NFLPA decertifies

[PSU_dropout43]

Mort reporting NFLPA decertifies in federal court in Minneapolis [via Twitter]

[Blockhead]

sweet!

[Crash]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZzXevucGsR4/TSD197eMD7I/AAAAAAAAAvg/Yrxu69iQkvc/s400/defcon1.png

[SteelBucks]

Congratulations Roger. You've managed to accomplish what no one thought was possible; destroy the NFL brand. I have never supported the players in any of the other sports work stoppages until now.

With the lockout inevitable, expect no talks between the two sides until late Spring/early Summer at the earliest. Now we get to watch this mess unfold in the courts.....how fun! If this doesn't cost Goodell his job nothing will.

But hey, at least we got the Pittsburgh Power! :wink:

[Steel Life]

I actually don't blame Goodell for this (& I disagree with a lot he's done)...I blame DeMaurice Smith, who comes in as a lawyer & politician with aspirations beyond the NFLPA, who has decided he's going to come in as more of a Marvin Miller type than Gene Upshaw. He has never seemed to willing to forge compromise, but instead appeared focused on litigating this to get the proverbial feather in his always present cap. Listen to him today pontificate & try not to get the feeling that you're listening to a grandstanding BSer of the highest degree as moderate owners like Rooney & Mara walk out frustrated. This decertification is a sham & I wonder if putting over-exposed superstars like Brady (with his super-model wife) & Manning's names on the lawsuit might backfire once it's paraded out there how much they make & how their owners have let them practically run the franchise - hardly sympathetic figures. Anyway...get ready to see DeMaurice Smith a lot more & to get tired of his rhetoric quickly.

[Blockhead]

I actually don't blame Goodell for this (& I disagree with a lot he's done)...I blame DeMaurice Smith, who comes in as a lawyer & politician with aspirations beyond the NFLPA, who has decided he's going to come in as more of a Marvin Miller type than Gene Upshaw. He has never seemed to willing to forge compromise, but instead appeared focused on litigating this to get the proverbial feather in his always present cap. Listen to him today pontificate & try not to get the feeling that you're listening to a grandstanding BSer of the highest degree as moderate owners like Rooney & Mara walk out frustrated. This decertification is a sham & I wonder if putting over-exposed superstars like Brady (with his super-model wife) & Manning's names on the lawsuit might backfire once it's paraded out there how much they make & how their owners have let them practically run the franchise - hardly sympathetic figures. Anyway...get ready to see DeMaurice Smith a lot more & to get tired of his rhetoric quickly.
Exactly, the owners gave more on all issues and the players gave or compromised nothing.

Bring on the replacements. Take back any of the compromises, institute a new deal and fill out the teams. Three years from now, nobody will notice except for those players that want to sit and watch their contracts not be paid. Time to spread the wealth to some new players.

Let's hope a good QB falls to 31.

[Crash]

Learn the rules. If it's a lockout you can't have scabs. Only if it's a strike by the players can scabs then be used.

[Crash]

Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, seven others file antitrust suit
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 11, 2011, 7:03 PM EST

Ten players, including Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, seeking to prevent the owners from locking the players out.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court immediately after the players’ union decertified on Friday.

The players have asked for an injunction that would keep the league operating and stop the teams from a lockout when the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires, at midnight.

The other players named in the lawsuit are Vincent Jackson, Ben Leber, Logan Mankins, Brian Robison, Osi Umenyiora, Mike Vrabel and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller.

[Blockhead]

Learn the rules. If it's a lockout you can't have scabs. Only if it's a strike by the players can scabs then be used.
There is no union. The owners can do what they wish. It is up to the players to file lawsuit and try to stop them from doing anything, including replacing them.

I'd say you should learn the rules.

[Steel Life]

Vincent Jackson?!? Sure he didn't sign on thinking this was about trying to get his multiple DUI charges reduced? :lol:

Mankins actually has a legitimate beef with his owner, but the rest?...I don't know.

Wonder if Von Miller's involvement will hurt his draft stock any?

BTW...Crash - I like your new graphic.

[Crash]

I find it hilarious that the NFL's three golden children who get more protection than anyone are the ones spearheading the lawsuit.

[Crash]

Lockout coming Saturday per II to Typo Ed.......

[Blockhead]

Source regarding final offer: “Part of me was glad they didn’t take it”
Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2011, 8:11 PM EST
Getty ImagesAs the NFL trumpets the offer that was made to the players on Friday, several hours before the NFLPA opted to decertify and pursue the litigation route, a high-level source with one NFL team expressed relief at the players’ decision not to accept the proposal.

“Part of me was glad they didn’t take it,” the source said. “I can’t believe they walked away from it.”

The summary of the offer indicates significant concessions regarding player safety, an agreement to defer the debate regarding whether the regular season should be expanded, and an offer to use third-party arbitration for appeals of violations of the substance abuse policy and the steroids policy.

The summary doesn’t provide many details regarding the revenue split, which highlights that money was the primary sticking point — and that the league didn’t feel particularly compelled to boast about the specifics of the offer.

Still, how big of a sticking point was the money? When De Smith says that the gap as to the extra $1 billion that the NFL wanted to take off the top had dropped to $650 million and that the league wanted to split the difference (presumably to $325 million), that number needs to be assessed while considering the fact that the union gets only 59.6 cents of every dollar. Thus, if the owners would have been taking another $325 million off the top, the players would have been giving up only $193.7 million.

That money would have been easily recaptured via any of multiple strategies for growing the pie, such as selling the Thursday night package on the open market, adding two playoff teams per conference, or committing to the relocation of one or two teams to Los Angeles.

But the players became convinced they could get a better deal via litigation. That’s their right. And their strategy, if successful, allows football to continue.

That said, it sure seems like the two sides were a lot closer to working something out, if both sides really wanted to work something out. We don’t think the players really wanted to.

[Crash]

The impartial mediator says the sides weren't close.

[Blockhead]

The impartial mediator says the sides weren't close.

Guess that would be determined by your definition of close.

The owners move their stancy by allmost $700 million. The players union didn't budge one cent.

Seems pretty clear Smith would rather be in a courtroom to further enhance his future career as a politician.

[Crash]

Antitrust lawsuit alleges that NFL has waived “sham” defense to decertification
Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2011, 8:40 PM EST

While trudging through the 52-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota by a group of players including three quarterbacks who have won five Super Bowls among them, I had to press pause at page 19 and share with PFT Planet language that, if accurate, prevents the NFL from arguing that the decertification of the union was a “sham.”

If the NFL were to prove that the decertification was a “sham,” the league would be able to lock the players out, since the antitrust laws would not apply.

Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league “insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days.” To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, “if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration,” the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was “a sham or otherwise ineffective.”

In other words, if the players’ allegations are accurate, the NFL can’t use the “sham” silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players’ lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we’ll have football in 2011.

[hawaiiansteel]

NFL players union decertifies; Rooney expects lockout

Friday, March 11, 2011
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


The ball is now in someone else's court.

That would be the courtroom of Judge David Doty in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis after the National Football League and its Players Association failed on Friday to come up with either a labor agreement or another extension of it to continue negotiations.

The NFLPA filed to decertify as a union moments before the current collective bargaining agreement expired at 5 p.m. Friday. That ended its rights to further negotiate a labor agreement for the players and the federal courts will now decide what happens next.

While a lockout of the players by NFL owners is almost universally expected, they have not yet taken such action but may do so soon. (Read a letter to fans from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell).

"We're going to make that decision in the next 24 hours," Steelers president Art Rooney said by phone before leaving Washington to return to Pittsburgh this evening. "I would say we're probably headed in that direction."

Rooney is a member of the 10-man management council executive committee and has been in Washington as part of the ownership group negotiating with the players. That committee has been given authority by the 32 NFL owners to rule on a lockout.

Rooney called the end of negotiations today "very disappointing."

"When we got [an] extension last week I thought maybe we'd get something done. Unfortunately I think the players chose to throw everything into the lawyers' hands at this point and unfortunately that's where we're going to be for some time period."

Ultimately, it could be Judge Doty, 81, who decides if there will be football played this season. He has ruled many times on the players' behalf through the years, most recently when he decided last week that the owners could not receive $4 billion from their television contracts as part of what was termed "lockout insurance.''

