Valid statement of fact. Couldn't the players accept the owners last offer?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
And the players have filed anti-trust lawsuits to force the owners to give in to theirs...lawsuits which, according to NLA, might well be illegal at this early stage. I don't like the lockout strategy...I'm not sure it's particularly fair. But I LOATHE the decertifiaction strategy. I know it's not fair. I can understand the lockout as an answer to decert...which is what happened.
Are the individual NFL teams REALLY competing companies? They are in some ways, but aren't in just as many ways.
maxwelledison
Footballguy
Why are you still saying this? It's not productive for the thread and it is disingenuous. The players decertified so that the owners couldn't lock them out (owners cannot lock out a group of non-union workers). It doesn't mean it will work for a myriad of reasons already discussed but your causal drum that the owners only locked out the players because they decertified is fantasy.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
The owners offered the players an extension w/o a lockout to continue talks. The players declined. I think it's disingenuous to deliberately omit this fact. Had the owners never offered that extension, I'd have no problem with the players decertifying. They would have had to. But, the owners did offer to extend talks and not lock them out. So, yeah, the players pretty much started this.Bottom line, you seem to gloss over the fact that the players have shown nothing but disinterest in negotiations this whole way. Decertification clearly was their strategy all along. If they lose in the Eighth Circuit, then we'll see them actually navigate mediation with some seriousness. But, up until that happens, they were going to be obstructionists and spouting rhetoric to sway public opinion the whole way.
Last edited by a moderator:
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
They would find out that it's WAY more difficult to do that than you think, lol.
maxwelledison
Footballguy
One party breached a duty to another two years prior in anticipation of locking them out but the other party is at fault because they didn't accept an eleventh hour invitation to extend discussions that were going nowhere? Very reasonable.
For purposes of whether they're allowed to collude to restrict the labor market, it doesn't matter that the NFL teams don't compete with each other for TV contracts. What matters is whether they compete with each other to sign players. They do.
Opting out of the CBA wasn't a breach. It was the exercise of an option.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
This thread is fascinating. A couple of very intelligent well thought out discussions followed by post after post of partisan horse crap. It's the FFA in the Shark Pool. I love it.
maxwelledison
Footballguy
Not negotiating in good faith for the TV contracts was the breach. That was clearly done in anticipation of locking out the players.
Right. Employers are not allowed to lock out validly decertified employees. The lockout was based on the premise that the players didn't validly decertify. So the lockout couldn't have been a response to decertification. (Although it could have been a response to the antitrust lawsuit, which was based on decertification.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, okay.
maxwelledison
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
So, you accept that the players planned to decertify all along? Look, the owners have been roundly criticized here and elsewhere for the tv deal. That was bad form, and they'll pay for it. In fact, I think it emboldens the players negotiating stance. Nevertheless, let's not let this derail the entire process and confuse what happened that Friday. The owners made the offer to extend talks, and the players chose to litigate. Here we are.
Rockchild
Footballguy
The owners had their strategy to hardline things even after one minor and then a second longer extension with, I can only assume, little movement and then offer a last minute proposal that the players deemed unworthy of considering and decided to not accept another extension. They felt things were futile and decertified. They're using every available tool to protect what they had just like any of us would. If they lose in the Eighth Circuit Court, which I still doubt they will by the simple fact that they decertified and can't see how a court can, in effect, force the players to stay unionized, then they might change their focus.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
The lockout ultimately was in response to the players walking away from the table. Decertification was the second behavior within probably the same hour that communicated the players were not interested in negotiating this through.
Kinda my point. But thanks
cobalt_27
Footballguy
So, you're not at all convinced that the content of the Eighth Circuit's brief yesterday is a portend of things to come?I think both sides are guilty of hardlining things. The players never wanted to move away from the 2006 extension, and the owners wanted nothing to do with it anymore. So, both sides were entrenched. Both sides of nearly every big negotiation are going to low ball the other. My frustration is that they ultimately have to negotiate this thing out, and the players gave up on this process. I think I swing the other way here...the Eighth Circuit will eventually decide in favor of the owners. Hopefully, this stimulates productive negotiations.
maxwelledison
Footballguy
I accept that a (the?) counter to a threatened lockout is decertification. The owners obviously knew this was the players' only move but they still prepared for a labor stoppage (be it lockout or the mess we are in now) by knowingly violating a contractual term in order to build a war chest. To say, like rene did above, that the lockout was a response to the decert is just plain false (and technically impossible). Regardless, at this point the players need to know that they face an uphill battle on the jurisdictional argument (NLRB v. Fed Ct.). The smart move would be to come to the table and try to make a deal that makes sense. Whether that can happen, due to stubbornness on both sides, is something I unfortunately doubt.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the court has to prove the players are unionized or force them to be a union. I think the court is saying its a labor issue and Nelson had no jurisdiction to rule. I don't know if you have to be a union to be in a labor dispute.
