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!
NFL and NFLPA agree to federal mediation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fatness
- Start date
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
in closed and confidential negots, you don't know who did what, as the mediator keeps that all sealed under raps. This isn't like a public arbitration. Ie. you will never know whatthe mediator recommended unless it is adoppted.
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
I think there is just too much money out there, plus this guy seems like the perfect mediator. Former union rep helps gain trust of players, and has the experience and the cajones to tell the owners/players when they are blowing smoke.
Let's hope it gets worked out.
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
really? It's been three days. and we've heard SQUAT! I 'll bet the 'stays here' threats of the mediator helped this, as referenced in the usatoday piece.
Tackling Dummies
Footballguy
My 
is that if there is an extension from the March 3rd CBA expiration, then there are sunnier skies. If not, it will be ugly.
is that if there is an extension from the March 3rd CBA expiration, then there are sunnier skies. If not, it will be ugly.We havent heard anything yet because only the people in the room know what is being said. Once the NFL reports to the owners (who will have to vote to approve a deal) and, more importantly, the NFLPA reports to the players (who also have to vote) there will be hundreds of people that have not promised to keep quiet that know the details. That being said, I am happy to see that, so far, everyone is staying tight lipped.'Hipple said:
Mark Wimer
Moderator
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
I don't foresee any extension. From what I understand the owners get huge relief in some way from the actual expiration of the cba...Myis that if there is an extension from the March 3rd CBA expiration, then there are sunnier skies. If not, it will be ugly.
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
The notion that they could resolve everything is 7 days is obviously false. I'm not sure why they even put a limited time in the first place, unless it helped get one side to the table?
Orange Crush
Footballguy
What kind of relief? Economic relief? I don't think so.I don't foresee any extension. From what I understand the owners get huge relief in some way from the actual expiration of the cba...My
The owners will argue that Judge Doty should not be involved anymore since he was engaged as a result of the anti-trust action. If this CBA expires, it will allegedly end the chain of CBA extensions coming from that anti-trust action. The owners feel Doty sides with the players too much. The NFLPA disagrees - on all countsI don't foresee any extension. From what I understand the owners get huge relief in some way from the actual expiration of the cba...Myis that if there is an extension from the March 3rd CBA expiration, then there are sunnier skies. If not, it will be ugly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Ah. I had forgotten about that issue. Yes, I can see the NFL wanting the CBA to expire first before signing a new one.The owners will argue that Judge Doty should not be involved anymore since he was engaged as a result of the anti-trust action. If this CBA expires, it will allegedly end the chain of CBA extensions coming from that anti-trust action. The owners feel Doty sides with the players too much. The NFLPA disagrees - on all countsI don't foresee any extension. From what I understand the owners get huge relief in some way from the actual expiration of the cba...My
It appears to me that we're heading for the owners taking the "last, best offer" route. It seems like the 2 weeks of continuous negotiations will just be used as evidence that they have negotiated to the point of impasse. Taking that route for the owners seems like a better option than imposing a lockout. They get to make all the rules. The only options for the players then becomes striking or decertifying and filing an antitrust suit. They don't gain anything by striking and a suit doesn't get resolved for 2-3 years, which would be after many of these players are out of the league.
I don't see the owners giving in on the revenue split issue. Once that is decided, there really isn't any reason for the players to oppose the 18 game schedule or the rookie wage scale. Both of those would just increase the revenue and help replace any revenue they gave up.
Have I thought this through correctly?
I don't see the owners giving in on the revenue split issue. Once that is decided, there really isn't any reason for the players to oppose the 18 game schedule or the rookie wage scale. Both of those would just increase the revenue and help replace any revenue they gave up.
Have I thought this through correctly?
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Here's why the owners would prefer to go the lockout route -- in a lockout, there's the possibility that the league cannot be sued under antitrust law while the lockout is ongoing. If the owners institute their last, best offer, then yes it will take a few years before any trial gets resolved. However, the players get triple damages. So even for the guy who only plays two seasons and is then bounced for the league, he gets the difference between the money he would have gotten without the collusive actions of the owners (A) and the money he did receive for playing (B) times 3. (A - B) * 3. For the owners, multiply that by every player in the league, and that's a lot of money they end up losing, after fighting a multi-year litigation costing millions in and of itself. Now, I think even though the NFL has lost every single time they've been challenged in court under antitrust law, that it's not a sure thing that they lose this one. It's still probable, but not a certainty. But that's a whole lot of money to risk. My bet is that they institute the lockout while continuing negotiations, and continue the lockout at least to the halfway point of the season to see if the players cave before then and sign a new owner-friendly CBA.
So, if it goes to decertification and an antitrust suit, which issue do you believe would be at the center of the suit? It doesn't seem like it would be FA again, like it was in '89.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/sports/football/25nfllabor.html?_r=1
INDIANAPOLIS — The federal mediator working with N.F.L. team owners and the players union said Thursday that “very strong differences remain on the all-important core issues that separate the parties.”
With a week to go before the collective bargaining agreement expires, and after seven days of lengthy talks, it was an indication that it was unlikely a new deal would be done by next week, setting up possible decisions by team owners about whether to lock out players and by the union about whether to decertify.
In his statement, George H. Cohen, the director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, said that there had been “some progress” in the talks, which he described as highly focused and constructive, and he asked the sides to assess their position before they reconvene on Tuesday.
That will be one day before owners convene outside Washington to discuss their plans. When the sides gather again with Cohen, it is possible owners will join the group. No owners attended the week of bargaining sessions.
The labor deal expires at 11:59 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, and owners and players continue to struggle with the most fundamental issue: how to divide the $9 billion in revenue and how much owners should receive off the top of the revenue pool to pay for expenses like stadium construction and renovation.
The labor uncertainty was a prime source of conversation among coaches and general managers during the first day of the league’s scouting combine.
They were briefed by league officials in a meeting Thursday evening on how to operate in the event of a lockout, with the league emphasizing that team personnel are not allowed to have contact of any kind with players during a lockout, including players who are rehabilitating injuries. The league provided them no specifics about negotiations, beyond telling them that talks continue.
“Basically kind of a review of where we are,” Jacksonville Coach Jack Del Rio said. “ ‘We hope to get something done. In case it doesn’t, here are some of the scenarios that can play out.’ We got some information.”
Coaches said publicly they were preparing for a normal off-season. But privately, teams that have made coaching changes or that will have considerable roster overhauls are concerned that a lockout will put them at a competitive disadvantage against more established teams, especially those with established quarterbacks.
In St. Louis, for example, quarterback Sam Bradford has to learn his second offense in two years, but he will be unable to meet with the new coordinator Josh McDaniels, who is still constructing the offense. Compare that with the Ravens; quarterback Joe Flacco is making plans to work out with some of his receivers in Arizona if there is a lockout.
John Mara, the president of the Giants and a member of the N.F.L.’s negotiating team, said he had told team employees — football and nonfootball staff — that the Giants would not have layoffs, furloughs or pay cuts for at least the first few months. That includes assistant coaches. Some teams plan to cut pay for assistant coaches during a lockout.
“Everybody’s got to make their own decisions,” Mara said. “We just looked at our own team, our own organization, and made a decision we felt was in our best interests and we were comfortable with.”
INDIANAPOLIS — The federal mediator working with N.F.L. team owners and the players union said Thursday that “very strong differences remain on the all-important core issues that separate the parties.”
With a week to go before the collective bargaining agreement expires, and after seven days of lengthy talks, it was an indication that it was unlikely a new deal would be done by next week, setting up possible decisions by team owners about whether to lock out players and by the union about whether to decertify.
In his statement, George H. Cohen, the director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, said that there had been “some progress” in the talks, which he described as highly focused and constructive, and he asked the sides to assess their position before they reconvene on Tuesday.
That will be one day before owners convene outside Washington to discuss their plans. When the sides gather again with Cohen, it is possible owners will join the group. No owners attended the week of bargaining sessions.
The labor deal expires at 11:59 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, and owners and players continue to struggle with the most fundamental issue: how to divide the $9 billion in revenue and how much owners should receive off the top of the revenue pool to pay for expenses like stadium construction and renovation.
The labor uncertainty was a prime source of conversation among coaches and general managers during the first day of the league’s scouting combine.
They were briefed by league officials in a meeting Thursday evening on how to operate in the event of a lockout, with the league emphasizing that team personnel are not allowed to have contact of any kind with players during a lockout, including players who are rehabilitating injuries. The league provided them no specifics about negotiations, beyond telling them that talks continue.
“Basically kind of a review of where we are,” Jacksonville Coach Jack Del Rio said. “ ‘We hope to get something done. In case it doesn’t, here are some of the scenarios that can play out.’ We got some information.”
Coaches said publicly they were preparing for a normal off-season. But privately, teams that have made coaching changes or that will have considerable roster overhauls are concerned that a lockout will put them at a competitive disadvantage against more established teams, especially those with established quarterbacks.
In St. Louis, for example, quarterback Sam Bradford has to learn his second offense in two years, but he will be unable to meet with the new coordinator Josh McDaniels, who is still constructing the offense. Compare that with the Ravens; quarterback Joe Flacco is making plans to work out with some of his receivers in Arizona if there is a lockout.
John Mara, the president of the Giants and a member of the N.F.L.’s negotiating team, said he had told team employees — football and nonfootball staff — that the Giants would not have layoffs, furloughs or pay cuts for at least the first few months. That includes assistant coaches. Some teams plan to cut pay for assistant coaches during a lockout.
“Everybody’s got to make their own decisions,” Mara said. “We just looked at our own team, our own organization, and made a decision we felt was in our best interests and we were comfortable with.”
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Suits brought by players claiming antitrust violations can focus on a number of issues, all depending on exactly what actions the teams take. And the actions would have to date from after the expiration of the CBA. So any attempt to enforce the franchise tag on players after March 4th, for example. Anything that appears like teams are refusing to negotiate with a player due to some exclusionary agreement where one team claims rights to that player. The salary cap would be challenged, if the owners brought it back. Even attempts to limit roster sizes could be challenged. If it took over a year before a new CBA is agreed to, then certainly the rookie draft would be challenged. If I was the agent for Andrew Luck next year, I'd open up negotiations with all 32 teams and the second somebody said that Luck belonged to the team that drafted him I'd file suit.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Reading this it really seems to me (again) that there's a zero percent chance the owners would allow any sort of truly free market to develop. What would Luck be worth in a case like that? Alex-Rod/Rangers money?But can the players hold it together that long? I'd guess that once the 2011 season was canceled the players would have already incurred most or all of the cost of the lost year [???] and it would get easier to stick it out for the next three or four months. At that point the owners would either crack or do something that would make an anti-trust suit an open and shut case.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Sadly, this is playing out pretty much like I expected.
First comes 7 days of mediation. Why seven? Because that buys time until the NFL Combine starts.
The Combine will dominate attention until it ends - March 1st.
The next day is another "meeting" where "irreconcilable differences" (or words to that effect) will be used to describe the results of the talks.
Then comes the 24-hour countdown to the end of the CBA.
That's your NFL schedule, folks.
First comes 7 days of mediation. Why seven? Because that buys time until the NFL Combine starts.
The Combine will dominate attention until it ends - March 1st.
The next day is another "meeting" where "irreconcilable differences" (or words to that effect) will be used to describe the results of the talks.
Then comes the 24-hour countdown to the end of the CBA.
That's your NFL schedule, folks.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
This is some very prescient analysis.
Yeah, I see all of that. I was just wondering which issue you thought would be the one that is used. You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the whole thing.Somebody has to file the suit. If I were a rookie, I'm not sure I'd want to be the guy that files over the draft, for fear of any future repercussions. Maybe if the rookie were high profile enough like Luck it wouldn't matter but it seems like it might be tough to prove any loss of income since rookie QBs are paid like the highest paid QBs. As long as free agency remained unrestricted (and owners didn't award compensatory picks), it doesn't seem like there would be an issue there. The owners could easily operate without a cap (or floor) and roster limits. The biggest issue seems like the draft but I wonder whether there would be a rookie willing to step up and challenge it.'Orange Crush said:
I agree with Jeff. The mediaton is just a huge CYA for the owners in the potential anti-trust suit filed by the union and a CYA for the union in the suit filed by the owners earlier this year stating the players had no intention of negotiating. Its the "we gave it a shot but they are unfair" story. IMHO, neither side is negotiating or wants to at this point. This will be a game of chicken and I am not convinced we will have football in 2011. At least not 16 games. I think the players and the owners care to play in 2011. I think D Smith cares about D Smith and could care less about the game . That is why nothing is getting done as was the case when Upshaw held the reins. The owners and player greed hasn't suddenly changed. Whats the difference. Just my opinion.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Exactly! The second that the union opted out of the last two years of the CBA I knew there would be trouble and Smith just couldn't be trusted.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
It was the owners who opted out of the CBA, not the players. The players entire argument in these negotiations has been that they just want things to stay as they are.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I know...
Mark Wimer
Moderator
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think a deal happens before the CBA expires. I HOPE that a deal is done before the NFL Draft (which is the real deadline for a full season in 2011, IMO). If both sides agree to extend the current CBA to April 3 (or some such), then I'll be more optimistic about a full 2011 season. If not, then chances go WAY down, IMO.
Just holding my breath through March 3...
MW
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Reports have hit the news sites this evening that the NFLPA plans to decertify by Thursday. That's a calamitous enough turn of events that I started a new thread on it. I suppose I should have just added it to this one.
But, big news. HUGE even. And if it happens, we'll be having a 2011 season on time. And maybe even 18 games, as the owners can do whatever they want at that point.
But, big news. HUGE even. And if it happens, we'll be having a 2011 season on time. And maybe even 18 games, as the owners can do whatever they want at that point.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
The quick answer is that all of them will be issues. There won't be but one lawsuit filed by only one player. There will be dozens of lawsuits. Many will be combined regarding the same or similar issues at hand. Last time the two big name players who were the figurehead of different combined lawsuits were Reggie White and Keith Jackson. Both were multi-Pro Bowlers who knew there would be a market for their services even after the suit. And if teams declined to pursue a player because of their filing a lawsuit, that's blackballing which is one of the easier antitrust lawsuits to win in sports (assuming the blackballing actually happened and that the player didn't get offers because he just isn't any good). So my guess would be that the very first suit brought would be by either Vincent Jackson or Logan Mankins challenging the franchise tag. There would follow lawsuits on every single one of those issues I raised (and probably some I haven't yet thought of), but not the rookie draft. The 2011 draft is actually part of the last CBA and cannot be challenged. A rookie pay scale on the other hand, if implemented this year, most certainly challengable. And if April 2012 rolls around and still no new CBA, then the first rookie who goes lower than he thinks he should have gone and/or is offered a contract below what he thinks he could have gotten in a free system, will file suit. Damn. I've got to find me some clients.
Similar threads
- Locked