The NFLPA e-mailed the following statement shortly after the deadline for another contract extension passed:

"The NFL Players Association announced today it has informed the NFL, NFL clubs and other necessary parties that it has renounced its status as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the players of the National Football League.

"The NFLPA will move forward as a professional trade association with the mission of supporting the interests and rights of current and former professional football players." (Read a breakdown of the issues players felt prevented an agreement.

Not long after that, the NFL issued its own statement:

"The fastest way to a fair agreement is for both the union and the clubs to continue the mediation process. Unfortunately, the players' union has notified our office that at 4 p.m. it had "decertified" and is walking away from mediation and collective bargaining, presumably to initiate the antitrust litigation it has been threatening to file. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, the clubs offered a deal that would have had no adverse financial impact upon veteran players in the early years and would meet the players' financial demands in the latter years.

"The union left a very good deal on the table. It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

"The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.

"The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

"At a time when thousands of employees are fighting for their collective bargaining rights, this union has chosen to abandon collective bargaining in favor of a sham 'decertification' and antitrust litigation. This litigation maneuver is built on the indisputably false premise that the NFLPA has stopped being a union and will merely delay the process of reaching an agreement.

"The NFL clubs remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached. The NFL calls on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table."

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11070/11 ... z1GLY2Vwdg (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11070/1131340-100.stm#ixzz1GLY2Vwdg)

[Scalaid6]

The players arent asking for any more money or benefits. There is 9 billion on the table and the owners dont understand that without the players, that money wouldn't exist.

Now they will have to go to court. This favors the players. Judge Doty has already ruled in the players favor. He said the owners were eggregious in their efforts to lock the players out. He was very strict in his ruling against the owners. This hurts their cause (owners). The last thing they want to do is to have to sit in front of this judge again.

If the owners Lock the players out, then the players will appeal that lockout (Injunction) which goes to Judge Doty. If Doty allows that injunction, then the owners will appeal. Now, The owners have to decide whether they want to implement the 2010 rules or another set of rules.

It is likely that they will choose the 2010 rules because if they change the rules and impose more restrictions, the players Anti Trust Lawsuit is saying- "You are providing restrictions on a work force that is not unionized" Which is the basis of the lawsuit. So if the owners decide on new rules then they would be making the players case for them.

The star of this whole thing will be Judge Doty. Mark my words

[Crash]

The impartial mediator says the sides weren't close.

Guess that would be determined by your definition of close.

The owners move their stancy by allmost $700 million. The players union didn't budge one cent.

Seems pretty clear Smith would rather be in a courtroom to further enhance his future career as a politician.

Then the players are imbeciles for listening to him. If it's such an iron-clad great deal they should kick Smith out, and make their own deal without him.

[Blockhead]

The players arent asking for any more money or benefits. There is 9 billion on the table and the owners dont understand that without the players, that money wouldn't exist.
People don't buy tickets to the Roethlisbergers, they buy tickets to the Steelers. That won't change when the player leaves or retires, as the past proves. Players come and go.

THe advertising deals are done with the NFL and it's franchises, not the players.


Now they will have to go to court. This favors the players. Judge Doty has already ruled in the players favor. He said the owners were eggregious in their efforts to lock the players out. He was very strict in his ruling against the owners. This hurts their cause (owners). The last thing they want to do is to have to sit in front of this judge again.
The owners move almost $700 million while the union moved $0. If union hack Doty rules in favor of the players, an appeal to another court may be justified.


If the owners Lock the players out, then the players will appeal that lockout (Injunction) which goes to Judge Doty. If Doty allows that injunction, then the owners will appeal. Now, The owners have to decide whether they want to implement the 2010 rules or another set of rules.
That's fine. You'll see the players start to put pressure on for a deal. I would imagine the players, many of them, are already unhappy with the outcome of today.


It is likely that they will choose the 2010 rules because if they change the rules and impose more restrictions, the players Anti Trust Lawsuit is saying- "You are providing restrictions on a work force that is not unionized" Which is the basis of the lawsuit. So if the owners decide on new rules then they would be making the players case for them.
They'd be fools to accept the 2010 rules.


The star of this whole thing will be Judge Doty. Mark my words
Star? Or public enemy #1, depending on your view.

[Blockhead]

The impartial mediator says the sides weren't close.

Guess that would be determined by your definition of close.

The owners move their stancy by allmost $700 million. The players union didn't budge one cent.

Seems pretty clear Smith would rather be in a courtroom to further enhance his future career as a politician.

Then the players are imbeciles for listening to him. If it's such an iron-clad great deal they should kick Smith out, and make their own deal without him.
I would imagine when/if the details reach them, many of them will be very unhappy.

[Crash]

The impartial mediator says the sides weren't close.

Guess that would be determined by your definition of close.

The owners move their stancy by allmost $700 million. The players union didn't budge one cent.

Seems pretty clear Smith would rather be in a courtroom to further enhance his future career as a politician.

Then the players are imbeciles for listening to him. If it's such an iron-clad great deal they should kick Smith out, and make their own deal without him.
I would imagine when/if the details reach them, many of them will be very unhappy.

The three Golden Child QBs are suing the league, they seem perfectly willing to work with Smith.

[Blockhead]

The three Golden Child QBs are suing the league, they seem perfectly willing to work with Smith.
Well, sure. They're not worried about how to afford their next deal or health insurance. Making more money doesn't give you more votes. You still only get one.

How do you think Ike Redman feels? Mike Wallace? Other younger players who's financial future isn't set?

[Scalaid6]

The players arent asking for any more money or benefits. There is 9 billion on the table and the owners dont understand that without the players, that money wouldn't exist.
People don't buy tickets to the Roethlisbergers, they buy tickets to the Steelers. That won't change when the player leaves or retires, as the past proves. Players come and go.

THe advertising deals are done with the NFL and it's franchises, not the players.


Now they will have to go to court. This favors the players. Judge Doty has already ruled in the players favor. He said the owners were eggregious in their efforts to lock the players out. He was very strict in his ruling against the owners. This hurts their cause (owners). The last thing they want to do is to have to sit in front of this judge again.
The owners move almost $700 million while the union moved $0. If union hack Doty rules in favor of the players, an appeal to another court may be justified.


If the owners Lock the players out, then the players will appeal that lockout (Injunction) which goes to Judge Doty. If Doty allows that injunction, then the owners will appeal. Now, The owners have to decide whether they want to implement the 2010 rules or another set of rules.
That's fine. You'll see the players start to put pressure on for a deal. I would imagine the players, many of them, are already unhappy with the outcome of today.


It is likely that they will choose the 2010 rules because if they change the rules and impose more restrictions, the players Anti Trust Lawsuit is saying- "You are providing restrictions on a work force that is not unionized" Which is the basis of the lawsuit. So if the owners decide on new rules then they would be making the players case for them.
They'd be fools to accept the 2010 rules.


The star of this whole thing will be Judge Doty. Mark my words
Star? Or public enemy #1, depending on your view.

1.Without the players you have NO LEAGUE. Those franchises arent worth a dime without the players. The fans dont come to see the STEELERS they come to see players in those Steelers uniforms. By your logic the fans would show up to watch Mannequins in Steeler uniforms. Not the case.

2. 700 million out of 9 BILLION? NO THANKS!!

3. The players are happy about todays events. They are in the right and they understand this. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.
4. You are incorrect they would be fools to select new rules. If they do that then they would be making the Players case for them as I have stated in earlier post

5. Doty is fair. If you are on the owners side and its clear that you are then that's fine. But dont call the man public enemy #1 for being fair.

[Scalaid6]

The three Golden Child QBs are suing the league, they seem perfectly willing to work with Smith.
Well, sure. They're not worried about how to afford their next deal or health insurance. Making more money doesn't give you more votes. You still only get one.

How do you think Ike Redman feels? Mike Wallace? Other younger players who's financial future isn't set?

How do you know the status of their financial situations?

The players have LONG told the players to save their money in the likelihood of a lockout. If the players didnt listen then that is on them.

[Blockhead]

1.Without the players you have NO LEAGUE. Those franchises arent worth a dime without the players. The fans dont come to see the STEELERS they come to see players in those Steelers uniforms. By your logic the fans would show up to watch Mannequins in Steeler uniforms. Not the case.