Rockchild
Footballguy
I'm a bit confused by it and, yes, less convinced than I was before but still can't see how a lockout of non-unionized employees can be upheld. The decision yesterday could be interpreted as a protection, if you will, that the owners could, not will, win and the 'unscrambling of the eggs' would be undoable so easier to keep the lockout in effect. The status quo until the hearing is heard makes sense.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
what happened to Judge Nelson ruling was written in such away that appeal would be near impossible?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Airtight
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you read the brief written by the NHL in support?As I understand it, decertification does not mean that the employer immediately become vulnerable to trust issues that had been previously allowed via a CBA. The brief talked a lot about the NLA, which seems to say that all the normal negotiating tactics (including lockouts) remain viable options provided the dispute arose out of bargaining with a union. Other decisions of the supreme court quoted suggest that the reason for that is to prevent what the players (apparently) did....which was use decertification and anti-trust suits as negotiating leverage.It seems logical and reasonable to me that SOME process should be involved more intricate (and time-consuming) than a simple declaration that "we're not a union any more" before the players can sue. It also seems reasonable that that time and process should be governed and controlled by the NLRB first, and the courts second.IN the end, there seems to be a pretty strong argument that what the owners have done is very much above board and legal...and apparently the appeals court believes the same (although we would be foolish to assume that the stay means they've already decided in the owners favor on the issue....merely that they see enough evidance to suggest that there's a good chance they will with more thorough review.)
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Some interesting excerpts from the Eighth Circuit's brief that answers your question (as was mine) about lockouts of non-unionized employees...The plain language of the Act states that a case involves or grows out of a labor dispute when it is “between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Act does not specify that the employees must be members of a union for the case to involve or grow out of a labor dispute.
Given the close temporal and substantive relationship linking this case with the labor dispute between League and the Players’ union, we struggle at this juncture to see why
this case is not at least one “growing out of a labor dispute” – even under the district court’s view that union involvement is required for a labor dispute.
In sum, we have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.
[...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. Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 107. The district court’s analysis was conducted without the benefit of knowledge that this appeal will be submitted for decision on a highly expedited schedule – a circumstance that should minimize harm to the Players during the off-season and allow the case to be resolved well before the scheduled beginning of the 2011 season.
Lucky Lefty
Footballguy
I'm so sick of this type of thinking'GridironMenace said:
... WE DON'T WORK FOR FBG!!! THEY PROVIDE A SERVICE, AND PLEASE STOP USING SMALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS Logic TO A MULTI-BILLION DOLLARS CO. There has been some excellent post discussing both side and I enjoying reading both party opinions. I have notice a couple of posters are siding with the owners because of jealously, like "how can the players playing a kids game making hundreds of thousands and for some millions demand to see the NFL Profits and Loss Reports?" "They should just take a deal and shut up"... They (players) are gifted and blessed with talent from above, and someone is making a profit off of them. They should come together and stop this pissing contest..Lucky Lefty
Footballguy
“The sooner that the players take a stand and insist on compromise over an ongoing attempt to obtain leverage, the better off everyone will be.”
another good post
another good post
Rockchild
Footballguy
I felt that the dissenting view cited much more specific and relevant cases and refuted the majorities interpretations with these cases. I guess we'll find out in mid June now.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Yeah, apologies to scoobygang, as I have no interpretive value to add to this discussion beyond this. The legal merits for both sides seem unclear (or at least unresolved), and even the knowledgeable lawyers here may have been in error when they claimed Nelson's decision a slam dunk to be upheld on appeal. The owners currently enjoy a 2-1 advantage. Perhaps one of the judges changes his mind.
At this point, I may have to adjust my August cheatsheets accordingly. With the first pick of the 2011 draft, cobalt_27 selects:
1.01 Norris-La Guardia Act
Jason Wood
Zoo York
William Gould, a former head of the NLRB under Bill Clinton (he was overseeing the NLRB during the baseball strike), spoke on Sirius NFL this afternoon and said he wasn't surprised by the outcome of the 8th Circuit's finding on the stay, but he was surprised by the lengths they went in their ruling on the stay to cast doubt on Judge Nelson's finding. He thought they would save that level of detail for the June 3rd hearing on the appeal. In any event, he said in his view there's virtually no chance the owners lose the June 3rd hearing, and if the players want to get back to work, they're going to have to "get back to the drawing board and accept that they're going to have to take less than they thought they were going to get" or this will be a protracted situation.
