NFLPA officially decertifies (2 Viewers)

[VaCatFan]

Thought this was interesting - If so, it doesn't paint the NFLPA in a positive light.

Report: NFLPA* source says there’s “no chance” of negotiations before April 6

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2011, 5:24 PM EDT

Now that the parties have driven their car into the abyss of uncertainty, one side continues to press the pedal to the metal.

With a 23-day window before Judge Susan Nelson takes up the players’ motion for preliminary injunction in the Brady antitrust lawsuit, an NFLPA* source tells Adam Schefter of ESPN that there’s “no chance” negotiations will occur between now and April 6.

With all due respect to Schefter and his source, Schefter’s source is an idiot.

If Judge Nelson or Judge Doty (who still has jurisdiction over two major disputes between the league and the players) order the two sides into mediation, there will be negotiations. And Schefter’s report makes us even more convinced that mediation should be ordered by one or both of the judges presiding over Litigeddon.

Frankly, the flat refusal to negotiate during the next three-plus weeks tends to confirm the league’s belief that the players aren’t being reasonable. Likewise, it tends to confirm our concern that the players are overplaying their hand after winning the “lockout insurance” case. And it will do nothing to persuade fans that the owners, not the players, bear the bulk of the blame.

Here’s the reality. As sports lawyer David Cornwell explained during Monday’s PFT Live, the league can make persuasive arguments against a preliminary injunction based on the impact of the “sham” argument on the players’ ability to prove that they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, one of the key factors to assess when deciding to issue a preliminary injunction. If, in the end, Judge Nelson decides not to grant the motion for preliminary injunction, the lockout will continue — and the league will gain even more leverage.

Bottom line? The position taken by Schefter’s source proves that the source has no interest in trying to work out a fair and reasonable deal, and whoever the source was should be removed from any position of influence over the players’ interests. It remains in the best interests of the players and the league to try to work out an objectively fair deal. A 23-day window for doing so is now open. Cardinals kicker Jay Feely said earlier today that the two sides are close. Why categorically rule out the possibility of talking?

If no talks occur and the motion for preliminary injunction is denied, Schefter’s source surely will regret taking that position.

Hopefully, Schefter’s source has no real power over the decisions made on behalf of the 1,900 men whose interests are being represented by the class action.

 

[Orange Crush]

Thought this was interesting - If so, it doesn't paint the NFLPA in a positive light.

Report: NFLPA* source says there's "no chance" of negotiations before April 6

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2011, 5:24 PM EDT

Now that the parties have driven their car into the abyss of uncertainty, one side continues to press the pedal to the metal.

With a 23-day window before Judge Susan Nelson takes up the players' motion for preliminary injunction in the Brady antitrust lawsuit, an NFLPA* source tells Adam Schefter of ESPN that there's "no chance" negotiations will occur between now and April 6.

With all due respect to Schefter and his source, Schefter's source is an idiot.

If Judge Nelson or Judge Doty (who still has jurisdiction over two major disputes between the league and the players) order the two sides into mediation, there will be negotiations. And Schefter's report makes us even more convinced that mediation should be ordered by one or both of the judges presiding over Litigeddon.

Frankly, the flat refusal to negotiate during the next three-plus weeks tends to confirm the league's belief that the players aren't being reasonable. Likewise, it tends to confirm our concern that the players are overplaying their hand after winning the "lockout insurance" case. And it will do nothing to persuade fans that the owners, not the players, bear the bulk of the blame.

Here's the reality. As sports lawyer David Cornwell explained during Monday's PFT Live, the league can make persuasive arguments against a preliminary injunction based on the impact of the "sham" argument on the players' ability to prove that they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, one of the key factors to assess when deciding to issue a preliminary injunction. If, in the end, Judge Nelson decides not to grant the motion for preliminary injunction, the lockout will continue — and the league will gain even more leverage.

Bottom line? The position taken by Schefter's source proves that the source has no interest in trying to work out a fair and reasonable deal, and whoever the source was should be removed from any position of influence over the players' interests. It remains in the best interests of the players and the league to try to work out an objectively fair deal. A 23-day window for doing so is now open. Cardinals kicker Jay Feely said earlier today that the two sides are close. Why categorically rule out the possibility of talking?

If no talks occur and the motion for preliminary injunction is denied, Schefter's source surely will regret taking that position.

Hopefully, Schefter's source has no real power over the decisions made on behalf of the 1,900 men whose interests are being represented by the class action.

As Maurile posted above, the NFLPA cannot negotiate with the owners on behalf of all owners while the owners are challenging the decertification as a sham. Doing so would be evidence the owners would use against the players. So Schefter's source is correct, and Florio is the one who just made a fool of himself by posting his incorrect analysis. I hope he writes a correction.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Thought this was interesting - If so, it doesn't paint the NFLPA in a positive light.

Report: NFLPA* source says there's "no chance" of negotiations before April 6

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2011, 5:24 PM EDT

Now that the parties have driven their car into the abyss of uncertainty, one side continues to press the pedal to the metal.

With a 23-day window before Judge Susan Nelson takes up the players' motion for preliminary injunction in the Brady antitrust lawsuit, an NFLPA* source tells Adam Schefter of ESPN that there's "no chance" negotiations will occur between now and April 6.

With all due respect to Schefter and his source, Schefter's source is an idiot.

If Judge Nelson or Judge Doty (who still has jurisdiction over two major disputes between the league and the players) order the two sides into mediation, there will be negotiations. And Schefter's report makes us even more convinced that mediation should be ordered by one or both of the judges presiding over Litigeddon.

Frankly, the flat refusal to negotiate during the next three-plus weeks tends to confirm the league's belief that the players aren't being reasonable. Likewise, it tends to confirm our concern that the players are overplaying their hand after winning the "lockout insurance" case. And it will do nothing to persuade fans that the owners, not the players, bear the bulk of the blame.

Here's the reality. As sports lawyer David Cornwell explained during Monday's PFT Live, the league can make persuasive arguments against a preliminary injunction based on the impact of the "sham" argument on the players' ability to prove that they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, one of the key factors to assess when deciding to issue a preliminary injunction. If, in the end, Judge Nelson decides not to grant the motion for preliminary injunction, the lockout will continue — and the league will gain even more leverage.

Bottom line? The position taken by Schefter's source proves that the source has no interest in trying to work out a fair and reasonable deal, and whoever the source was should be removed from any position of influence over the players' interests. It remains in the best interests of the players and the league to try to work out an objectively fair deal. A 23-day window for doing so is now open. Cardinals kicker Jay Feely said earlier today that the two sides are close. Why categorically rule out the possibility of talking?

If no talks occur and the motion for preliminary injunction is denied, Schefter's source surely will regret taking that position.

Hopefully, Schefter's source has no real power over the decisions made on behalf of the 1,900 men whose interests are being represented by the class action.

As Maurile posted above, the NFLPA cannot negotiate with the owners on behalf of all owners while the owners are challenging the decertification as a sham. Doing so would be evidence the owners would use against the players. So Schefter's source is correct, and Florio is the one who just made a fool of himself by posting his incorrect analysis. I hope he writes a correction.

This is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think. If we took your statement as 100% correct, then we could never have a new deal until the union re-forms. And they won't re-form unless there is a new deal. I understand the legal construct and the NFLPA's desire not to give the owners' ammunition in the 'sham' argument, but that aside, if the court orders that they mediate, I am certain they will do so as a 'players union' ... primarily because the court has not decided whether or not the decertification was valid. Additionally, settlement negotiations aren't admissible as evidence at trial, primarily for this purpose. While you may argue that it isn't the negotiation, but the entity, that is being proffered as evidence, I would think the underlying spirit of the rule would prevent the NFL from making the argument that the NFLPA decertification was a sham if they were continuing to negotiate in good faith during the down time. You're a lawyer, you understand arguments in the alternative.

 

[Cripster]

Thought this was interesting - If so, it doesn't paint the NFLPA in a positive light.

Report: NFLPA* source says there's "no chance" of negotiations before April 6

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2011, 5:24 PM EDT

Now that the parties have driven their car into the abyss of uncertainty, one side continues to press the pedal to the metal.

With a 23-day window before Judge Susan Nelson takes up the players' motion for preliminary injunction in the Brady antitrust lawsuit, an NFLPA* source tells Adam Schefter of ESPN that there's "no chance" negotiations will occur between now and April 6.

With all due respect to Schefter and his source, Schefter's source is an idiot.

If Judge Nelson or Judge Doty (who still has jurisdiction over two major disputes between the league and the players) order the two sides into mediation, there will be negotiations. And Schefter's report makes us even more convinced that mediation should be ordered by one or both of the judges presiding over Litigeddon.

Frankly, the flat refusal to negotiate during the next three-plus weeks tends to confirm the league's belief that the players aren't being reasonable. Likewise, it tends to confirm our concern that the players are overplaying their hand after winning the "lockout insurance" case. And it will do nothing to persuade fans that the owners, not the players, bear the bulk of the blame.

Here's the reality. As sports lawyer David Cornwell explained during Monday's PFT Live, the league can make persuasive arguments against a preliminary injunction based on the impact of the "sham" argument on the players' ability to prove that they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, one of the key factors to assess when deciding to issue a preliminary injunction. If, in the end, Judge Nelson decides not to grant the motion for preliminary injunction, the lockout will continue — and the league will gain even more leverage.

Bottom line? The position taken by Schefter's source proves that the source has no interest in trying to work out a fair and reasonable deal, and whoever the source was should be removed from any position of influence over the players' interests. It remains in the best interests of the players and the league to try to work out an objectively fair deal. A 23-day window for doing so is now open. Cardinals kicker Jay Feely said earlier today that the two sides are close. Why categorically rule out the possibility of talking?

If no talks occur and the motion for preliminary injunction is denied, Schefter's source surely will regret taking that position.

Hopefully, Schefter's source has no real power over the decisions made on behalf of the 1,900 men whose interests are being represented by the class action.

As Maurile posted above, the NFLPA cannot negotiate with the owners on behalf of all owners while the owners are challenging the decertification as a sham. Doing so would be evidence the owners would use against the players. So Schefter's source is correct, and Florio is the one who just made a fool of himself by posting his incorrect analysis. I hope he writes a correction.

This is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think. If we took your statement as 100% correct, then we could never have a new deal until the union re-forms. And they won't re-form unless there is a new deal. I understand the legal construct and the NFLPA's desire not to give the owners' ammunition in the 'sham' argument, but that aside, if the court orders that they mediate, I am certain they will do so as a 'players union' ... primarily because the court has not decided whether or not the decertification was valid. Additionally, settlement negotiations aren't admissible as evidence at trial, primarily for this purpose. While you may argue that it isn't the negotiation, but the entity, that is being proffered as evidence, I would think the underlying spirit of the rule would prevent the NFL from making the argument that the NFLPA decertification was a sham if they were continuing to negotiate in good faith during the down time. You're a lawyer, you understand arguments in the alternative.

It is my understanding that the players have representation themselves apart from D Smith et al. These lawyers would meet with league lawyers to negotiate. No one is going to do anything until a court ruling forces them to IMO. Its discussed in this article.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Akp9Lr6Pg21Il5BoxEcCd_I5nYcB?slug=ap-nfllabor

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Thought this was interesting - If so, it doesn't paint the NFLPA in a positive light.

Report: NFLPA* source says there's "no chance" of negotiations before April 6

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2011, 5:24 PM EDT

Now that the parties have driven their car into the abyss of uncertainty, one side continues to press the pedal to the metal.

With a 23-day window before Judge Susan Nelson takes up the players' motion for preliminary injunction in the Brady antitrust lawsuit, an NFLPA* source tells Adam Schefter of ESPN that there's "no chance" negotiations will occur between now and April 6.

With all due respect to Schefter and his source, Schefter's source is an idiot.

If Judge Nelson or Judge Doty (who still has jurisdiction over two major disputes between the league and the players) order the two sides into mediation, there will be negotiations. And Schefter's report makes us even more convinced that mediation should be ordered by one or both of the judges presiding over Litigeddon.

Frankly, the flat refusal to negotiate during the next three-plus weeks tends to confirm the league's belief that the players aren't being reasonable. Likewise, it tends to confirm our concern that the players are overplaying their hand after winning the "lockout insurance" case. And it will do nothing to persuade fans that the owners, not the players, bear the bulk of the blame.

Here's the reality. As sports lawyer David Cornwell explained during Monday's PFT Live, the league can make persuasive arguments against a preliminary injunction based on the impact of the "sham" argument on the players' ability to prove that they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, one of the key factors to assess when deciding to issue a preliminary injunction. If, in the end, Judge Nelson decides not to grant the motion for preliminary injunction, the lockout will continue — and the league will gain even more leverage.

Bottom line? The position taken by Schefter's source proves that the source has no interest in trying to work out a fair and reasonable deal, and whoever the source was should be removed from any position of influence over the players' interests. It remains in the best interests of the players and the league to try to work out an objectively fair deal. A 23-day window for doing so is now open. Cardinals kicker Jay Feely said earlier today that the two sides are close. Why categorically rule out the possibility of talking?

If no talks occur and the motion for preliminary injunction is denied, Schefter's source surely will regret taking that position.

Hopefully, Schefter's source has no real power over the decisions made on behalf of the 1,900 men whose interests are being represented by the class action.

As Maurile posted above, the NFLPA cannot negotiate with the owners on behalf of all owners while the owners are challenging the decertification as a sham. Doing so would be evidence the owners would use against the players. So Schefter's source is correct, and Florio is the one who just made a fool of himself by posting his incorrect analysis. I hope he writes a correction.

This is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think. If we took your statement as 100% correct, then we could never have a new deal until the union re-forms. And they won't re-form unless there is a new deal. I understand the legal construct and the NFLPA's desire not to give the owners' ammunition in the 'sham' argument, but that aside, if the court orders that they mediate, I am certain they will do so as a 'players union' ... primarily because the court has not decided whether or not the decertification was valid. Additionally, settlement negotiations aren't admissible as evidence at trial, primarily for this purpose. While you may argue that it isn't the negotiation, but the entity, that is being proffered as evidence, I would think the underlying spirit of the rule would prevent the NFL from making the argument that the NFLPA decertification was a sham if they were continuing to negotiate in good faith during the down time. You're a lawyer, you understand arguments in the alternative.

It is my understanding that the players have representation themselves apart from D Smith et al. These lawyers would meet with league lawyers to negotiate. No one is going to do anything until a court ruling forces them to IMO. Its discussed in this article.

http://sports.yahoo....lug=ap-nfllabor

Sure. D. Smith and the "NFLPA" can't/shouldn't represent them, but someone has to be able to to negotiate on their behalf.

 

[Orange Crush]

Thought this was interesting - If so, it doesn't paint the NFLPA in a positive light.

Report: NFLPA* source says there's "no chance" of negotiations before April 6

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2011, 5:24 PM EDT

Now that the parties have driven their car into the abyss of uncertainty, one side continues to press the pedal to the metal.

With a 23-day window before Judge Susan Nelson takes up the players' motion for preliminary injunction in the Brady antitrust lawsuit, an NFLPA* source tells Adam Schefter of ESPN that there's "no chance" negotiations will occur between now and April 6.

With all due respect to Schefter and his source, Schefter's source is an idiot.

If Judge Nelson or Judge Doty (who still has jurisdiction over two major disputes between the league and the players) order the two sides into mediation, there will be negotiations. And Schefter's report makes us even more convinced that mediation should be ordered by one or both of the judges presiding over Litigeddon.

Frankly, the flat refusal to negotiate during the next three-plus weeks tends to confirm the league's belief that the players aren't being reasonable. Likewise, it tends to confirm our concern that the players are overplaying their hand after winning the "lockout insurance" case. And it will do nothing to persuade fans that the owners, not the players, bear the bulk of the blame.

Here's the reality. As sports lawyer David Cornwell explained during Monday's PFT Live, the league can make persuasive arguments against a preliminary injunction based on the impact of the "sham" argument on the players' ability to prove that they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, one of the key factors to assess when deciding to issue a preliminary injunction. If, in the end, Judge Nelson decides not to grant the motion for preliminary injunction, the lockout will continue — and the league will gain even more leverage.

Bottom line? The position taken by Schefter's source proves that the source has no interest in trying to work out a fair and reasonable deal, and whoever the source was should be removed from any position of influence over the players' interests. It remains in the best interests of the players and the league to try to work out an objectively fair deal. A 23-day window for doing so is now open. Cardinals kicker Jay Feely said earlier today that the two sides are close. Why categorically rule out the possibility of talking?

If no talks occur and the motion for preliminary injunction is denied, Schefter's source surely will regret taking that position.

Hopefully, Schefter's source has no real power over the decisions made on behalf of the 1,900 men whose interests are being represented by the class action.

As Maurile posted above, the NFLPA cannot negotiate with the owners on behalf of all owners while the owners are challenging the decertification as a sham. Doing so would be evidence the owners would use against the players. So Schefter's source is correct, and Florio is the one who just made a fool of himself by posting his incorrect analysis. I hope he writes a correction.

This is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think. If we took your statement as 100% correct, then we could never have a new deal until the union re-forms. And they won't re-form unless there is a new deal. I understand the legal construct and the NFLPA's desire not to give the owners' ammunition in the 'sham' argument, but that aside, if the court orders that they mediate, I am certain they will do so as a 'players union' ... primarily because the court has not decided whether or not the decertification was valid. Additionally, settlement negotiations aren't admissible as evidence at trial, primarily for this purpose. While you may argue that it isn't the negotiation, but the entity, that is being proffered as evidence, I would think the underlying spirit of the rule would prevent the NFL from making the argument that the NFLPA decertification was a sham if they were continuing to negotiate in good faith during the down time. You're a lawyer, you understand arguments in the alternative.

It is my understanding that the players have representation themselves apart from D Smith et al. These lawyers would meet with league lawyers to negotiate. No one is going to do anything until a court ruling forces them to IMO. Its discussed in this article.

http://sports.yahoo....lug=ap-nfllabor

Sure. D. Smith and the "NFLPA" can't/shouldn't represent them, but someone has to be able to to negotiate on their behalf.

Right. The lawyers representing the "class", i.e. NFL players, can negotiate with the owners. But the NFLPA cannot negotiate with the owners. We don't know if the Schefter's source was saying that there would be no negotiations whatsoever, or that the NFLPA won't negotiate while the "sham" litigation is ongoing, because Schefter didn't make that distinction (and probably didn't know enough about the situation to make that distinction). Florio did know enough, and yet he jumped all over the players because of this statement. That being said, he's also got a rebuttal from Jay Feely, who is on the NFLPA's executive committee, as saying they are prepared to negotiate at any time.

The whole thing is pretty confusing with multiple voices claiming to represent sides, especially when you bring unnamed sources into the mix. Everyone just needs to take everything being said with a grain of salt that what we're hearing may only be a partial truth, or spin, or a mistatement, or even a bald faced lie.

 

[roarlions]

Maybe someone else can chime in, but it seems the players want to have their cake and eat it to. Aren't they basically asking for fixed wage floor with no downside risk if revenues are down, but an increased share if revenues are up?

Not sure I have everything completely right, but I'll give it a shot. First, the owners were the group that made the proposal seeking to establish the salary cap for future years, not the players. The cap is pretty much set year to year now, so it seems the owners were seeking some ability to budget for the future rather than from year to year.The salary cap figures proposed by the owners were based on projected revenue growth rates for each year and the annual cap would only differ from the negotiated cap amount if revenue growth was more than 1.5 percentage points higher than the growth rate projected by the owners. This meant that the owners wouldn't have to share any revenue with the players that exceeded the revenue projected by the owners until the revenue was more than 1.5% higher than projected. This cushion of 1.5% was apparently agreed to by the NFLPA during the negotiations. If revenue in a particular year exceeded the projected revenue by more than 1.5%, then the NFLPA proposed that the extra revenue would be shared by the owners and players. However, the final offer by the owners did not include any sharing of this revenue, which is why the NFLPA rejected the final offer.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

32 owners. 32 payrolls. Each team negotiates its own employment contracts. There are some rules governing how the teams interact and share revenues, but if the NFL is one business, it's one business that doesn't look like any other business in the world.

I agree with this to some extent. But I'd say that for every point that indicates the owners act as independant businesses, there's a counter point where they act as shareholders in a company.McDonalds and Burger King compete with each other to sell us hamburgers. NFL teams cooperate with each other so they can sell us their competition.You're right, it doesn't look like anything else. Which is why I'm not crazy about traditional monopolistic anti-trust analysis being applied.Not to mention that both the athletes and consumers do have options for post-collegiate football outside the NFL. So what if the NFL pays more and the other leagues aren't as good? Since when does the product at McDonalds have to remain similar to the product at Burger King? And if McDonalds is paying their fry cooks $4.00 more per hour than does Burger King, isn't that proof that there is no market callusion? If the NFL is paying more than other leagues, isn't that evidence of the market working? If the NFL, CFL, arena league were calluding, I'd say traditional analysis might apply. But that isn't the case.

 

[JamesTheScot]

When a business negotiates with an employee, it's free enterprise.When a potential employee negotiates with a business, it's free enterprise.When potential employees voluntarily agree to collectively hold out for certain terms, it's free enterprise. But that kind of solidarity is hard to come by in the free market.So when federal law requires that a business negotiate with a union, it stops being free enterprise. Whether we call this force of law a hammer or feather duster is up to you. But it can't be equated with free enterprise, instead it's less-than-free enterprise. When the answer to the question is "because federal law requires us to", it's not an example of how each party can and is acting in their own best interests.

How about when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor -- what do you call that?

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

According to long-standing legal precedent, as decided and frequently upheld (including just this past year) by the U.S. Supreme Court, the NFL comprises 32 separate businesses. The "one team cannot stand on its own" has been made repeatedly by the NFL in court, and in spite of my own opinion on the matter, has been rejected every time. Therefore, since neither you nor I can change that reality, what would you (or JamesTheScot) call it when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor?

I'd call it a free market. You can't have a vertical enforcement/restriction condition and call it a free market.And the "reality" of the situation, as espoused by the Supreme Court, changes from time to time, even sometimes reversing itself. So a Supreme Court ruling that NFL franchises are individual businesses does not settle the matter as "reality". It merely allows us to predict what acts will subject us to punishment. It does nothing to establish the rightness or wrongness of those acts.

 

[RaiderBones]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It means baseball.

I'd think that's bad for the owners. Well many of them at least.both sides shoulda come to a deal before going to courts, who the hell knows what'll happen in the courts or congress

The Dallas Cowboys football network!I would also hope that a congressmen from Michigan would have better things to do than worry about professional sports work stopage. Maybe he can go visit his criminal wife in jail

Or maybe worry about bigger things going on in the country like jobs for those that dont' have any, the economey, the national debt, or rising gas prices. You know the stuff that really matters too us but not those in congress.

 

[fatness]

Here’s a good question: what right do owners have to padlock stadiums that taxpayers helped pay for?

The NFL owes fans a season. Why? Because the fans paid for it, that’s why, and this isn’t 13th-century France, and a season ticket package is not a wheat levy. They paid for it with outrageously priced seat licenses, as well as bond issues for stadiums, tax abatements, and sweetheart leases, not to mention all kinds of gratis services from cities and counties, right down to free snow removal.

If the fans don’t get a fair return on the public funds and favor lavished on owners, here’s what they should do: sue. That’s right. Attorneys general in every state that houses an NFL team should draw up suits to force the league to play, or repay what they owe us.

It’s time to change the way we do business with the NFL. You don’t have to pick a side in the owner-player quarrel over revenues to arrive at that conclusion. If nothing else, the current labor strife has finally alerted us to some truly rapacious practices by the owners.

They collect welfare, and treat it like a birthright. They use public facilities to enrich themselves, hostage-take whole cities for every subsidized dollar they can get, and then cry socialism at the suggestion they have any community responsibility.

Virtually every one of the league’s 31 stadiums was built or renovated with the assistance of public money, about $6.5 billion worth, according to the Sports Fans Coalition. And that doesn’t include the indirect subsidies, the infrastructure improvements, municipal services, gift-revenues, and foregone property taxes, which can push the cost of hosting an NFL team 40 percent higher.

There have been 11 new stadium constructions since 2002, and public funding for them averaged 54 percent, $295.3 million per project. Frequently the funding came in the form of tourism taxes, such as Arlington’s, which can further burden a community, making businesses less competitive and suppressing revenue and growth. In some places, such as Philadelphia, which helped construct Lincoln Financial Field for Jeffrey Lurie, the debt has helped make the city a credit risk, which makes it difficult to issue new bonds for things it urgently needs.

All of which should cause us to reassess our municipal relationships to the league. There is nothing inherently wrong with spending some public money for our entertainment — owners do make significant investments in their teams, and some of them may deserve help with long-term expenses and obligations. But that doesn’t mean we should fling hundreds of millions of government funds to preferred wealthy individuals, just so they can repay us with price gouging, and a shutdown.

Sally Jenkins, Washington Post

 

[roadkill1292]

Here’s a good question: what right do owners have to padlock stadiums that taxpayers helped pay for?

The NFL owes fans a season. Why? Because the fans paid for it, that’s why, and this isn’t 13th-century France, and a season ticket package is not a wheat levy. They paid for it with outrageously priced seat licenses, as well as bond issues for stadiums, tax abatements, and sweetheart leases, not to mention all kinds of gratis services from cities and counties, right down to free snow removal.

If the fans don’t get a fair return on the public funds and favor lavished on owners, here’s what they should do: sue. That’s right. Attorneys general in every state that houses an NFL team should draw up suits to force the league to play, or repay what they owe us.

It’s time to change the way we do business with the NFL. You don’t have to pick a side in the owner-player quarrel over revenues to arrive at that conclusion. If nothing else, the current labor strife has finally alerted us to some truly rapacious practices by the owners.

They collect welfare, and treat it like a birthright. They use public facilities to enrich themselves, hostage-take whole cities for every subsidized dollar they can get, and then cry socialism at the suggestion they have any community responsibility.

Virtually every one of the league’s 31 stadiums was built or renovated with the assistance of public money, about $6.5 billion worth, according to the Sports Fans Coalition. And that doesn’t include the indirect subsidies, the infrastructure improvements, municipal services, gift-revenues, and foregone property taxes, which can push the cost of hosting an NFL team 40 percent higher.

There have been 11 new stadium constructions since 2002, and public funding for them averaged 54 percent, $295.3 million per project. Frequently the funding came in the form of tourism taxes, such as Arlington’s, which can further burden a community, making businesses less competitive and suppressing revenue and growth. In some places, such as Philadelphia, which helped construct Lincoln Financial Field for Jeffrey Lurie, the debt has helped make the city a credit risk, which makes it difficult to issue new bonds for things it urgently needs.

All of which should cause us to reassess our municipal relationships to the league. There is nothing inherently wrong with spending some public money for our entertainment — owners do make significant investments in their teams, and some of them may deserve help with long-term expenses and obligations. But that doesn’t mean we should fling hundreds of millions of government funds to preferred wealthy individuals, just so they can repay us with price gouging, and a shutdown.

Sally Jenkins, Washington Post

I can't wait until they put a franchise in L.A. and lose their biggest leverage against the other existing NFL cities.

 

[Insomniac]

The only purpose of mentioning Terry Bradshaw's salary is to illustrate that the future of the NFL is always built upon the backs of the current NFL players and that the players must understand that 'maximizing revenues' isn't always the best for the health of the sport even if it means less in their pocket today.

I agree that maximizing short term revenue isn't always in the long term best interest of the team owners but it's not something that should concern current players very much.

If the NFL maintains its supremacy, it will pay off for future NFLPA members.

Why should they care any more about future NFL players than I care about future employees of the company I work for?

If the NFLPA wants to see the books so they can start second guessing owners on business decisions (e.g. 'why aren't you selling Thursday night games', 'why don't most teams charge admission for training camp', 'how come team so-and-so hasn't sold stadium naming rights') then we are heading down a very dangerous road. The NFLPA has no business with their hands in those decisions. Yes, they may impact dollars available for current players, but they aren't/shouldn't be challengeable by the NFLPA. The owners may feel that subsidizing the NFL network is a net-growth strategy for them 20 years down the road. The owners of small market teams may feel that their market can't support charging admission for training camps and fear alienation of fans. The teams who haven't sold stadium naming rights might feel that they shouldn't/can't sell under-market to a partner in a low economy. Whatever the reasons, as long as there is a business reason for making them, then they should be unquestionable by the NFLPA. The only two questions that the NFLPA should be able to challenge are 1) are the owners just pocketing the extra revenue or 2) are they just putting it away in a fund to fight the players union. Other than that, the NFLPA should have no say.

In normal businesses I agree completely, the employees shouldn't have any say about issues like this. The NFL however, gave their employees some say when they agreed to a CBA that specifically mandated that they maximize revenue and split it on a % basis with their current players. It's not like they got nothing in return for agreeing to this framework after losing an anti-trust suit. They got a salary cap, a draft and franchise player tags.

 

[3nOut]

Maurile,As a lawyer I certainly defer to your opinion. But I was under the impression that the NFL is prepared to contend that the decertification is a farce and a clear violation of labor laws because the union intends to recertify immediately after pursuing their antitrust suit. Again, you would know better than I, but I've heard three lawyers on ESPN and NFL Radio saying that even if Doty sides with the players on that manner, there's strong belief than any appellate judge would find in the NFL's favor in that contention, and look at the last decertification (and subsequent recertification) as evidence of precedent of the NFLPA's real intentions.

I have never practiced in this area.But I spent some time yesterday reading cases involving sham decertifications, and I think the owners' contention that the NFLPA's decertification is a sham has little hope of winning as long as the NFLPA does everything right procedurally — if the players sign a petition to decertify, if the NFLPA no longer represents players in grievances, no longer collects dues from players, no longer participates in negotiations with the owners, and adopts new bylaws saying that it is no longer a labor union (thus forgoing its tax-exempt status), etc. I imagine that the NFLPA will in fact do everything right procedurally.The players have a statutory right to organize and bargain collectively if they want to; and they also have a statutory right to bargain individually if they want to, by decertifying and forgoing collective bargaining. Neither the employers nor the government can force a group of employees to form or maintain a union if they don't want to.The owners issued a statement saying that the NFLPA's decertification is a sham because it's a transparent attempt by the players simply to negotiate a greater sum of money. But they cite no authority for the proposition that wanting more money is an invalid reason to decertify. Trying to get more money, I would think, is the quintessentially appropriate reason to choose collective bargaining over individual bargaining or vice versa.Do the players intend to re-certify immediately after pursuing their antitrust claims? I'm not sure what evidence is available that they do. (Their previous recertification isn't evidence for the reason Orange Crush stated earlier in the thread.) But even if the owners come up with good evidence along those lines, that's a factual question. It's the kind of thing appellate courts routinely defer to district courts on. It's very unlikely that an appellate court would reverse Judge Doty on a question of fact.I think it will be difficult for the owners to defeat the players' antitrust challenges either at trial or on appeal. But like I said, it's not my practice area.

Maurile,If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile,If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

 

[Ksquared]

Maurile,If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

The one thing that would be smart for the NFL owners (but you would never get the Snyders/Jones to go along) would be to become a single corporation (like the professional soccer leagues). Therefore, I believe the biggest threat the union has is anti-trust violations would be circumvented (kinda like Union banding and disbanding any time the laws make advantageous to do so). Then the owners could "collude" as a board of directors would. I know it will never happen, but if the court rulings create a completely different league than what we have now. It may occur at some point in time.

 

[3nOut]

Maurile,

If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?

If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

I don't understand. As it is now, they are keeping the same league but are still having the draft, even without a union.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't understand. As it is now, they are keeping the same league but are still having the draft, even without a union.

The 2011 draft is part of the previous CBA - it's covered by that agreement.I think the American Needle case was the first toe in the water for the NFL to find out if it could bring about an MLS single-entity. But some of the NFL owners are also owners in MLS (or at least Hunt and Kraft were back when I paid attention).I don't know enough about it to know whether getting skunked 9-0 in that case says anything about their chances of surviving a legal challenge if they reincorporated as a single entity. I have the impression that it put a big dent in any plans along those lines, but that's speculation on my part.

 

[WVU Alum]

Goodell's letter to the players.

Roger Goodell sent a letter directly to the players, bypassing the NFLPA. It lists a few of the concessions point by point.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Maurile,

If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?

If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

I don't understand. As it is now, they are keeping the same league but are still having the draft, even without a union.

The point is, that the draft format is in breach of anti-trust laws, and unless the players and owners come to an agreement, the draft is just one of many things the players will challenge in court and ultimately win..

 

[Mello]

Goodell's letter to the players.

Roger Goodell sent a letter directly to the players, bypassing the NFLPA. It lists a few of the concessions point by point.

Nice PR. Too bad he conveniently leaves out that these "concessions" still leave the players with less total money and the NFL still hasn't demonstrated that this is necessary. If Goodell didn't want this to happen, the owners and he should never have opted out of the CBA.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Maurile,If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't know how well these laws translate over but if a buisness owner were to close up shop and re-open a mirror corporation under a different name in order to escape the debt of that previous corporation, the new corporation can be challenged in court.From what I understand, you can't close down a buisness and re-open a new mirror buisness just to avoid debt.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Maurile,

If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?

If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

I don't understand. As it is now, they are keeping the same league but are still having the draft, even without a union.

The point is, that the draft format is in breach of anti-trust laws, and unless the players and owners come to an agreement, the draft is just one of many things the players will challenge in court and ultimately win..

That's pure conjecture on your part. No court has ever ruled on whether a draft violates anti-trust regulations or not and we really don't know what they'd say about it.Of course, I still thinkthe whole thing makes no sense in that the NFL someone could go from being a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust regulations to a perfectly legal entity just based on a union's existence. A business either IS or ISN'T a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust violations. Whether a union exists or not shouldn't change that IMO.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Goodell's letter to the players.

Roger Goodell sent a letter directly to the players, bypassing the NFLPA. It lists a few of the concessions point by point.

NFL Players, including Seattle Seahawks OG Chester Pitts and Houston Texans LB Will Witherspoon, were critical of the letter sent by commissioner Roger Goodell, stressing the need to return to the bargaining table, according to The Associated Press. 'I've told my guys to take the letter and set it on fire. We're not that stupid,' said Pitts, whose reaction was relayed by NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah. Witherspoon called it 'very distasteful' for Goodell to send out such a letter. 'If we were in court, I would compare to a lawyer trying to lead a witness,' Witherspoon texted. 'I duly object to the fact he has highlighted his highpoints but not given them any ground to stand on!'

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Maurile,

If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?

If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

I don't understand. As it is now, they are keeping the same league but are still having the draft, even without a union.

The point is, that the draft format is in breach of anti-trust laws, and unless the players and owners come to an agreement, the draft is just one of many things the players will challenge in court and ultimately win..

That's pure conjecture on your part. No court has ever ruled on whether a draft violates anti-trust regulations or not and we really don't know what they'd say about it.Of course, I still thinkthe whole thing makes no sense in that the NFL someone could go from being a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust regulations to a perfectly legal entity just based on a union's existence. A business either IS or ISN'T a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust violations. Whether a union exists or not shouldn't change that IMO.

Without a union, and an agreement, a group of buisness' can't decide as a group where a guy might work and how much he is to be paid..

 

[zed2283]

Maurile,If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't know how well these laws translate over but if a buisness owner were to close up shop and re-open a mirror corporation under a different name in order to escape the debt of that previous corporation, the new corporation can be challenged in court.From what I understand, you can't close down a buisness and re-open a new mirror buisness just to avoid debt.

Unless you're General Motors?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Maurile,If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't know how well these laws translate over but if a buisness owner were to close up shop and re-open a mirror corporation under a different name in order to escape the debt of that previous corporation, the new corporation can be challenged in court.From what I understand, you can't close down a buisness and re-open a new mirror buisness just to avoid debt.

Unless you're General Motors?

lol, yea, I guess so..

 

[WVU Alum]

Goodell's letter to the players.

Roger Goodell sent a letter directly to the players, bypassing the NFLPA. It lists a few of the concessions point by point.

NFL Players, including Seattle Seahawks OG Chester Pitts and Houston Texans LB Will Witherspoon, were critical of the letter sent by commissioner Roger Goodell, stressing the need to return to the bargaining table, according to The Associated Press. 'I've told my guys to take the letter and set it on fire. We're not that stupid,' said Pitts, whose reaction was relayed by NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah. Witherspoon called it 'very distasteful' for Goodell to send out such a letter. 'If we were in court, I would compare to a lawyer trying to lead a witness,' Witherspoon texted. 'I duly object to the fact he has highlighted his highpoints but not given them any ground to stand on!'

I would like to see a point by point refutation by the players' rep. I think there are legitimate issues here, but that deal looks pretty good on the surface. I would like to see why the players do not like it. I would like them to explain it in more depth than, "they want to take money away!" After they make a comment on the points directly, I can then call for more depth on the owners offers. Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

 

[roarlions]

I would like to see a point by point refutation by the players' rep. I think there are legitimate issues here, but that deal looks pretty good on the surface. I would like to see why the players do not like it. I would like them to explain it in more depth than, "they want to take money away!" After they make a comment on the points directly, I can then call for more depth on the owners offers. Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

See post 493 on the previous page of this thread, I think that is all we need to see about why the players didn't accept the last offer from the owners.No one is saying that the NFLPA disagreed with the owners on all of the issues listed by Goodell. He obviously is listing everything that sounds reasonable but doesn't mention details and makes it seem like the players disagreed with everything. Pretty sure the main sticking point was (and has been) splitting the revenue.

 

[Orange Crush]

Maurile,

If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?

If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

I don't understand. As it is now, they are keeping the same league but are still having the draft, even without a union.

The point is, that the draft format is in breach of anti-trust laws, and unless the players and owners come to an agreement, the draft is just one of many things the players will challenge in court and ultimately win..

That's pure conjecture on your part. No court has ever ruled on whether a draft violates anti-trust regulations or not and we really don't know what they'd say about it.Of course, I still thinkthe whole thing makes no sense in that the NFL someone could go from being a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust regulations to a perfectly legal entity just based on a union's existence. A business either IS or ISN'T a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust violations. Whether a union exists or not shouldn't change that IMO.

No court has taken it on directly, though one court did say as an aside to its main point that there was a "substantial probability" that a player draft was an antitrust violation (Denver Rockets v. All-Pro Management, Inc.http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). The decision was on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued, which is why the language of the decision had to be couched in the "substantial probability" language. It was not deciding that issue at the time, but instead the judge was signaling to the trial court how to decide the matter. The case was settled out of court before the trial could take place, surely because the NBA did not want a court decision holding that the draft was definitely an antitrust violation. But it is common understanding that the draft most certainly is a violation, but for the presence of a collectively bargained agreement.As to the relationship between antitrust and labor law, think of it in terms of the freedom to contract. The players are agreeing not to sue the league for antitrust violations, and in return they get certain benefits, such as the league agreeing to spend X amount of dollars on player salaries. That creates a conflcit in the law. Labor law says players can collectively bargain for terms of employment, whereas antitrust law says those terms are themselves antitrust violations. The courts have decided in that situation to favor labor law over antitrust law, precisely because of the freedom to contract (the legal term is a non-statutory legal exemption). The players are free to collectively negotiate a deal with the owners, or they are free to individually sue the owners for antitrust violations in court. But they have to choose one or the other. Therefore, if they choose to negotiate, then a result is that their agreement cannot be challenged as a violation of antitrust law.

 

[renesauz]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

What else can they do if the players are legally challenging critical parts of how they do business via anti-trust lawsuits? The owners would need at least a temporary lockut just to figure out what conditions they'll impose and evaluate the potential long term legal costs of those postions.The owners did not lockout in spite of the players decertifying, but because the players walked away and decertified. I'm not sure they had much choice in the immediate term.

 

[Mello]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

What else can they do if the players are legally challenging critical parts of how they do business via anti-trust lawsuits? The owners would need at least a temporary lockut just to figure out what conditions they'll impose and evaluate the potential long term legal costs of those postions.The owners did not lockout in spite of the players decertifying, but because the players walked away and decertified. I'm not sure they had much choice in the immediate term.

The owners have been planning a lockout for two years and the players have made it clear since at least the mid part of last season that decertification was an option. The NFL has had plenty of time to determine what rules they want to impose and instead chose to continue with the lockout. I believe that's because the NFL refuses to play under rules that would have any chance of passing anti-trust scrutiny. Their insistence to impose franchise tags on players even though a new CBA had not been agreed to is evidence of this.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile,

If decertification is a legal option for the players, is it equally legal for the league to cease operations? What would happen if the league went defunct and a month later created a new league with the same owners but new rules? I would assume that this new league would not have to honor the reamining contracts and all players would in essence become Free Agents. Teams could then sign any players they want and still have a draft. Is this possible or is does this go against any laws?

If this is possible, I would think the league's level of talent would drop for a few years but would gradually build up through the draft with college players opting to play anyway, even at a lower salary than currently exists. Again, not sure if this is legal.

I don't see what's to gain from starting a new league. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, the old teams are on the hook only for the guaranteed portions of the players' current contracts. Whether they keep the old league or form a new one, all teams can cut all players and start over from scratch by treating all players (including incoming rookies) as free agents. Whether they keep the same league or form a new one, they will not be able to have a draft (or a salary cap, or restrictions on free agency) unless the players unionize and then agree to it. The same antitrust laws apply to newly created leagues as to already existing leagues.

I don't understand. As it is now, they are keeping the same league but are still having the draft, even without a union.

The point is, that the draft format is in breach of anti-trust laws, and unless the players and owners come to an agreement, the draft is just one of many things the players will challenge in court and ultimately win..

That's pure conjecture on your part. No court has ever ruled on whether a draft violates anti-trust regulations or not and we really don't know what they'd say about it.Of course, I still thinkthe whole thing makes no sense in that the NFL someone could go from being a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust regulations to a perfectly legal entity just based on a union's existence. A business either IS or ISN'T a monopoly running afoul of anti-trust violations. Whether a union exists or not shouldn't change that IMO.

No court has taken it on directly, though one court did say as an aside to its main point that there was a "substantial probability" that a player draft was an antitrust violation (Denver Rockets v. All-Pro Management, Inc.http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). The decision was on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued, which is why the language of the decision had to be couched in the "substantial probability" language. It was not deciding that issue at the time, but instead the judge was signaling to the trial court how to decide the matter. The case was settled out of court before the trial could take place, surely because the NBA did not want a court decision holding that the draft was definitely an antitrust violation. But it is common understanding that the draft most certainly is a violation, but for the presence of a collectively bargained agreement.As to the relationship between antitrust and labor law, think of it in terms of the freedom to contract. The players are agreeing not to sue the league for antitrust violations, and in return they get certain benefits, such as the league agreeing to spend X amount of dollars on player salaries. That creates a conflcit in the law. Labor law says players can collectively bargain for terms of employment, whereas antitrust law says those terms are themselves antitrust violations. The courts have decided in that situation to favor labor law over antitrust law, precisely because of the freedom to contract (the legal term is a non-statutory legal exemption). The players are free to collectively negotiate a deal with the owners, or they are free to individually sue the owners for antitrust violations in court. But they have to choose one or the other. Therefore, if they choose to negotiate, then a result is that their agreement cannot be challenged as a violation of antitrust law.

Yes. It's not about being a monopoly. It's about anticompetitive collusion, and there's almost no doubt that a draft qualifies.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What else can they do if the players are legally challenging critical parts of how they do business via anti-trust lawsuits? The owners would need at least a temporary lockut just to figure out what conditions they'll impose and evaluate the potential long term legal costs of those postions.

The owners did not lockout in spite of the players decertifying, but because the players walked away and decertified. I'm not sure they had much choice in the immediate term.

A lockout has no effect after the union is decertified. The only way a lockout is effective is if the owners successfully challenge the decertification . . . in which case the players' antitrust suits will not be able to proceed anyway. So a lockout does not help the owners with regard to the antitrust issues. What the lockout does (if it is upheld by successfully challenging the decertification) is prevent the players from playing during the regular season and then striking during the playoffs. That would be a disaster for the owners, and it could happen if there is no new CBA and no lockout. Just the threat of it is a disaster for the owners.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What else can they do if the players are legally challenging critical parts of how they do business via anti-trust lawsuits? The owners would need at least a temporary lockut just to figure out what conditions they'll impose and evaluate the potential long term legal costs of those postions.

The owners did not lockout in spite of the players decertifying, but because the players walked away and decertified. I'm not sure they had much choice in the immediate term.

A lockout has no effect after the union is decertified. The only way a lockout is effective is if the owners successfully challenge the decertification . . . in which case the players' antitrust suits will not be able to proceed anyway. So a lockout does not help the owners with regard to the antitrust issues. What the lockout does (if it is upheld by successfully challenging the decertification) is prevent the players from playing during the regular season and then striking during the playoffs. That would be a disaster for the owners, and it could happen if there is no new CBA and no lockout. Just the threat of it is a disaster for the owners.

I think the lockout is an attempt foist financial hardship on the opposition in order to gain leverage in negotiation..

Moreso then it has to do with playoffs...

 

[roarlions]

I would like to see a point by point refutation by the players' rep. I think there are legitimate issues here, but that deal looks pretty good on the surface. I would like to see why the players do not like it. I would like them to explain it in more depth than, "they want to take money away!" After they make a comment on the points directly, I can then call for more depth on the owners offers. Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

See post 493 on the previous page of this thread, I think that is all we need to see about why the players didn't accept the last offer from the owners.No one is saying that the NFLPA disagreed with the owners on all of the issues listed by Goodell. He obviously is listing everything that sounds reasonable but doesn't mention details and makes it seem like the players disagreed with everything. Pretty sure the main sticking point was (and has been) splitting the revenue.

More on the issue of the last offer made by the owners:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940MARCO ISLAND, Fla. -- The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth."That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players -- player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said former 13-year offensive lineman Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative who retired after the 2008 season.Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo."Kendall said that throughout negotiations, the players' chance to share in increased revenues had been a key component of how to divide the NFL's yearly take of more than $9 billion.

 

[3nOut]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

The owners locked them out after the union decertified. What I do't understand is why the union HAD to decertify at that time. Why didn't they just extend the deadline once again and continue negotiating? Its seems as if they had no intention of reaching an agreement and intended to decertify all along.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

The owners locked them out after the union decertified. What I do't understand is why the union HAD to decertify at that time. Why didn't they just extend the deadline once again and continue negotiating? Its seems as if they had no intention of reaching an agreement and intended to decertify all along.

You don't understand quite a bit about this by your posts here at FBG. You should read the thread it will help.The owners were (illegally) set up for the lock out long before they ever negotiated or locked anyone out.

 

[Ksquared]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

The owners locked them out after the union decertified. What I do't understand is why the union HAD to decertify at that time. Why didn't they just extend the deadline once again and continue negotiating? Its seems as if they had no intention of reaching an agreement and intended to decertify all along.

You don't understand quite a bit about this by your posts here at FBG. You should read the thread it will help.The owners were (illegally) set up for the lock out long before they ever negotiated or locked anyone out.

And you show your bias with your statement. The point he made was valid. The players could have extended the negotiations as long as the owners would have agreed to extend the CBA, therefore still allowing the Union the possibility of decertifying in the future. It could have been for a day, week, etc.Secondly, I feel it is quite clear that D Smith has planned litigation all along (how many times in the last week has a Union rep referred to "the only way we have gotten real change was through the litigation process in the past". You can ask for the owners to open their books, but to demand it is not negotiating (and not looking for an acceptable alternative) and then to throw in late that they want 10 years is a joke. That clearly was a poison pill. The IRS only wants 7 years and it is fairly obvious with how things have economically changed in the last 3-5 years that the financials from before that time would have little relevance. D Smith as soon as he took over started using the PR points (Owners want to lockout us out) so he could setup a scenario where this will all go to court. There is no way the players will lose, the owners will lose as will the fans. But D Smith and the current players could care less about the future of the NFL in 10 years. I kind of hope this goes nuclear in the courts - no allowance for draft, caps, restrictive rules of any type. Then maybe the government will come in and setup some kind of limited anti-trust exemption for professional leagues. Otherwise, once a deep pocket owner takes over a NY franchise (maybe Dallas and Washington would do this with their owners). It will be the haves and have nots and I will be done with the NFL.

 

[3nOut]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

The owners locked them out after the union decertified. What I do't understand is why the union HAD to decertify at that time. Why didn't they just extend the deadline once again and continue negotiating? Its seems as if they had no intention of reaching an agreement and intended to decertify all along.

You don't understand quite a bit about this by your posts here at FBG. You should read the thread it will help.The owners were (illegally) set up for the lock out long before they ever negotiated or locked anyone out.

You are right that I do not understand quite a bit about this, and may have mispoken a few times, but thats why I've been asking questions. There is no need for you to be condescending as I have read the entire thread. I understand how the owners have been preparing for a lockout for a long time but why is that illegal (that hasn't been decided on by the coourts yet as far as I know)? And it seems to me that the players have been preparing for decertification for a long time as well.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I was going to put a *qualifier stating I wasn't intending to be rude or any such thing.

You made some pretty crazy-left-field post regarding this situation is all.

The illegal part is that had a COLLECTIVE Agreement (for the owners and players) and they made contracts that they negotiate for the betterment of the NFL (owners AND players) as a whole, and they instead negotiated for the sake of themselves which is against the COLLECTIVE agreement they have/had. Thats why they had a court ruling against them getting the slush-fund 4 billion to use "against" the players.



The NFL breached its agreement with the league's players' union when it negotiated new television deals a federal judge ruled

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-nfl-union-idUSTRE7210GW20110302

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And you show your bias with your statement.

Im okay with that. My attention to this matter has led me to my position. If I start making outlandish or false claims, then that is a post that I (and others) should take issue with. Regardless of what side I'm on or whether the overall stance is right/wrong (like 3nOut may be correct in his overall belief that the owners are cool and the players are messing things up, but his posts do his position little-to-no justice and may actually be harmful in that regard.)

 

[Rockchild]

Right now it just looks like the players took their ball and went home.

Odd considering the owners locked out the players and not vice-versa.Otherwise you could have still had players show up for practice and to play.

The owners locked them out after the union decertified. What I do't understand is why the union HAD to decertify at that time. Why didn't they just extend the deadline once again and continue negotiating? Its seems as if they had no intention of reaching an agreement and intended to decertify all along.

You don't understand quite a bit about this by your posts here at FBG. You should read the thread it will help.The owners were (illegally) set up for the lock out long before they ever negotiated or locked anyone out.

You are right that I do not understand quite a bit about this, and may have mispoken a few times, but thats why I've been asking questions. There is no need for you to be condescending as I have read the entire thread. I understand how the owners have been preparing for a lockout for a long time but why is that illegal (that hasn't been decided on by the coourts yet as far as I know)? And it seems to me that the players have been preparing for decertification for a long time as well.

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

The owners couldn't lock the players out during the term of the CBA. To lock the players out, they needed the CBA to expire and the players to not decertify.

 

[Rockchild]

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

The owners couldn't lock the players out during the term of the CBA. To lock the players out, they needed the CBA to expire and the players to not decertify.

Thanks.

 

[renesauz]

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law. Without a CBA, the NFL can't operate without opening itself up to further lawsuits. IN such a scenario it seems very reasonable to suspend all operations until a resolution is reached. If a judge were to force the NFL to open for business, that same judge would have to stipulate some conditions and limitations which would in turn provide the owners with at least SOME protection. IE: An order to continue under conditions similar to the last CBA until fruther hearings could be scheduled.

 

[Rockchild]

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law. Without a CBA, the NFL can't operate without opening itself up to further lawsuits. IN such a scenario it seems very reasonable to suspend all operations until a resolution is reached. If a judge were to force the NFL to open for business, that same judge would have to stipulate some conditions and limitations which would in turn provide the owners with at least SOME protection. IE: An order to continue under conditions similar to the last CBA until fruther hearings could be scheduled.

I remember reading somewhere in one of the threads that this is what would probably happen if the players win in reversing the lockout.

 

[renesauz]

The players have said they've never gained anything except through litigation.

The owners had determined that they absolutely had to lower the rate at which salries had been increasing.

UNder these circumstances, the owners would have had to operate on the assumption that the players were unlikely to sign a deal and would choose litigation. If that assumption was correct, the owners decided their response if talks broke down would be a lockout.

Trying to say that the owners were planning on a lockout the entire time would thus be a disingenuious statement, as would trying to place significant blame for the situation on the owners based on having such a plan.

I take far more offense at the player statement that gains are only made with litigation...clearly indicating that the players had no inclination to give up even one inch without a protracted fight involving the courts.

I don't see that the owners had a lot of choice either in the planning for, or the execution of a lockout.

 

[renesauz]

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law. Without a CBA, the NFL can't operate without opening itself up to further lawsuits. IN such a scenario it seems very reasonable to suspend all operations until a resolution is reached. If a judge were to force the NFL to open for business, that same judge would have to stipulate some conditions and limitations which would in turn provide the owners with at least SOME protection. IE: An order to continue under conditions similar to the last CBA until fruther hearings could be scheduled.

I remember reading somewhere in one of the threads that this is what would probably happen if the players win in reversing the lockout.

I suspect that the owners would be OK with that as a temporary solution, as it would likely also provide them with some necessary protections. IE: The players couldn't then sue over a 2011 draft, limited FA, or franchise tags used THIS off-season. While players could sue to cause those things to disapear in future years, the NFL would be safe from damage penalties for actions taken THIS year.IN the end, the owners would get the same basic protection the lockout itself gave them, they'd lose some of the financial leverage in negotiations, but gain some other leverages as an order like this seems likely to also preclude a strike.