2. 700 million out of 9 BILLION? NO THANKS!!

3. The players are happy about todays events. They are in the right and they understand this. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.
4. You are incorrect they would be fools to select new rules. If they do that then they would be making the Players case for them as I have stated in earlier post

5. Doty is fair. If you are on the owners side and its clear that you are then that's fine. But dont call the man public enemy #1 for being fair.
I see no need in debating with someone who not only lacks comprehension of the issues but who thinks the league dies with the players.

The owners have built the league. The players come and go. The owners should do what it takes to smash the union for good. Players are nothing more than replaceable contracted employees. How and why the owners allowed them to have so much power was a huge mistake. It's time to right a wrong.

[Blockhead]

The players union filed a 58 page lawsuit. They had it prepared for weeks. They had no intensions of doing a deal without litigation. If this doesn't prove the move is a sham, nothing will.

Von Miller's draft stock just plummeted. I can't imagine many owners wanting to jump at the chance to draft him now.

[Sugar]

Normally I hate labor unions with hot, burning passion. That said, I'm finding a lot more to side with on the NFLPA side than the the owners in this case.

Too bad Ben didn't get in on the suit w/ Brady, Manning and Brees. It might have been good pub for him.

[Blockhead]

Normally I hate labor unions with hot, burning passion. That said, I'm finding a lot more to side with on the NFLPA side than the the owners in this case.

Too bad Ben didn't get in on the suit w/ Brady, Manning and Brees. It might have been good pub for him.
like what? They didn't even negotiate? The owners moved from the stance by almost $700 million. The PU moved $0.

Ben doesn't need to be in the press for anything this offseason. I hope it stays that way.

[grotonsteel]

With rookie payscale in place i see few more teams taking a risk on a QB now in 1st Rd.

[Blockhead]

With rookie payscale in place i see few more teams taking a risk on a QB now in 1st Rd.
Miller's presense is to fight any rookie payscale.

[Crash]

Miller's done. He'll be blackballed.

[Scalaid6]

1.Without the players you have NO LEAGUE. Those franchises arent worth a dime without the players. The fans dont come to see the STEELERS they come to see players in those Steelers uniforms. By your logic the fans would show up to watch Mannequins in Steeler uniforms. Not the case.

2. 700 million out of 9 BILLION? NO THANKS!!

3. The players are happy about todays events. They are in the right and they understand this. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.
4. You are incorrect they would be fools to select new rules. If they do that then they would be making the Players case for them as I have stated in earlier post

5. Doty is fair. If you are on the owners side and its clear that you are then that's fine. But dont call the man public enemy #1 for being fair.
I see no need in debating with someone who not only lacks comprehension of the issues but who thinks the league dies with the players.

The owners have built the league. The players come and go. The owners should do what it takes to smash the union for good. Players are nothing more than replaceable contracted employees. How and why the owners allowed them to have so much power was a huge mistake. It's time to right a wrong.

Oh the Collateral attacks. Next time Crash insults you dont tuck your dress and cry. You do the same as he does when you are flustered.

Put Rooneys name on the back of a Jersey and see how many FANS buy said Jersey. Sorry, the PLAYERS are the attraction to the NFL and the owners must recognize that. Yes players come and go, thats like saying the Day turns into the night. What generates all of that revenue? THE PLAYERS and not the respective teams.

During the last NFL Strike the owners hired scabs. How was the attendance for that inferior product? NOT GOOD.

WHO does Nike, Under Armour, Gatorade etc sign to endorse their products? The owners or the players? TEAMS get endorsement deals based on what the players of those individual teams do or how they perform. Better teams get better deals etc. My point is the fan attraction is the PLAYERS and not the respective teams.

Did you wonder why an upstart league called the USFL went up against the NFL in the 80's and became a worthy rival to the NFL. Why is that? Due to the owners or the PLAYERS? I say it was players like Jim Kelly, Anthony Carter, Reggie White, Steve Young etc that made that league grow into a fomidable foe.

You mentioned that the owners Moved 700 milllon but at the same time those same owners wont open their books to show any justification to any of their models.
To say the players have moved 0 is Incorrect or uninformed. The players introduced a pay cap system, where you give the owners cost certainty. You limit the growth, you pull it back a little bit to earlier years at the beginning. The next year you create something like deferred compensation plan. More than fair in my opinion. If not at least address it.

The owners whole thing is "We have to pay more for our stadiums because we arent getting any local money". They assert that they have more cost and it is outpacing the revenue and the players are getting a greater share. On this point the owners have merit, you cant argue that. But the shared compensation plan is a SOLUTION to that situation. The players in this plan are saying "Ok we will share in the risk. We will give you cashflow right now, this will reduce the amount you would be spending. We will give you cost certainty and that way we will BOTH share in the growth".

10 years down the road you pay that deferred compensation and it's perfomance driven because its based on the player being in the league. The NFL is a performance driven business so of course if you dont perform, you wont be in the league. This was a fair model that can work but the owners refused to even address such a proposal

[Blockhead]

Players come and go. People tore Kordell's name off of #10 to replace it with Holmes and will tear it off again.

Names come and go. Frachises last..

Doty, if he was fair, which we know he is not, would disallow any payments to the players from marketing deals related to their NFL employment, like endoresments, as he has disallowed the television contracts being paid.

Fair is fair. That said, we all know Doty is anything but fair. He's a union hack.

Individual books are nothing but a pr move. They have been given team by team P/L statements. No need to see the books. The business models are different.

The CBA is not based on individual books but rather shared revenues. I suggest you read it and study the issues.

[Scalaid6]

Translation: You went way over my head with your last post so I have to piece together some flimsy arguments to save face.

LOL

[Steel Life]

With rookie payscale in place i see few more teams taking a risk on a QB now in 1st Rd.
Miller's presense is to fight any rookie payscale.
According to D. Smith, he's there to represent the future players...that said, the NFLPA supposedly offered their own version of a rookie pay-scale, so one way or another there's going to be one.

[Crash]

Brady, Manning, Brees file antitrust suit
By DAVE CAMPBELL, AP Sports Writer
51 minutes ago
tweet38
Email
Print
MINNEAPOLIS (AP)—Star quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes), Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) were among 10 players who sued the NFL in federal court Friday, accusing the league of conspiracy and anticompetitive practices that date back years.

Their lawsuit asked the court to prevent a lockout.

Less than two hours after the players’ union decertified, clearing the way for antitrust lawsuits, the players filed their 52-page claim and supporting documents in U.S. District Court. They asked the court for class-action status.

They filed a request for an injunction that would keep the NFL and the teams from engaging in a lockout. Invoking the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust statute from 1890 that limits monopolies and restrictions on commerce, the players said they were entitled to triple the amount of any damages they’ve incurred.

Which means the stakes could be in the hundreds of millions.

The players accused the 32 NFL teams of conspiring to deny their ability to market their services “through a patently unlawful group boycott and price-fixing arrangement or, in the alternative, a unilaterally imposed set of anticompetitive restrictions on player movement, free agency and competitive market freedom.”

The collective bargaining agreement with the league was expiring Friday.

The NFL did not immediately file a response. Commissioner Roger Goodell called on the union to re-open negotiations.

A hearing date hasn’t been set.

The legal wrangling took place in a federal courthouse in Minnesota, hundreds of miles from the mediated negotiations in Washington. It’s the setting for what could be a long legal fight between owners and players with the 2011 season in jeopardy.

The names on the complaint were striking: Brady, Brees, Manning and a few others, listed in a block of text at the top of the first page. They’re plaintiffs, for now, not simply players.

They allege that the NFL conspired to deny the players’ ability to market their services in what is a $9 billion business. They spelled out what they called a long history of NFL antitrust violations, citing as constraints the potential lockout, rookie salary limitations and the franchise and transition player designations. Teams use those designations to keep key free agents off the open market, but the players also are well compensated when they sign new contracts.

Tom Condon, who represents Manning and Brees, wrote in a statement submitted to the court that a “‘lockout’ imposed by the NFL threatens to rob Mr. Brees and Mr. Manning, and all other NFL players, of an entire year, or more, of their brief playing careers, which cannot be recaptured.”

“This is especially problematic because of the virtually constant need for NFL players to prove their skill and value on the playing field,” wrote Condon, one of more than a half-dozen agents who offered statements supporting their clients. “Missing a year or more of playing in the NFL can cause the skills of NFL players to become rusty from lack of competition, making it difficult for them to regain the full talents they exhibited prior to the absence from play. This could shorten or even end the careers of NFL players.”

The players also said—lockout or not—if teams “fail to pay any such required payments to any player, that player’s contract shall, at the player’s option, be declared null and void.”

That’s a potentially explosive claim: Players would have the right to get out of their contracts if they don’t get a paycheck, even if a settlement is reached.

The NFLPA’s general counsel, Richard Berthelsen, said a lockout would cause “irreparable injury” to NFL players even if it’s only a few games or simply offseason activities that are wiped out.

“If young players are forced to forego an entire season, they will miss out on a year of the experience and exposure that comes from playing against NFL-level competition and receiving NFL-level coaching, both of which are a must for young players,” Berthelsen wrote.

The players want their case in front of U.S. District Judge David Doty, who has overseen NFL labor matters since the early 1990s and has several times ruled in favor of the players.

The case was assigned to U.S. District judge Patrick Schiltz, though it still could end up in front of Doty. The court has designated it as a related case to the Reggie White-led class-action suit that Doty guided toward a 1993 settlement, opening the doors to free agency.

The league has tried in the past to remove Doty from the case, alleging bias toward the players.

Doty issued a ruling last week that backed the NFLPA in a dispute over $4 billion in TV revenue that players argue was illegally collected by the owners as a war chest to survive a work stoppage.

Also involved in bringing the lawsuit: San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson(notes), Minnesota linebacker Ben Leber(notes) and defensive end Brian Robison(notes), New England guard Logan Mankins(notes), New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora(notes), Kansas City linebacker Mike Vrabel(notes), and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year’s draft.

“The torch has been passed to a young Aggie who has decided to put his name on a lawsuit,” NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith said.

Manning, Jackson, Leber and Mankins are free agents. The Colts tagged Manning as a franchise player, while the Chargers did the same with Jackson and the Patriots with Mankins. The union is disputing the validity of those tags.

AP Pro Football Writer Barry Wilner in New York and Associated Press Writer Amy Forliti in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

[hawaiiansteel]

The lockout has officially begun

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 12, 2011


For the first time since 1987, the National League Football has officially entered a work stoppage at midnight ET.

It came with a whimper.

As of 12:33 a.m. ET, the league hasn’t released a statement on the matter. The leage-owned NFL Network has confirmed on air that the owners have imposed a lockout on the players, and NFL.com also has a story on it.

This will set off a number of legal maneuvers. The players have gone to court in an effort to block such a move. The owners are expected to try to prove that the NFLPA’s decertification is a sham. That argument could have problems with it.

The world didn’t end at midnight, but the doomed collective bargaining agreement of 2006 is officially in the rearview mirror. The players have filed an antitrust lawsuit — officially known as Brady et al vs. National Football League et al.

All of the above is legal maneuvering that the average NFL fan (and writer) won’t fully understand. Nor should they have to. Florio will be breaking it all down in the coming weeks so we digest what’s going on.

You don’t need a law degree, however, to understand the implications of a lockout.

The players and NFL owners talk about the trust necessary to come to an agreement. They clearly don’t trust each other very much right now.

Both sides risk also risk losing the trust of a loyal, rabid fanbase. And there isn’t a lawsuit that can solve that.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... lly-begun/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/the-lockout-has-officially-begun/)

[birtikidis]

Players come and go. People tore Kordell's name off of #10 to replace it with Holmes and will tear it off again.

Names come and go. Frachises last..

Doty, if he was fair, which we know he is not, would disallow any payments to the players from marketing deals related to their NFL employment, like endoresments, as he has disallowed the television contracts being paid.

Fair is fair. That said, we all know Doty is anything but fair. He's a union hack.

Individual books are nothing but a pr move. They have been given team by team P/L statements. No need to see the books. The business models are different.

The CBA is not based on individual books but rather shared revenues. I suggest you read it and study the issues.
we'll see how much revenue the league generates when there aren't any players on the field during the lockout. Sure the NFL won't fold. But without it's players there is no league.

[Oviedo]

Players are replaceable carbon units. When one goes down fans don't stop going to games. The greatest players in Steelers history have all been replaced. There are 100 ready to auditions for each position in the NFL.

The common thread is the Rooney's and the other owners. they provide the opportunity for the players. No owners=no teams=no jobs for players.

The equation is easy to understand once you get past the man-love of players and wanna be wish I could be envy of them.

There was no doubt we were going to get to this point the minute that idiot Dip****ius Smith got his job. This is as much about him establish his reputation as a bad ass labor leader as anything else. He has been angling for this since day 1.

[Crash]

Um, this is a lockout, not a strike.

De Smith and the players were willing to keep playing under the current deal.

The OWNERS opted out, long before Smith was even hired.

And here's the sick part, did the owners opt out because they knew how ill Gene Upshaw was and tried to catch the NFLPA at a point of weakness and confusion? Upshaw was clearly sick, even if he didn't know the exact "cause" of it.

Only they know the answer to that.

[Chadman]

we'll see how much revenue the league generates when there aren't any players on the field during the lockout. Sure the NFL won't fold. But without it's players there is no league.

And if the owners go bust, or bail because of the costs of owning a team get out of control? What sort of NFL do you have then?

[Crash]

There are plenty of billionaires who would be willing to own an NFL team. The league isn't cash strapped no matter what they tell you.

When teams are paying Albert Haynesworth $100 million to play two downs? Don't start crying poor.

[Chadman]

Um, this is a lockout, not a strike.

De Smith and the players were willing to keep playing under the current deal.

The OWNERS opted out, long before Smith was even hired.

And here's the sick part, did the owners opt out because they knew how ill Gene Upshaw was and tried to catch the NFLPA at a point of weakness and confusion? Upshaw was clearly sick, even if he didn't know the exact "cause" of it.

Only they know the answer to that.


Why are the owners so upset about the deal they cut in 2006?


Roger Goodell Many owners believe that the late Gene Upshaw, who served as the NFLPA’s executive director for a quarter-century, caught then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue in a weak moment and muscled through an extension to the CBA that was, in essence, a resounding victory for the players. Upshaw, they believe, knew that Tagliabue – who was preparing to step away after a 17-year stint as commissioner which included unprecedented labor peace – was loath to tarnish his legacy by ending his tenure with a messy fight between the players and owners. He also understood that several of the league’s most powerful owners, such as the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, were unwilling to entertain thoughts of a work stoppage because of expensive stadium plans. So Upshaw successfully got Tagliabue to sell a deal that gave the players 59.6 percent of total revenue and implemented a revenue-sharing plan in which the league’s 15 highest-earning franchises subsidized the 17 teams that earned the least. A little more than two years after agreeing to the extension by a 30-2 vote, the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the deal two years early. Upshaw’s sudden death from pancreatic cancer three months later may have given some owners an increased sense that the union is in a vulnerable position this time around.

That's the problem with one sided arguments Crash- they tend to leave out little bits of the full story..like how the terribly ill Upshaw used Tagliabue's desire to have no labour dispute tarnish his reputation before his retirement to force a deal that was weighted heavily in the players favour.

[Chadman]

There are plenty of billionaires who would be willing to own an NFL team. The league isn't cash strapped no matter what they tell you.

When teams are paying Albert Haynesworth $100 million to play two downs? Don't start crying poor.

Have they ever claimed to be cash-strapped?

Or are they trying to re-balance the financial gain in the NFL to ensure that owning an NFL franchise is, indeed, profitable not only now, but in the future?

Before you respond- I'll use a Crashism- were you there? When the owners decided they were losing money- where you there to see for yourself that they were all lying? Have you seen their books & have knowledge as to their deception of the players?

[Chadman]

There are plenty of billionaires who would be willing to own an NFL team.

Billionaire's don't get to be billionaire's by spending money frivolously (spelling?)- they make sound financial commitments.

If the current NFL owners start bailing because the revenue they want/need to make the profit they want/need isn't there- how many other billionaires are going to jump in to that money pit?