He did note that Judge Doty could make things interesting if he finds for considerable punitive damages related to the TV money case. But he also noted that the NFL can and will appeal Doty's ruling to the 8th Circuit, as well.
He did note that Judge Doty could make things interesting if he finds for considerable punitive damages related to the TV money case. But he also noted that the NFL can and will appeal Doty's ruling to the 8th Circuit, as well.
so the pro owners argument has devolved into "well, thats just the way its alwasy been, cant change it." nice thats nice.
i cant prove anything. i can only point to analogous examples, most comparable being euro soccer and mlb and nba and ncaa sports. if you dismiss those examples, then i dont think i am elegant and persuasive enough to convince you otherwise. personally, i am fan of small town teams, and for selfish reasons i would prefer parity structures remained. but i realize that scenario is at odds with fair (ie free market) player compensation and maximizing leaguewide interest and profits. i am amused by ppl who argue both sides.
i thought that entities subsidizing a league were entitled a certain profit margin? isnt that why we are at this juncture? nfl franchises realize record income and are valued at record levels but claim they are no longer financially viable and ask for billions in concessions. meanwhile they negotiate in explicitly illegal fashion with tv networks. but ofc, we should trust them.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not at all the pro-owner argument. I've yet to hear one good reason why the players need to look at the books. Or even why Ralph Wilson needs to open his books up to Jerry Jones.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds
Administrator
So no more negotiating until after June 3rd oral arguments. And I doubt a decision is rendered instantly in this case either. So let's add a week to that date placing us at June 10th.
I have stated before that I think July 15th is the critical date to where games are lost. That is to allow sufficient time to create rules for the 2011 season, conduct free agency (including all of the undrafted rookies), have some level of training camp, play a few preseason games, etc.
Sure it is possible that this can get done in time, but I think it's way more likely that it is not going to happen on time. Nothing has changed since the start of this thing. The owners want an extra Billion a year off the top and the players want to know why they need that extra money. Neither side trusts the other side at all and both are accusing the other of blowing up the league. Again calmer heads could prevail, but what will trigger that? As much as I have felt that decertification was an option to give the players more leverage in negotiating the best deal possible, I also think they will pursue that to it's bitter end should they not get offered a fair deal.
If a season is lost, I think the NFL will emerge a very different league going forward.
I have stated before that I think July 15th is the critical date to where games are lost. That is to allow sufficient time to create rules for the 2011 season, conduct free agency (including all of the undrafted rookies), have some level of training camp, play a few preseason games, etc.
Sure it is possible that this can get done in time, but I think it's way more likely that it is not going to happen on time. Nothing has changed since the start of this thing. The owners want an extra Billion a year off the top and the players want to know why they need that extra money. Neither side trusts the other side at all and both are accusing the other of blowing up the league. Again calmer heads could prevail, but what will trigger that? As much as I have felt that decertification was an option to give the players more leverage in negotiating the best deal possible, I also think they will pursue that to it's bitter end should they not get offered a fair deal.
If a season is lost, I think the NFL will emerge a very different league going forward.
David Dodds
Administrator
What would stop something like this from happening:
- Rich guy starts offering NFL players locked out, 1 year personal services contracts, for $25K to $1Million based on need of player to his current NFL team. Obviously the top contracts would go to people like Brees, Manning, etc. Lesser contracts might go to some of the best available free agents, etc.
- Each of these contracts states that if the player returns to the NFL, the NFL team must pay at least twice the contract amount to the rich guy.
- The money is guaranteed to the player should no NFL be played. The player does not owe anything to the rich guy unless no football is played. In that case, he owes X autographed balls to the rich guy.
- Lock up the top 200+ players into this "holding tank" and wait for the NFL to buy these guys back.
Goodell keeps promising that the NFL season will be played this year. Seems like this would be a rather safe bet to make to up the stakes of this trainwreck considerably.
- Rich guy starts offering NFL players locked out, 1 year personal services contracts, for $25K to $1Million based on need of player to his current NFL team. Obviously the top contracts would go to people like Brees, Manning, etc. Lesser contracts might go to some of the best available free agents, etc.
- Each of these contracts states that if the player returns to the NFL, the NFL team must pay at least twice the contract amount to the rich guy.
- The money is guaranteed to the player should no NFL be played. The player does not owe anything to the rich guy unless no football is played. In that case, he owes X autographed balls to the rich guy.
- Lock up the top 200+ players into this "holding tank" and wait for the NFL to buy these guys back.
Goodell keeps promising that the NFL season will be played this year. Seems like this would be a rather safe bet to make to up the stakes of this trainwreck considerably.
Last edited by a moderator:
scoobygang
Footballguy
Two parties in a contract can't bind a third party. Even if it were possible, those players who are not free agents have already signed contracts. So if a rich businessman swoops in with a business offer meant to impair that contract (such as forcing some type of buyout when the NFL resumes operation), then that would be tortious interference with a contract in most states.
I agree..... but does it count if I slept at a Holiday Inn express Last night?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
No. I think you're missing the difference between an argument and reality.
Yes the REALITY is it hasn't happened before. The argument is whether it should change or not. I don't think the majority of the 'pro owner' group is saying it didn't happen before so it shouldn't happen. I think it's the same question 'pro player' people are saying - why should it change? (in pro players case it's why not?)FWIW, I think the difference is the owners are asking them to take a significant pay cut when all public evidence points to the league making money hand over fist. It could be the owners (or some) are going broke but it doesn't look like it from the outside. So that's, in my opinion, why this is different.And again, as far as I'm concerned, after the TV money debacle I can't say I would take the owners word for it either.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Perhaps the bigger point, however, is that NFL owners aren't unloading franchises because of financial hardship. The message sent to the players is that the owners are crying wolf about their decreasing profits. Yes, profit percentages may indeed be down but players aren't going to be very sympathetic to that reality in light of past profits, the non-necessity of owners to divest themselves of their franchises and the memories of management fighting tooth and nail in granting the players even the modest standards of freedom they enjoy today.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
But we're trying to punish the owners here.
Owners will just sit on the sidelines; we all know they don't need the games as much as the players. They will be getting 4 billion from the TV Contract. Plus they have there other revenue streams intact.
What do the players have. When those game checks don't arrive and they can't pay the mortgage, child support and the entourage they will start crumbling like a house of cards. There are a lot more average players in the NFL than the top earners.
I see the owners getting that extra billion off the TV contract. I have a feeling the players will also agree to a slotted rookie wage scale like the NBA making the days of the 65 million dollar signing bonus a thing of the past. Also owners will want there 1st - 3rd round picks locked in for 5 years. Owners will not budge on the signing bonus recoup clause due to off field actions and on field performance.
If your a young kid you may have to really consider being a football player. Imagine being the 1st overall pick and only earning 11 million dollars and your locked in for 5 years. You may not even have the chance to negotiate a big money contract if you suffer a serious injury during that 5 year span.
What do the players have. When those game checks don't arrive and they can't pay the mortgage, child support and the entourage they will start crumbling like a house of cards. There are a lot more average players in the NFL than the top earners.
I see the owners getting that extra billion off the TV contract. I have a feeling the players will also agree to a slotted rookie wage scale like the NBA making the days of the 65 million dollar signing bonus a thing of the past. Also owners will want there 1st - 3rd round picks locked in for 5 years. Owners will not budge on the signing bonus recoup clause due to off field actions and on field performance.
If your a young kid you may have to really consider being a football player. Imagine being the 1st overall pick and only earning 11 million dollars and your locked in for 5 years. You may not even have the chance to negotiate a big money contract if you suffer a serious injury during that 5 year span.
Assuming the players lose again when the same 3 judges rule on the lock-out in June, what kind of timeline is there for further appeals, either to the full panel of judges or to the Supreme Court? I would guess either of those would be pretty lengthy processes.
To those who believe this type of dispute should be resolved by the NLRB, do you really believe that a process that could take many months, possibly a year, is the best way for this to be handled?
To those who believe this type of dispute should be resolved by the NLRB, do you really believe that a process that could take many months, possibly a year, is the best way for this to be handled?
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Those of us who think it is within the jurisdiction of the NLRB think that the parties ought to be sitting down at a negotiating table hammering out a deal.
But is that part of the appeal of having the NLRB handle the issue, the fact that it would be a protracted process? Clearly that puts the pressure on the players more than the owners to negotiate a settlement, simply because the process would take so long. Is that also at least part of the reason the owners prefer the NLRB over the courts?'Idiot Boxer said:
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
That and it keeps the disagreement under the umbrella of labor laws rather than anti-trust laws, at least in the short term.
scoobygang
Footballguy
It's the process that allows the owner's traditional labor negotiating tool, a lockout, to work. But you should consider whether that's by design. The one thing that nobody disputes in the briefing is that if the NFL had declared an impasse and unilaterally instituted its preferred rules for the 2011/2012 season, then the NFLPA would have a right to strike. And the owners would have had no recourse to prevent that strike, even if they felt that the NFLPA were acting in bad faith (let's say the NFLPA refused to budge from a demand of 90% of revenues). The courts wouldn't have jurisdicition to enjoin the strike under the Norris-Laguardia Act. So the question is whether the law compels (or if its ambiguous, policy compels) lockouts to be treated differently than strikes. Obviously, 4 judges have split completely evenly on the question.
