility:

Detroit Lions: Last in division 5 years in a row and counting, 9 times in last 15 years. .500 or better record 3 times in that time frame (never better than 9-7). Proud owners of a winless season.

Cleveland Browns: Last in division 8 times in the 12 years since they've come back into existence. .500 or better record 2 times in that time frame. Before that, six losing seasons in a row.

Arizona Cardinals: Had two years of decent play in 2008-2009--before that had only one winning season between 1985 and 2007.

Surely you could have come up with those on your own.

 

[Mark Wimer]

At least the Appeal judges ruled. It was looking like they were never going to do that. Although this probably is good news to keep the game intact to how the fans likely want it, I say the chance for lost games (or lost season) definitely is in play now.

NFL = Fans = CBA negotiations are now The appellate court came down pretty strongly on the side of the owners according to initial reports - telegraphing how that court may rule on the whole case in June/July. Hopefully both sides will feel some urgency to bargain again now, with the players' early victories now cast in doubt at the appellate level. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[cobalt_27]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

It sure reads like a big win for the owners is coming. It also sounded like a decision would occur pretty quickly (it almost sounded like they have already made it, even though they stressed otherwise). I don't see how this doesn't affect the players and their willingness to negotiate again.

If they were feeling all high and mighty and unwilling to negotiate anything less than the previous deal after Judge Nelson ruled on their case, at least I hope they have second thoughts about their level of confidence of having this sort of leverage play. Totally agree with you...I hope this spurs them on to have an honest negotiation with the owners and iron out a deal that splits up this $10 billion so that both sides can be satisfied.

 

[cobalt_27]

Again, i just want to enjoy football this fall so Im rooting for Judge nelsons ruling to be upheld and the season should start.

Yup, the immediate gain part of me wants this, too. I can't help but side with the owners philosophically here, but...I'd prefer football over my principles at this point. But, the ultimate hope is that they do some genuine negotiating and that the players become serious about it now. Hell, take a page out of Irsay's book and just iron this out with Jeff Saturday and get a deal done. That's the only way to ensure (or at least increase the odds) that we're not in this same damn boat next year.

 

[shader]

I think today's ruling is good for the chances of a quick deal. With the courts on the owners side the players will cave quickly.

 

[pacman_fl]

First, outside of the tangent debates between pro-player/pro-owner, this thread has been a great wealth of information. Sadly, we (as fans) need some board members representing both sides in negotiations as there has been more passion (in my view) displayed in this thread than by either side on reaching a resolution. One of my main issues during the "posturing" has been the PR spin by both sides. This latest REALLY bothered me for some reason and I feel it insults the intelligence of the educated core base of NFL fans - http://www.nfllockout.com/

“The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season. The court will hear the full appeal on June 3.”

Really? There will be NO football (yes, I understand we won't for now) because of this ruling? ONLY because of this ruling?

Lastly, some questions that have been bottled up and I am hoping to get some views by those of you have greatly contributed to this thread:

1. My gut tells me that May 31st is a probable "deadline" date (for starting the season on time)- this is almost 2 full months before camps. Plenty of time for FA, OTA, rookie signings, etc

2. I know I am giving too much credit here, but after that date wouldn't the networks begin worrying about lost advertising for the broadcasts? If so, both sides are aware of this and the consequences.

3. What is a "realistic" deadline to start the season on time while getting players through OTAs & camps

4. This is a tough question to ask on this board,but does "the public" care about any of this right now? Both sides are doing the PR spin, but who is following? Likely (outside the networks, advertisers and team employees), only dynasty league fantasy players.

Thanks again for the opinions and information provided here - it has been a great central location for updates.

 

[cobalt_27]

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

And that's the experience around the world too. Parity is irrelevant to the success of sports leagues.Fans here who favor the owners pretend otherwise, but it's just not true.

If you had a valid comparison group in any of the major sports (one professional sport that had parity versus one that did not), then you could make this a legitimate argument or at least directly answer whether it's true or not. However, anyone involved in research design would say to you that, in the absence of a valid comparison group, then it's just your opinion. Just as valid as mine, just as valid as anyone else's.But, I can understand as a fan of the players, you pretend to think otherwise.

Do your own homework. Most leagues in the world don't have parity (in fact, they have anti-parity) and are enormously popular.

First your argument is that parity is "irrelevant." You get challenged on that and then backpedal and claim that a lot of leagues that don't have parity are "popular." Nobody would disagree that leagues that have limited/anti-parity are popular. The point you raised was that parity was irrelevant, which doesn't make any sense. I don't think it logically holds that fans will support a league where only a few teams are competitive over a league with the same players distributed evenly and enjoy parity. Anyway, in the absence of a side-by-side comparison group, your opinion is just that--an opinion. Thanks for playing.

 

[David Dodds]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc.

This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

 

[cobalt_27]

First, outside of the tangent debates between pro-player/pro-owner, this thread has been a great wealth of information. Sadly, we (as fans) need some board members representing both sides in negotiations as there has been more passion (in my view) displayed in this thread than by either side on reaching a resolution. One of my main issues during the "posturing" has been the PR spin by both sides. This latest REALLY bothered me for some reason and I feel it insults the intelligence of the educated core base of NFL fans - http://www.nfllockout.com/

“The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season. The court will hear the full appeal on June 3.”

Really? There will be NO football (yes, I understand we won't for now) because of this ruling? ONLY because of this ruling?

Lastly, some questions that have been bottled up and I am hoping to get some views by those of you have greatly contributed to this thread:

1. My gut tells me that May 31st is a probable "deadline" date (for starting the season on time)- this is almost 2 full months before camps. Plenty of time for FA, OTA, rookie signings, etc

2. I know I am giving too much credit here, but after that date wouldn't the networks begin worrying about lost advertising for the broadcasts? If so, both sides are aware of this and the consequences.

3. What is a "realistic" deadline to start the season on time while getting players through OTAs & camps

4. This is a tough question to ask on this board,but does "the public" care about any of this right now? Both sides are doing the PR spin, but who is following? Likely (outside the networks, advertisers and team employees), only dynasty league fantasy players.

Thanks again for the opinions and information provided here - it has been a great central location for updates.

Good post. I think, though, the deadline is going to be much later than May 31st. The networks have so much profits to make from the NFL that they'll withstand anything up until the final, last-minute deadline. In other words, they'll pay for whatever games the NFL plays because advertisers will still be tripping all over themselves to dole out the cash for exposure during those games. So, I wouldn't worry about that now.I also think it's possible to have football games without OTAs and minicamps. Some (sorry, no reference, just recollection) have indicated that they would need 2 weeks minimum. So, that puts us in late-August. That's a serious deadline crunch, but that's at least what I've heard speculated.

I think the general public is pretty unaware of what's happening, other than there's some sort of squabble between millionaires and billionaires. Folks like us are a small portion of the diehards and are totally agitated by what's going on right now in May. Wait until late-July/early-August for there to be more mainstream attention paid to this and lots of people getting riled up/pissed off. As much as this annoys me, I still feel we're early in the game. I want to see my Cowboys open camp, get my dates cemented for seeing a few games, I've got dynasty leagues that are active but tentative...I want this to end now. But, I don't feel we're going to be without football, and a lot of that hinges on what direction the shifting winds of legal momentum finally settled on. I think the Eighth Circuit gave a hint to this effect today. The players still have their anti-trust suit, but they have to be willing to be without paychecks for a long time before that gets settled. And, I'm hopeful they're not that entrenched in this position. I trust they won't be.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

Couldn't agree more with you about Goodell. He's terrible. I go back to when he was working under Tags and had some just downright stupid things to say about concussions and did everything he could to minimize the issue. Now, he's all of a sudden the face of protecting the players? He's such a phoney.

 

[pacman_fl]

David/Cobalt - thanks for the views and your timelines (though not optimal) make good sense. Cobalt, I am in complete agreement with you - my buddy and I wanted to make plans for our yearly Packer outting but there is NO WAY I am booking flights, hotel, buying tickets at this point. Also, my dynasty leagues are lacking the usual "hum" that occurs this time of year. These are just annoyances for us though.

Also, I won't disagree on Goodell - I think his PR efforts have not come across as sincere or highly effective (honestly, there is NO effective PR in my book except locking yourself in mediation until a deal is reached). At the same time, David, I don't think it's fair to single just Goodell out (if that wasn't your intention, then apologies). It takes two to tango and I haven't seen anything from D Smith (or the rest of the "Trade Association") that strikes me as being more professional or committed than I have seen from Goodell.

Maybe it's just me, but I get the sense that he is a "puppet" for the owners at this point as much as I feel Selig is for the MLB owners. I think the "haves" of the ownership group is driving the bus but that doesn't absolve Goodell of responsibility. Thanks again - back to lurking and hoping this gets resolved sooner rather than later (though I feel optimistic today).

 

[renesauz]

"Made the playoffs" is not the right metric, because it's a lot easier to make the playoffs in the NFL (12 of 32 teams vs. 8 of 32 teams). By any reasonable metric, bottom-feeder teams are just as successful in MLB as they are in the NFL.

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

Really? Seems to me that out of the several DOZEN college football games every weekend, there are rarely more than 4 or 5, if that many, compelling games. Most of us like college football in general, but if the NFL had that kind of parity, it would be doomed. I NEVER miss an Eagles game. I only look for the important PSU games....and even then will stop watching after the team loses once or twice and is out of the running for a league title or significant bowl game. I'm NOT alone.

 

[renesauz]

Do your own homework. Most leagues in the world don't have parity (in fact, they have anti-parity) and are enormously popular.

And none of them could be MORE popular with parity?People watch more often when the games are compelling and meaningful. TV ratings prove this. Parity leads to more compelling and meaningful games.The Giants will still draw fans and sell ouyt and draw TV ratings. So will the Skins, and Cowboys, and a couple other teams. Other teams would never again be on TV UNLESS it's as a sacrifice to the powerhouse teams.And they'd lose fans in droves, including me.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm not sure English/Spanish/etc soccer could be more popular. But I'll grant that it's not impossible.

Will you grant that anyone asserting lack of parity will kill a sport is talking out their ### with no evidence anywhere on the planet to support the claim?

 

[CalBear]

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

Really? Seems to me that out of the several DOZEN college football games every weekend, there are rarely more than 4 or 5, if that many, compelling games. Most of us like college football in general, but if the NFL had that kind of parity, it would be doomed. I NEVER miss an Eagles game. I only look for the important PSU games....and even then will stop watching after the team loses once or twice and is out of the running for a league title or significant bowl game. I'm NOT alone.

100K PSU fans in possibly the ugliest stadium in the world beg to differ with you. Despite having only one significant bowl win in the past 15 years, they still sell out that monstrosity for exciting games against teams like Youngstown and Kent State.If you're making the claim that the NFL cannot possibly exist without a draft and franchise tags, you will have to come up with better evidence than "that's the way it is now."

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not sure English/Spanish/etc soccer could be more popular. But I'll grant that it's not impossible.

Will you grant that anyone asserting lack of parity will kill a sport is talking out their ### with no evidence anywhere on the planet to support the claim?

I do not agree with the statement that lack of parity will kill the sport. I think there is some (not insignificant) bump that the NFL enjoys because of the conditions under which parity is supported (e.g., salary cap, free agency, revenue sharing). But, no...I completely agree with you that the NFL would continue to function with less parity.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

 

[dparker713]

In any case, I was not suggesting that the NFL should move to an MLB-style system. I just think it's impossible to argue that the NFL would be ruined by an MLB-style system. The interesting thing about football is, well, football. College football is still fun to watch even though there's no parity whatsoever.

And that's the experience around the world too. Parity is irrelevant to the success of sports leagues.Fans here who favor the owners pretend otherwise, but it's just not true.

If you had a valid comparison group in any of the major sports (one professional sport that had parity versus one that did not), then you could make this a legitimate argument or at least directly answer whether it's true or not. However, anyone involved in research design would say to you that, in the absence of a valid comparison group, then it's just your opinion. Just as valid as mine, just as valid as anyone else's.But, I can understand as a fan of the players, you pretend to think otherwise.

Do your own homework. Most leagues in the world don't have parity (in fact, they have anti-parity) and are enormously popular.

First your argument is that parity is "irrelevant." You get challenged on that and then backpedal and claim that a lot of leagues that don't have parity are "popular." Nobody would disagree that leagues that have limited/anti-parity are popular. The point you raised was that parity was irrelevant, which doesn't make any sense. I don't think it logically holds that fans will support a league where only a few teams are competitive over a league with the same players distributed evenly and enjoy parity. Anyway, in the absence of a side-by-side comparison group, your opinion is just that--an opinion. Thanks for playing.

Plenty of other factors in play of course, but the MLS is a capped league with rules designed to encourage parity. It pales in comparision to La Liga, the Premiership, the Bundesleagua, or really any number of other soccer leagues throughout the world.

 

[dparker713]

Skimming through the opinion . . .This appears to be a big win for the owners. The court seems to be buying the owners' arguments about jurisdiction: this case involves a labor dispute, or at least grows out of one; and in any case, injunctions against lockouts aren't allowed.In other words, the owners didn't win on the stay simply because of issues pertaining only to the stay. They won on the stay because of issues that will affect the whole case. This isn't a final determination on those issues, but it's a strong hint. Like I said, a big win for the owners.

SO you think the Appeal court eventually will overturn Judge Nelsons ruling?Then we will have a lock-out, and unless the players cave, a delay to the season.

One of the factors in upholding the stay was likelihood of prevailing on the merits and they did spend some time discussing the Norris-LaGuardia act and came down pretty decisively on the owner's side. They were careful to say this was not an adjudication on the merits, but did show a tendency to support the Owner's argument re: jurisdiction.I'm hoping this puts some urgency in both parties' desire to negotiate a fair deal.

The owners dont want a fair deal, I think they want to break the players and dictate terms. The player just watn the old system. Im hoping the court of appeals doesnt reverse the decision because if they do, I doubt we have football on time

The owners claim the old deal wasn't a fair deal to them. Neither side wants fair. They both want more.

This cant be claimed when you/nobody is allowed to see the actual finances.

Wht cant be claimed? Tht neither side wants fair? Both sides have acted in a manner to get the best possible deal for themselves. And the owners can make whatever claims they want about the fairness of the past deal, but the fairness of any deal is really irrelevant.

 

[JaxBill]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

Unfortunately, I don't think the players do anything until the first week of August. They're not in a hurry to get to camp, but they can see their first paycheck (still a month out) going away.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

The owners may infact get this overturned on appeal, but the players leverage is the anti-trust stuff. Really both sides need to quit fing around get to the table. Nothing will happen until the appeal is ruled on. Why would it, right now its a stalemate.I dont like D.Smith either, but whats the recent statement the players side released?

 

[cobalt_27]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc. This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

Thank you. Extremely . Ball's in D.Smith's court now. Now please do something productive with it. Get back to the table and get serious about it.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc.

This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.

Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.

To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

The owners may infact get this overturned on appeal, but the players leverage is the anti-trust stuff. Really both sides need to quit fing around get to the table.

Nothing will happen until the appeal is ruled on. Why would it, right now its a stalemate.

I dont like D.Smith either, but whats the recent statement the players side released?

Here are their respective statements:NFLPA statement

"The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season."

NFL Statement

"It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans. This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation."

 

[Andrew Garda]

I think the key date is around July 15th. This would allow 2-3 weeks for expedited free agency, a shortened training camp, two preseason games and then the season. Remember though that the NFL constructed a schedule to allow up to 3 games to be cancelled (and made up later). I expect the owners to use this as a tool to try and force things. After a certain date, I believe they will state that week 1 has been cancelled, etc.

This is likely to get extremely ugly in the short term. To date I have not been very impressed with Goodell. I know he is paid by the owners, but as the Commish he has to be engaged with the opposition (and be forceful to the owners making unrealistic demands) to bridge a deal. Here's hoping Goodell stops all the PRing and actually gets both sides to work towards a deal.

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking re: Goodell. He works for the owners. The owners have wanted out of this CBA for 2+ years, and have made no secret of that. The PLAYERS opted to pre-empt the lockout by decertification and, just a few weeks ago many were calling it a brilliant move as the owners were caught "unaware" (LOFL) and even questioning the owners intelligence and legal opinion. Yet, a few weeks later we're back to the point we thought we were at before Nelson ruled, which is to say that the owners had a strong case, a case they appear to be winning. Goodell has done exactly what the owners wanted him to do from jump street. It's not his job to broker a deal for the sake of it. It's his job to broker a deal that the owners can live with, and when the owners want him to.

Based on what we know for today, the owners basically got a grand slam finding today. And yet they immediately sent the NFLPA a proposal and asked for them to continue negotiating. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that the last proposal was ALSO by the OWNERS. The NFLPA responded to the last proposal by decertifying, and now have released a pouty, terse statement that insults the intelligence of the fans.

To me the clown in this thing, so far, is D. Smith. Not sure why anyone would be questioning the way Goodell has gone about his business.

The owners may infact get this overturned on appeal, but the players leverage is the anti-trust stuff. Really both sides need to quit fing around get to the table.

Nothing will happen until the appeal is ruled on. Why would it, right now its a stalemate.

I dont like D.Smith either, but whats the recent statement the players side released?

Here are their respective statements:NFLPA statement

"The NFL's request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season."

NFL Statement

"It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans. This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation."

Pouty indeed. My only issue with anything you wrote Jason, is the implication that the owners were really serious about a deal since they were the last people to throw one out there before decertification. Not only were the terms of that deal not as good as everyone thinks they were, several of the owners spent weeks belittling the players and then waited until the last minute to toss a deal on the table which should have been their first counter... a counter they did not make, instead sulkily walking away from the table after the players' first offer.

other than that, I do agree DeMo has been a pretty big disaster in some ways for the players and Goodell gets burned in effigy too often given he has no say over what the owners do.

I hope both sides can find a deal which works for all involved or we are likely to be back here having the same discussion in 3-5 years...