[Crash]

That's the problem with one sided arguments Crash- they tend to leave out little bits of the full story..like how the terribly ill Upshaw used Tagliabue's desire to have no labour dispute tarnish his reputation before his retirement to force a deal that was weighted heavily in the players favour.

So don't approve it then. Remember, Tags works for the owners, not the other way around. Tags forced nothing, the owners have the votes.

If Jerry Jones didn't want a work stoppage then because of his stadium loans my advice would be for him not to build a stadium the size (I think) of his ego.

Just like Kraft, he's built/building a complex next to Gillette Stadium that costs MORE than Gillette did. Seems he got in over his head also. It's no wonder these two are spearheading this lockout. Don't shut the league down because their ego-driven palaces didn't make financial sense. Seems they are spending too much money and not being financially responsible while doing it.

[Crash]

There are plenty of billionaires who would be willing to own an NFL team. The league isn't cash strapped no matter what they tell you.

When teams are paying Albert Haynesworth $100 million to play two downs? Don't start crying poor.

Have they ever claimed to be cash-strapped?

Or are they trying to re-balance the financial gain in the NFL to ensure that owning an NFL franchise is, indeed, profitable not only now, but in the future?

Before you respond- I'll use a Crashism- were you there? When the owners decided they were losing money- where you there to see for yourself that they were all lying? Have you seen their books & have knowledge as to their deception of the players?

The owners won't open their books. The NFLPA has said from the start, if you are losing money, SHOW US!

They refuse. There is much speculation as to why they won't open the books. What are they hiding? Most claim that opening the books would show the real problem the owners don't want people to see: How much money they spend on needless crap.

The league is raking in cash. That's not going away. This is about greed.

It's also mostly about this:


So Upshaw successfully got Tagliabue to sell a deal that gave the players 59.6 percent of total revenue and implemented a revenue-sharing plan in which the league’s 15 highest-earning franchises subsidized the 17 teams that earned the least.

The higher revenue teams, like Dallas, like New England, like Washington, don't want to help the lower ranked teams, so who do they want to pay that tab? The players.

[Chadman]

And here's the sick part, did the owners opt out because they knew how ill Gene Upshaw was and tried to catch the NFLPA at a point of weakness and confusion? Upshaw was clearly sick, even if he didn't know the exact "cause" of it.

So wait- the owners are sick bastards for trying to catch Upshaw in a moment of weakness, but..


the owners are idiots for letting Upshaw do that to Tagliabue?

That is one sided arguing Crash. Look at both sides, and you'll see that both parties could give a little & get the deal done- not this line in the sand crap the union is playing.

[Crash]

the owners are idiots for letting Upshaw do that to Tagliabue?

Tags doesn't vote. The owners do. Tags works for them.

If the owners who vote, thought it was a bad deal, they should have never approved it. 30-2 it passed.

"Billionaire's don't get to be billionaire's by spending money frivolously (spelling?)- they make sound financial commitments"

Your words, not mine.

So either that deal isn't as bad as they want you to believe, or the owners aren't as smart as you claim they are.

You decide which.

[Chadman]

The owners won't open their books. The NFLPA has said from the start, if you are losing money, SHOW US!

They refuse. There is much speculation as to why they won't open the books. What are they hiding? Most claim that opening the books would show the real problem the owners don't want people to see: How much money they spend on needless crap.

The league is raking in cash. That's not going away. This is about greed.

For someone that always cries out for FACTS, you sure as Hell swallow alot of SPECULATION to make your points.

As owners of businesses, why, WHY, should the owners show the EMPLOYEES how much money they make? You know what that move does?

It takes away any bargaining power the owners may have in the future- because the players will know exactly what they can strangle the owners into giving.

So personally, who can blame the owners for refusing that from the Union?

[Crash]

So when owners come out and say they aren't making enough money the players should just say "OK, we believe you?"

[Chadman]

Tags doesn't vote. The owners do. Tags works for them.

So Goodell can't be blamed either, right?



So either that deal isn't as bad as they want you to believe, or the owners aren't as smart as you claim they are.


Not trying to be funny, but you are willing to disregard anything in order to make your point, aren't you? The article I posted clearly indicated that owners like Jerry Jones didn't want a work stoppage due to the ongoing building of his new stadium. Tags, for all of his 'he works for them' status, still had a strong standing with all owners. Did he make the decision? No. But his influence was strong. And the deal sure as hell suited the 17 teams that the other 15 had to fund, so getting a majority was not going to be an issue.

Debating with you is tiring. :HeadBanger

[Crash]

The article I posted clearly indicated that owners like Jerry Jones didn't want a work stoppage due to the ongoing building of his new stadium.

And why was that? Because it cost a billion freaking dollars and he took out massive loans to build it.

Now that it's built, Jerry and other owners like him with stadium/development loan issues now want the players to pay for their financial irresponsibility.

Dan Rooney called the 2006 deal "The best labor deal in sports".

So again, either the owners are dumb, or the deal isn't as bad as they want you to believe.


So Goodell can't be blamed either, right?

For the lockout? Not really. Goodell's ruined the game for a variety of reasons, but the lockout is way down on the list.

[Chadman]

So when owners come out and say they aren't making enough money the players should just say "OK, we believe you?"


Well, considering that those same, horrid, wretched owners are the exact same people that fund these players lavish lifestyles, with money that the players accept willingly & with little regard as to how the owner can afford it, is it really their place to question wether or not the owners are making a high enough profit to continue funding these players lavish lifestyles?

Now- you're going to give the 'stupid owners should have thought about that before they signed the player' line. My question is this- in the whole CBA argument- have the owners ever said that the players are going to have to reduce the money they can earn on their current contracts?

Because, if not- if this whole argument over how much money is dealt percentage-wise from this point on- how can any player claim that the owners are 'taking money from them' as has been claimed?

All this new proposed deal the owners want will do, is effect FUTURE contracts- so you might find that some players will face the prospect of earning less in the future because their share of the pie got smaller. But no player will LOSE money as it is claimed.

[Crash]

Well, considering that those same, horrid, wretched owners are the exact same people that fund these players lavish lifestyles, with money that the players accept willingly & with little regard as to how the owner can afford it, is it really their place to question wether or not the owners are making a high enough profit to continue funding these players lavish lifestyles?

Um, nobody's forcing them to own teams. If they can't handle it, they can always sell, no?

Once again, your words:

"Billionaire's don't get to be billionaire's by spending money frivolously (spelling?)- they make sound financial commitments"

You seem to be arguing both sides.


My question is this- in the whole CBA argument- have the owners ever said that the players are going to have to reduce the money they can earn on their current contracts?

You mean the contracts the owners can terminate at any time because their currently is no salary cap?

THOSE contracts?

[Blockhead]

If the players want the books completely open, it is only fair to see the complete books of the players.

I would like to see where all the players money goes. I'm sure they are wasting a higher percentage of their money on frivilous activities than the owners.

Fair is fair. Get your checkbooks out boys.

[Crash]

If the players want the books completely open, it is only fair to see the complete books of the players.

I would like to see where all the players money goes. I'm sure they are wasting a higher percentage of their money on frivilous activities than the owners.

Fair is fair. Get your checkbooks out boys.

Um, this isn't a strike. You seem to forget it's the owners crying poor. Not the players.

[Blockhead]

If the players want the books completely open, it is only fair to see the complete books of the players.

I would like to see where all the players money goes. I'm sure they are wasting a higher percentage of their money on frivilous activities than the owners.

Fair is fair. Get your checkbooks out boys.

Um, this isn't a strike. You seem to forget it's the owners crying poor. Not the players.
Kindly show me where an owner has said they are poor? They are claiming rising expenses, which they have shown with the P/L statements of each teams.

The players are wanting more and desiring full books being opened as they are "partners?" If that's the case, the owners deserve to see all of their "partners" books as well.

Fair is fair.

The de-certification is a clear sham anyway.

[Crash]

Motion for preliminary injunction could be resolved soon

Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011, 2:59 PM EST
There’s some confusion and misinformation floating around regarding the early phase of the antitrust litigation filed by Tom Brady and others on Friday afternoon in Minnesota. Our goal at this point is to help you understand how things could unfold in the coming days and weeks.

For starters, no one knows what will happen or when it will happen. Anyone who tries to say otherwise this point is lying or stupid or a little (or a lot) of both. The players opted for uncertainty because they concluded that from uncertainty a better deal eventually will emerge. The league prefers certainty because the league thinks a better deal will come from collective bargaining capped by a lockout.

For now, we know that the players have filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking a lockout and, eventually, scuttling any rules imposed by the 32 business that make up the NFL. We also know that the league will fight the effort, claiming that the ability to attack decertification as a “sham” survived the expiration of the CBA.

And we know that the players have filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which means that the players hope to obtain a ruling blocking the lockout while the litigation proceeds.

The players have not, as others correctly have pointed out, attempted to pursue a temporary restraining order. A TRO is obtained on what the lawyers call and “ex parte” basis, meaning that one side goes into court and obtains an order preventing someone from doing something that they plan to do while the court takes up the issue. Temporary restraining orders are granted only in very rare circumstances, typically when failure to intervene could lead to irreversible harm of some sort.

A motion for preliminary injunction can be resolved in a matter of days, or in a matter of weeks. At this point, no one knows how quickly, or how slowly, the federal court in Minnesota will move. If, as the league fully expects, the case will be assigned to Judge David Doty based on his 20-plus-years of expertise in NFL labor matters, Doty would then schedule a hearing — and he could issue a ruling from the bench at the end of the hearing, or at some point thereafter.

The hearing could occur this week, or next week, or at some point thereafter.

Most judges treat motions for preliminary injunctions with a sense of urgency. As the players’ lawsuit alleges, pending free agents are being kept from signing with new teams. Eventually, players under contract won’t be permitted to take part in the offseason workout program, which allows them to stay in shape under the supervision of team employees. The players likely will seek a quick ruling — and the judge probably won’t drag his feet.

The first battle will focus on whether the union decertified in a way that cuts off the “sham” defense. If the union prevails, the lockout likely will be blocked, since a decision by 32 separate businesses to shut down a non-union workforce constitutes a fairly clear violation of the antitrust laws.

We’ll continue to stay on the cutting edge of this rusty razor blade, even though we’d rather be talking about free agency and offseason workouts and the periodic arrest.

At least we’ll still have the periodic arrest.

[hawaiiansteel]

Robert Kraft “confident that an agreement will be reached”

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 12, 2011


Patriots owner Robert Kraft said during the 2010 season that it would be criminal for a work stoppage to interrupt the NFL at a time when the league is more popular than ever. Now that the “criminal” work stoppage has begun, Kraft says the fault is the union’s, for never really wanting to negotiate.

But Kraft also says a deal will get done that allows the 2011 season to be played.

“I think the actions of the union to end the mediation process and walk away from Friday’s offer clearly showed their true intentions to take this process to litigation all along,” Kraft said in a statement released by the team. “While disappointed by their action to decertify, I remain confident that an agreement will be reached and that the 2011 season will be played. I know that the owners are committed to this process, but that the quickest way to do so is through continued negotiation, not litigation. For the sake of all involved, the owners, the players and most importantly, the fans, I hope we return to the negotiating table very soon.”

So Kraft is following the same company line as the rest of the owners and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, all of whom are placing the blame on the union for deciding to litigate rather than negotiate.

And fans will continue to care very little whether the blame goes to the owners or the players, and care quite a lot about whether or not Kraft is right that the 2011 season will be played. Anything less than the 2011 season going off as scheduled would be criminal.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e-reached/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/robert-kraft-confident-that-an-agreement-will-be-reached/)

[Crash]

Yeah it's all the players fault. The NFL opted out of the "best labor deal in sports" according to Ambassador Rooney and the blame goes to the players.

:roll:

[Blockhead]

Yeah it's all the players fault. The NFL opted out of the "best labor deal in sports" according to Ambassador Rooney and the blame goes to the players.

:roll:

You have found yet another statement and are harping on it non-stop. I'm sure it was a great deal for the labor. I'm sure it was also a lot of PR speak after the deal was signed.

You have overwhelmingly shown you don't even have a clue what the deal is so until you learn and educate yourself on the facts of the case, you may want to take a seat on the end of the bench.

[hawaiiansteel]

March 12

(9:00 AM): NFL lights go out; draft still on … The inevitable happened late yesterday when frustrated with the pace and tenor of negotiations, the NFLPA decertified prior to the 5 PM Friday deadline to so. Hours later, the NFL: owners locked the players and the players quickly followed by seeking an injunction in court to block the lockout. As a result, all NFL activity has come to a screeching half, with the exception of the draft with proceed as scheduled on April 28-30.

Without a settlement or a court order ending the lockout, though, trades involving veteran players will not be allowed prior to or during the draft. And the annual post-draft feeding frenzy of signing undrafted free agents won’t happen. There are also questions whether under the wording of the lockout that pre-draft visits of prospects will be allowed, however, for the moment those appear to be still on.

http://www.gbnreport.com/index.htm

[Crash]

Broncos are willing to open their books
Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011, 11:05 PM EST

During last week’s squabble over financial transparency, a report emerged that some owners were willing to open their books fully and completely to the NFLPA*.

Count the Broncos among the willing.

CEO Joe Ellis said Saturday that the team has no qualms about letting the union see for itself the changes in financial performance since the last CBA was signed in 2006.

“If the league decides they want to open up the books of the Denver Broncos to present them to the union — I don’t know if the league is into identifying individual clubs because they’re private businesses,” Ellis said, per Mike Klis of the Denver Post. “But with a neutral [auditor] to verify the fact that certain teams haven’t been operating as effectively as they did in the past, we’re a willing and able participant.’”

Ellis also complained about the union’s failure to even eyeball profitability data that the league had offered.

“We offered to show the union league-wide and club profitability data,” Ellis said. “Not only that it can be verified by a mutually agreed upon third-party auditor. This is the type of information we don’t share with each other. In other words, we aren’t allowed to see how other teams are doing specifically in terms of revenues and expenses. Everything is very formalized in terms of information we get from other clubs. Now the union didn’t even want to look at it.”

Ellis also joined the league-wide chorus of voices claiming that the NFLPA* didn’t want to negotiate at the bargaining table, but via the courts.

“[Owner] Pat [Bowlen] certainly believes they had no real good intention of negotiating and their goal all along was to go down the path of litigation,” Ellis said. “It’s extremely disappointing and it frustrates Pat. It makes him angry. He’s fully aware that it makes our friends, our constituents, our season-ticket holders and everybody who supports us angry and disappointing. But we can’t stop operating.” (Other than, you know, locking the players out.)

We still don’t know why any of this would make an owner “angry,” apart from the fact that some really rich people are very accustomed to getting their way, and they get “angry” on those rare occasions when they don’t. Both sides are attempting to use their full legal rights to get the best deal possible. The league thinks a better deal happens via collective bargaining. The players think a better deal happens via litigation. It would be nice if someone on either side of this fight would simply be honest about that reality, and not complain about it.

Either way, Saturday’s comments from guys like Pete Kendall and Joe Ellis suggest that there’s a middle ground that can be staked out for an acceptable financial disclosure that would then allow the talks to continue, regardless of the format in which they occur.

Hopefully, once everyone has thrown their tantrums and cleaned up after their pity parties, they can get back to work.

[hawaiiansteel]

Union chief's ego gets in way as he overplays players' hand

When NFL dust settles, owners still will be rich and the players will have gained … what?

March 13, 2011


In trying to absorb the avoidable antitrust lawsuit filed Friday under Tom Brady vs. the NFL that preceded the league's first work stoppage in 24 years, one thought won't go away.

If DeMaurice Smith, the leader of the now-decertified NFL Players Association, showed as much interest in making a deal as he seemed to have in making history, perhaps we would be debating who got the best of whom in the new collective bargaining agreement.

Instead, 1000 Football Drive leading to Halas Hall has become 2011 Lockout Lane, and Smith as much as anybody steered the sport down an uncharted road that looks bumpy.

"We're disappointed in the need to take this step, but it is necessary for the long-term health of our league,'' Bears President Ted Phillips said in a statement about the NFL's lockout. "Ultimately we believe an agreement will be reached at the bargaining table.''

Forcing the dispute into a courtroom only threatens to cure our national addiction to the NFL.

In football parlance, all the players needed Smith to do was manage the game. Be Kyle Orton in a $5,000 suit and keep the chains moving. Based on reports, Smith insisted on trying to force the big play. The only people dancing in the end zone now are Washington law partners. Who has David Boies in the Fantasy Football Lawyers League anyway?

The players didn't need Smith's inappropriate analogies to war or 11th-hour ultimatums. They needed perspective. They needed compromise; they got confrontation over money.

Smith's risky decision to establish leverage by decertifying the union and turning this into a protracted courtroom battle ignored the league's last-ditch proposal that addressed critical player concerns. The NFL said the offer Smith walked away from included the following:

1) Maintaining a 16-game schedule through 2012; 2) implementing a rookie wage scale and funneling savings to veterans and retired players; 3) cutting the number of offseason workouts and organized team activities; and 4) contributing $82 million into a fund for retired players and offering current players lifetime health coverage.

The league also vowed to disclose limited audited profitability information and reduce the money owners should be given off the top of league revenues from $1 billion to $325 million. A lawyer for the former NFLPA responded by saying the league had "lied.''

That's always a possibility. The NFL spins better than a new toy on Christmas morning. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners deserve a measure of blame for not doing a better job of building or earning trust. But lost in Friday's inflamed rhetoric assessing the failure were two key points.

•If current players really wanted to do something profound for those before and after them, they would have focused on the league's offer of lifetime health coverage and increased retirement benefits instead of the disparity in profit. That's sacrifice in the name of something.

•Smith consistently sought to present the players as partners in the league with the owners. As much as the ability and charisma of players have put America's most popular sport at its apex, they are employees. The owners are employers.

Players and owners aren't partners on equal footing. Without the NFL, most owners still would be filthy rich. Dare I suggest you can't say the same about many of the 1,900 players.

That doesn't mean players need to take a deal on terms the owners dictate. But it should mean players recognize they benefit from the opportunities the NFL provides more than these negotiations have shown.

The lack of trust between players and owners is nearly as old as the league itself. But before Friday, the league never had been healthier. Players never had been richer. The game never had been better. Everybody was, duh, winning.

Workers in this union aren't being oppressed. The average NFL salary in 2010 was $1.9 million. Sure, it's a violent sport, but the NFL's final offer improving short- and long-term health coverage reflected that reality.

"A deal will get done, and we expect to play football in 2011,'' Phillips said.

I want to believe Phillips. Just as I will want to believe the next player who swears he's playing for the love of the game.

But as long as Smith remains in a position of influence with players whose best interests he claims to represent, I will have my doubts.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...7161607.column

[Scalaid6]

If the players want the books completely open, it is only fair to see the complete books of the players.

I would like to see where all the players money goes. I'm sure they are wasting a higher percentage of their money on frivilous activities than the owners.

Fair is fair. Get your checkbooks out boys.
No relevance at all just another stupid analogy by this poster

[Scalaid6]

The owners aren’t pitiful people whose businesses are hounded by greedy workers. They’re men who signed a contract then abandoned it. Can you really not see the difference between the owners negotiating “lockout insurance” through the TV contracts and the players being told to “save money from their paychecks”? Really? Is it that hard to understand that the owners had a contract were they had promised to maximize revenues and then spend a certain percentage of revenues on players salaries. Then, rather than have the TV networks pay market rate during the contract term, they told the networks to pay them less during the time the owners were sharing the revenues with the players and instead pay them the revenue during the time that a lockout might occur, when they would not have to share it with the owners. SIMPLY, the owners did not honor their contract with the players, through which they promised to act in good faith (as we all have to in every contract) to maximize the revenue they had both agreed to share. The real comparison would be: the players should save from their paychecks and the owners should save from their profits in case of a work stoppage!

[Oviedo]

[quote]Well, considering that those same, horrid, wretched owners are the exact same people that fund these players lavish lifestyles, with money that the players accept willingly & with little regard as to how the owner can afford it, is it really their place to question wether or not the owners are making a high enough profit to continue funding these players lavish lifestyles?

Um, nobody's forcing them to own teams. If they can't handle it, they can always sell, no?

Once again, your words:

"Billionaire's don't get to be billionaire's by spending money frivolously (spelling?)- they make sound financial commitments"

You seem to be arguing both sides.


My question is this- in the whole CBA argument- have the owners ever said that the players are going to have to reduce the money they can earn on their current contracts?

You mean the contracts the owners can terminate at any time because their currently is no salary cap?

THOSE contracts?[/quote:6mvi3u71]

Much like no one is forcing players to play in the NFL. Bad argument.

[Oviedo]

Union chief's ego gets in way as he overplays players' hand

When NFL dust settles, owners still will be rich and the players will have gained … what?

March 13, 2011


In trying to absorb the avoidable antitrust lawsuit filed Friday under Tom Brady vs. the NFL that preceded the league's first work stoppage in 24 years, one thought won't go away.

If DeMaurice Smith, the leader of the now-decertified NFL Players Association, showed as much interest in making a deal as he seemed to have in making history, perhaps we would be debating who got the best of whom in the new collective bargaining agreement.

Instead, 1000 Football Drive leading to Halas Hall has become 2011 Lockout Lane, and Smith as much as anybody steered the sport down an uncharted road that looks bumpy.

"We're disappointed in the need to take this step, but it is necessary for the long-term health of our league,'' Bears President Ted Phillips said in a statement about the NFL's lockout. "Ultimately we believe an agreement will be reached at the bargaining table.''

Forcing the dispute into a courtroom only threatens to cure our national addiction to the NFL.

In football parlance, all the players needed Smith to do was manage the game. Be Kyle Orton in a $5,000 suit and keep the chains moving. Based on reports, Smith insisted on trying to force the big play. The only people dancing in the end zone now are Washington law partners. Who has David Boies in the Fantasy Football Lawyers League anyway?

The players didn't need Smith's inappropriate analogies to war or 11th-hour ultimatums. They needed perspective. They needed compromise; they got confrontation over money.

Smith's risky decision to establish leverage by decertifying the union and turning this into a protracted courtroom battle ignored the league's last-ditch proposal that addressed critical player concerns. The NFL said the offer Smith walked away from included the following:

1) Maintaining a 16-game schedule through 2012; 2) implementing a rookie wage scale and funneling savings to veterans and retired players; 3) cutting the number of offseason workouts and organized team activities; and 4) contributing $82 million into a fund for retired players and offering current players lifetime health coverage.

The league also vowed to disclose limited audited profitability information and reduce the money owners should be given off the top of league revenues from $1 billion to $325 million. A lawyer for the former NFLPA responded by saying the league had "lied.''

That's always a possibility. The NFL spins better than a new toy on Christmas morning. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners deserve a measure of blame for not doing a better job of building or earning trust. But lost in Friday's inflamed rhetoric assessing the failure were two key points.

•If current players really wanted to do something profound for those before and after them, they would have focused on the league's offer of lifetime health coverage and increased retirement benefits instead of the disparity in profit. That's sacrifice in the name of something.

•Smith consistently sought to present the players as partners in the league with the owners. As much as the ability and charisma of players have put America's most popular sport at its apex, they are employees. The owners are employers.

Players and owners aren't partners on equal footing. Without the NFL, most owners still would be filthy rich. Dare I suggest you can't say the same about many of the 1,900 players.

That doesn't mean players need to take a deal on terms the owners dictate. But it should mean players recognize they benefit from the opportunities the NFL provides more than these negotiations have shown.

The lack of trust between players and owners is nearly as old as the league itself. But before Friday, the league never had been healthier. Players never had been richer. The game never had been better. Everybody was, duh, winning.

Workers in this union aren't being oppressed. The average NFL salary in 2010 was $1.9 million. Sure, it's a violent sport, but the NFL's final offer improving short- and long-term health coverage reflected that reality.

"A deal will get done, and we expect to play football in 2011,'' Phillips said.

I want to believe Phillips. Just as I will want to believe the next player who swears he's playing for the love of the game.

But as long as Smith remains in a position of influence with players whose best interests he claims to represent, I will have my doubts.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...7161607.column

This has been about Smith since Day 1 and his desire to establish his labor leader credentials. He could give a rat about the players and the fans and the future of the NFL.

[Scalaid6]

For some reason everyone seems to forget about the banking and wall street executives who just ripped off America while giving themselves huge bonuses. Or, perhaps Enron executives who were paid huge bonuses while forcing their employees to leave their retirement accounts filled with Enron stock. I am saying all of this as an owner of a company that employs 125 NON-UNION employees. I understand the difference between taking a risk as a corporate owner and my employees receiving a guaranteed pay check. But I also understand that I don’t get to ignore antitrust laws while running my company. I can’t go to my competitors and say “let’s agree to a limit on how much we will spend on our employees!”… Instead I treat my employees with honesty and integrity and for the most part, I get that back in return. I also never get to say to an employee, “sorry Mr Mankin, you can’t go work for another company because I just designated you as my FRANCHISE EMPLOYEE, so you have to sign this ONE YEAR contract”!

[Blockhead]

For some reason everyone seems to forget about the banking and wall street executives who just ripped off America while giving themselves huge bonuses. Or, perhaps Enron executives who were paid huge bonuses while forcing their employees to leave their retirement accounts filled with Enron stock. I am saying all of this as an owner of a company that employs 125 NON-UNION employees. I understand the difference between taking a risk as a corporate owner and my employees receiving a guaranteed pay check. But I also understand that I don’t get to ignore antitrust laws while running my company. I can’t go to my competitors and say “let’s agree to a limit on how much we will spend on our employees!”… Instead I treat my employees with honesty and integrity and for the most part, I get that back in return. I also never get to say to an employee, “sorry Mr Mankin, you can’t go work for another company because I just designated you as my FRANCHISE EMPLOYEE, so you have to sign this ONE YEAR contract”!
You're a business owner and on the players side? C'mon, go tell another fairy tale.

You don't get to franchise a player? for an amount that is similar to an employee winning the lottery. An amount most people can retire from.

Do your employees freely negotiate contracts? Do those contracts have huge signing bonuses?

Do your employees gain lifetime benefits after 3 years of service?

Do your employees gain lifetime retirement benefits after 3 years of service?

Do your employees make enough typically in a 5 year career to retire?

Does your employees average a salary of $1.9 million/year despite doing nothing to develop and invest in the longevity of the league/team that pays that salary?

[pfelix73]

Well, I'm a successful business owner too- learned from one of the best businessmen in the state of PA, so I guess I know nothing on employer/employee relations.. :D

From what I am reading, etc. I would side with the players on this as well....


Goodell's image is not a good one. And that is a liability for the league as well.


:tt1

[Blockhead]

Well, I'm a successful business owner too- learned from one of the best businessmen in the state of PA, so I guess I know nothing on employer/employee relations.. :D

From what I am reading, etc. I would side with the players on this as well....


Goodell's image is not a good one. And that is a liability for the league as well.


:tt1
Explanation? Reasoning?

[feltdizz]

The NFL isn't anything like a regular business model...

I also think it's unfair to talk about players making millions when the majority of the players aren't making millions.

The dispute is over the 75% of players who don't make the big bucks...

[Scalaid6]

For some reason everyone seems to forget about the banking and wall street executives who just ripped off America while giving themselves huge bonuses. Or, perhaps Enron executives who were paid huge bonuses while forcing their employees to leave their retirement accounts filled with Enron stock. I am saying all of this as an owner of a company that employs 125 NON-UNION employees. I understand the difference between taking a risk as a corporate owner and my employees receiving a guaranteed pay check. But I also understand that I don’t get to ignore antitrust laws while running my company. I can’t go to my competitors and say “let’s agree to a limit on how much we will spend on our employees!”… Instead I treat my employees with honesty and integrity and for the most part, I get that back in return. I also never get to say to an employee, “sorry Mr Mankin, you can’t go work for another company because I just designated you as my FRANCHISE EMPLOYEE, so you have to sign this ONE YEAR contract”!
You're a business owner and on the players side? C'mon, go tell another fairy tale.

You don't get to franchise a player? for an amount that is similar to an employee winning the lottery. An amount most people can retire from.

Do your employees freely negotiate contracts? Do those contracts have huge signing bonuses?

Do your employees gain lifetime benefits after 3 years of service?

Do your employees gain lifetime retirement benefits after 3 years of service?

Do your employees make enough typically in a 5 year career to retire?

Does your employees average a salary of $1.9 million/year despite doing nothing to develop and invest in the longevity of the league/team that pays that salary?

To equate typical business with that of the NFL shows your IGNORANCE. In fact most times you post, shows your ignorance.

[PSU_dropout43]

Well, I'm a successful business owner too- learned from one of the best businessmen in the state of PA, so I guess I know nothing on employer/employee relations.. :D


who, may I ask?

[Scalaid6]

The NFL isn't anything like a regular business model...

I also think it's unfair to talk about players making millions when the majority of the players aren't making millions.

The dispute is over the 75% of players who don't make the big bucks...
Blockhead doesnt understand that because he is a..... well a blockhead.

The problem with his analysis is that he and the owners want free market capitalism while operating and illegal trust by conducting a draft, limiting wages through the cap and restricting player movement through the draft, RFA’s and franchise tags. The American Needle case showed how much the owners wanted to be seen as single entity rather than 32 private businesses. I am all for free enterprise but when you bring in the need for revenue sharing and competitive balance, you throw free market capitalism out the door. It is a case of wanting two diverse goals to be attained at the expense of the players. It is also why the players rightly went to court. The owners lost the right to be trusted when they opted out of the CBA once they had extorted lockout insurance from the television networks. There is a reason for the Sherman Act, perhaps you should read some American History before you bash others’ viewpoints.

[Blockhead]

The NFL isn't anything like a regular business model...
Totally agree.


I also think it's unfair to talk about players making millions when the majority of the players aren't making millions.
Average salary $1.9 mill. Base salary around $400k not including signing bonuses. Anyone playing out a rookie deal, restructuring or reaching a second year, should be a millionaire.


The dispute is over the 75% of players who don't make the big bucks...
The owners proposed a system that would have paid the first rounders less money but spread that money to the players selected in rounds 2-7, thus spreading the wealth more.

The union said no. Still think the union cares about the 75%? The union cares about making splashes, winning and getting record rookie contracts, not the rest of the 75%.

[Blockhead]

To equate typical business with that of the NFL shows your IGNORANCE. In fact most times you post, shows your ignorance.
Considering I was pointing out how it is different, you may want to look in the mirror to find the ignorant one.

But this response is expected. You're clearly not knowledgeable.

[feltdizz]

The NFL isn't anything like a regular business model...
Totally agree.


I also think it's unfair to talk about players making millions when the majority of the players aren't making millions.
Average salary $1.9 mill. Base salary around $400k not including signing bonuses. Anyone playing out a rookie deal, restructuring or reaching a second year, should be a millionaire.


The dispute is over the 75% of players who don't make the big bucks...
The owners proposed a system that would have paid the first rounders less money but spread that money to the players selected in rounds 2-7, thus spreading the wealth more.

The union said no. Still think the union cares about the 75%? The union cares about making splashes, winning and getting record rookie contracts, not the rest of the 75%.

The league average is suspect. Bill Gates walks into a room and the average salary skyrockets for everyone.

The reality is 400K is 175K after taxes and agent/lawyer fees.... and these players can be cut at anytime.

There should be a rookie cap.

[Blockhead]

The NFL isn't anything like a regular business model...

I also think it's unfair to talk about players making millions when the majority of the players aren't making millions.

The dispute is over the 75% of players who don't make the big bucks...
Blockhead doesnt understand that because he is a..... well a blockhead.
Explain yourself. You clearly do not even know the proposals and the substance of the issues.

[
The problem with his analysis is that he and the owners want free market capitalism while operating and illegal trust by conducting a draft, limiting wages through the cap and restricting player movement through the draft, RFA’s and franchise tags. The American Needle case showed how much the owners wanted to be seen as single entity rather than 32 private businesses. I am all for free enterprise but when you bring in the need for revenue sharing and competitive balance, you throw free market capitalism out the door. It is a case of wanting two diverse goals to be attained at the expense of the players. It is also why the players rightly went to court. The owners lost the right to be trusted when they opted out of the CBA once they had extorted lockout insurance from the television networks. There is a reason for the Sherman Act, perhaps you should read some American History before you bash others’ viewpoints.
Wow, what a load of nonsense. Nobody forces a player to be in the NFl. Nobody forces them to agree to their contracts. Nobody forces them to agree the draft process. