NFL and NFLPA cancel meeting today re: CBA (1 Viewer)

[Orange Crush]

Dumb post alert.....Can Mark Cuban just step in and create his own league and steal the NFL players from the NFL? Now is his opportunity to take over the world of football.

Cuban is a major investor in the UFL. So, yes.

 

[Orange Crush]

It sure looks to me like the owners have made up their mind that they can 'win' this fight and between hiring the NHL's lost season guy and working with the networks to guarantee revenue during a lost NFL season I think they've decided there will be a lockout unless the players just flat out cave. No negotiations.

And IMO the lost time works in the owners favor.

So, depending on what short-term options I'd be closing off (and I don't know what those would be - they could be huge for all I know) if I were the union I'd seriously consider preemptively decertifying the second the CBA ends. Kill the draft. Start inflicting as much pain as you can as soon as you can. Get any legal issues into the courts as soon as possible. IMO if they players sit back and pretend there are going to be good faith negotiations here they are really going to get worked.

Decertifying would be a terrible long-term strategy for the players. The players ultimately won't go this route. Having several teams vote to decertify, I imagine, was just a bluff to see if they could strike a little fear in the owners. It didn't work, and this simply isn't going to happen.

I disagree. The last time they decertified led to their biggest financial gains, though it took three years. And every single team voted to decertify. The Union can decertify after a week's notice. I think the union is going to lose the short-term battle. The players can't afford to sit out too long. Decertification is really their only significant bargaining chip and everyone assumes it will lead to an eventual victory for the players, just after many years of litigation. Antitrust law has been skewing in favor of large corporations recently, so it isn't certain, though the recent American Needle decision certainly gives the Union confidence.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It sure looks to me like the owners have made up their mind that they can 'win' this fight and between hiring the NHL's lost season guy and working with the networks to guarantee revenue during a lost NFL season I think they've decided there will be a lockout unless the players just flat out cave. No negotiations.

And IMO the lost time works in the owners favor.

So, depending on what short-term options I'd be closing off (and I don't know what those would be - they could be huge for all I know) if I were the union I'd seriously consider preemptively decertifying the second the CBA ends. Kill the draft. Start inflicting as much pain as you can as soon as you can. Get any legal issues into the courts as soon as possible. IMO if they players sit back and pretend there are going to be good faith negotiations here they are really going to get worked.

Decertifying would be a terrible long-term strategy for the players. The players ultimately won't go this route. Having several teams vote to decertify, I imagine, was just a bluff to see if they could strike a little fear in the owners. It didn't work, and this simply isn't going to happen.

I disagree. The last time they decertified led to their biggest financial gains, though it took three years. And every single team voted to decertify. The Union can decertify after a week's notice. I think the union is going to lose the short-term battle. The players can't afford to sit out too long. Decertification is really their only significant bargaining chip and everyone assumes it will lead to an eventual victory for the players, just after many years of litigation. Antitrust law has been skewing in favor of large corporations recently, so it isn't certain, though the recent American Needle decision certainly gives the Union confidence.

This was my thinking. They're going to lose if they sit back and wait - time isn't on their side at all in this one.And from the sound of reports from the last session it sounds like the owners know it and aren't very serious about negotiating. May as well do something to get on the offensive and make the owners take them seriously ASAP (if possible).

So what happens to the 2011 season if there's a lockout and the players respond by decertifying immediately?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

a few interesting comments from Kevin Mawae in today's NY Post:

Serby's NFL labor Q&A with ... Kevin MawaeBy STEVE SERBYLast Updated: 11:46 AM, February 13, 2011Posted: 1:48 AM, February 13, 2011The Post's Steve Serby breaks down the NFL's labor issues with the former Jets center who is the president of the NFL Players Association.Q: Do you fear Doomsday is coming March 4?A: I am convinced the owners are willing to take this to a lockout.Q: Why are you convinced of that?A: I just think the tone of negotiations is one that is not promising that a deal is in sight any time soon.Q: Why was last Thursday's negotiating session canceled?A: You'd have to ask the owners that. I'm not at liberty to go into detail why it was canceled. . . . It wasn't canceled by the players.Q: Why would the owners risk killing the golden goose?A: It's greed. The Gordon Gekkos. There's a difference between losing money and your business falling apart versus greed.Q: The owners refuse to show you their books.A: The NBA just turned over everything to the Players Association. It's about money. It's about padding pockets and making money.Q: Have you told the owners that the union is willing to participate in a 24-7 lock-in to hammer out a deal?A: Yes.Q: Their response?A: No response.Q: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell called for intensive, 'round-the-clock talks if necessary two days before the Super Bowl.A: We said that same thing back in August.Q: What would you tell the fans between now and March 4?A: Keep your fingers crossed and hope we get a deal done. The fans are the ones that are gonna suffer. We understand that. We've been preparing our players for two years to get ready for this. If a player is not ready for this, it's the player's fault. The fight we gotta fight is educating the fans. If you want to be mad at anybody, be mad at the owners for putting us in this position. The players want to play. The players did not ask for this.Q: As of now, you're scheduled to be meeting each Tuesday and Wednesday with the owners from next week until March 4. But there doesn't appear to be much trust between the sides.A: You're telling me you're losing money but you won't show me how much you're losing. You're telling me it costs too much but you're not willing to show me the cost. . . . I was at the Super Bowl -- I saw Daniel Snyder's plane on the runway. He wasn't flying first class on American Airlines. It's a business deduction and you're writing it off and you're saying it's a cost the players should incur because you choose to fly that way. I'm being facetious . . .Q: Any concern about players caving in?A: It doesn't matter. You're still locked out. It would be an injustice to our players to take a deal that's worse now when the game is better than it's ever been before. We've asked for absolutely nothing. We've only been asked to give back.Q: How united are the players?A: I think our players understand the issues. If you have guys like (Antonio) Cromartie who want to pop off because they don't know what's going on, they haven't taken the initiative to understand the issues. I truly believe we're more united than ever before.

 

[Phase of the Game]

a few interesting comments from Kevin Mawae in today's NY Post:

Serby's NFL labor Q&A with ... Kevin MawaeBy STEVE SERBYLast Updated: 11:46 AM, February 13, 2011Posted: 1:48 AM, February 13, 2011The Post's Steve Serby breaks down the NFL's labor issues with the former Jets center who is the president of the NFL Players Association.Q: Do you fear Doomsday is coming March 4?A: I am convinced the owners are willing to take this to a lockout.Q: Why are you convinced of that?A: I just think the tone of negotiations is one that is not promising that a deal is in sight any time soon.Q: Why was last Thursday's negotiating session canceled?A: You'd have to ask the owners that. I'm not at liberty to go into detail why it was canceled. . . . It wasn't canceled by the players.Q: Why would the owners risk killing the golden goose?A: It's greed. The Gordon Gekkos. There's a difference between losing money and your business falling apart versus greed.Q: The owners refuse to show you their books.A: The NBA just turned over everything to the Players Association. It's about money. It's about padding pockets and making money.Q: Have you told the owners that the union is willing to participate in a 24-7 lock-in to hammer out a deal?A: Yes.Q: Their response?A: No response.Q: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell called for intensive, 'round-the-clock talks if necessary two days before the Super Bowl.A: We said that same thing back in August.Q: What would you tell the fans between now and March 4?A: Keep your fingers crossed and hope we get a deal done. The fans are the ones that are gonna suffer. We understand that. We've been preparing our players for two years to get ready for this. If a player is not ready for this, it's the player's fault. The fight we gotta fight is educating the fans. If you want to be mad at anybody, be mad at the owners for putting us in this position. The players want to play. The players did not ask for this.Q: As of now, you're scheduled to be meeting each Tuesday and Wednesday with the owners from next week until March 4. But there doesn't appear to be much trust between the sides.A: You're telling me you're losing money but you won't show me how much you're losing. You're telling me it costs too much but you're not willing to show me the cost. . . . I was at the Super Bowl -- I saw Daniel Snyder's plane on the runway. He wasn't flying first class on American Airlines. It's a business deduction and you're writing it off and you're saying it's a cost the players should incur because you choose to fly that way. I'm being facetious . . .Q: Any concern about players caving in?A: It doesn't matter. You're still locked out. It would be an injustice to our players to take a deal that's worse now when the game is better than it's ever been before. We've asked for absolutely nothing. We've only been asked to give back.Q: How united are the players?A: I think our players understand the issues. If you have guys like (Antonio) Cromartie who want to pop off because they don't know what's going on, they haven't taken the initiative to understand the issues. I truly believe we're more united than ever before.

 

[Orange Crush]

So what happens to the 2011 season if there's a lockout and the players respond by decertifying immediately?

If the union attempts to decertify, it has to be approved by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which is a federal agency that regulates all collective bargaining between unions and businesses. The NFL would normally attempt to argue that the decertification is a sham, that the NFLPA is and will continue to represent the players and that this is merely a negotiating ploy. However, the two sides wrote into the last CBA that if the NFLPA waits until after the expiration of the current CBA (March 3) before decertifying, then the NFL cannot challenge the decertification in front of the NLRB.If such a situation occurs, then there's no more negotiating, because there's no union for the owners to negotiate with. Therefore, there's no lockout. At that time, the owners decide amongst themselves what rules they are going to proceed under, knowing that the rules are going to be challenged under antitrust law. That might force the owners to temper their conditions a bit. However, in exchange for getting the NFL to agree not to challenge the decertification, the players agreed not to bring an antitrust lawsuit for 6 months after decertification. That would take us until September, too late to get an injunction against any perceived unfair practices for the 2011 season. So, bottom line, if the NFLPA decertifies, we'll have football on time in 2011.We'll also probably have football on time in 2012 and 2013 as well, all under conditions that the players don't think are fair. After that, we get football under conditions that the owners don't think of as fair.

 

[Orange Crush]

Jay Feely says Jerry Richardson talked down to Peyton Manning

Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely disclosed an interesting nugget about a recent bargaining session in Dallas between the NFL and the NFL Players Association.

He revealed that Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson talked down to Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees during the negotiation.

“Jerry Richardson, he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?” Feely said during an appearance on the Michael Kay Show on ESPN Radio. “And sit there and say dismissively to Manning, ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you understand how to read that?’ That doesn't help us get a deal done."

Richardson is regarded as a hard-liner.

So, what happened during that bargaining session last week where talks broke down and a Thursday meeting was cancelled?

"They did walk out," Feely said. "I think everybody's disappointed that you can't sit down and have a meeting. There's going to be negotiating ploys. What happened is the owners moved a little bit and they said we didn't move enough and they got up and walked out. It's a tough negotiation. When you bring in emotion, it gets in the way of logic."

Feely said that players didn't ask for 50 percent of all revenue.

"That's not true," Feely said. "It was lower than that."

Feely said that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell isn't being truthful when he says the players' union has enough information. The league has refused to open their books.

"He's lying," Feely said. "He's being disengenuous. We don't know how much costs they incur. Because you don't the costs, you can't determine how much profits they're making. When you have record revenue and record TV ratings and record worth of the franchises and you say the economics have changed and you need to give back 18 percent of your revenue, you say, 'Let me see why that's the case.' The NBA gave the NBA players union all that information. The NFL won't do that. ..

"All the fans care about is watching football. They don't want to hear us bickering. If I took out a lot of lawyers, I could get a deal done tomorrow. Jerry Jones doesn't want to share with the Buffalo Bills anymore. You have this disconnect between the owners. They want to take back from the players. That's their answer right now. Their answer is, 'We have leverage. We're going to assert that leverage and fix our problem that we can't settle between ourselves.'"

I think the bolded at the bottom of the article is very true. This is mostly a squabble amongst the owners themselves with the players being the ammunition. The highest revenue teams are such mainly because they have the newest stadiums. But the era of the cities funding new stadiums for teams is gone. Now teams build the stadiums themselves, and take on tons of debt to accomplish that. Meanwhile, under the terms of the old CBA, the 15 highest revenue teams give money to the 17 lowest revenue teams. So Jerry Jones has his new stadium, but is paying not only the bank but also the Bills, and he hates it. So his solution is to make the players pay instead.

 

[Jason Wood]

The other issue no one is bringing up, and why I think this time IS different, is that the owners are divided. I think some of the "have" owners would deal with a more measured split between the two sides. But there are owners that claim hardship, who feel they can't be competitive in today's NFL, and they are playing hardline positions. I don't think they'll cave without massive concessions, and are willing to have a long work stoppage to make it happen.

 

[Orange Crush]

The other issue no one is bringing up, and why I think this time IS different, is that the owners are divided. I think some of the "have" owners would deal with a more measured split between the two sides. But there are owners that claim hardship, who feel they can't be competitive in today's NFL, and they are playing hardline positions. I don't think they'll cave without massive concessions, and are willing to have a long work stoppage to make it happen.

It takes 75% of owners voting to approve of a new CBA. So there would have to be a bloc of at least 9 united hard liners to make this negotiation drawn out. I think the voting bloc is significantly larger than that. I think it includes low revenue teams (like the Bills, Vikings, Raiders, Bengals, and Jaguars) and teams with high debt loads (like the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Lions, and Dolphins, and perhaps the Falcons who are borderline being included in both of these groups), and a few high revenue teams who hate the current revenue sharing arrangement (Redskins, Broncos, and Panthers).Whatever new deal is made is going to have to appease at least two of those groups, and perhaps all three.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

We'll also probably have football on time in 2012 and 2013 as well, all under conditions that the players don't think are fair. After that, we get football under conditions that the owners don't think of as fair.

Which may be as good as he players can do IMO. They don't hold many cards here if the owners' hardline bloc is as big as you say.On the other hand, if I'm an owner this is probably as good a time as they'll ever see to get a favorable 'not anti-trust' ruling from a court.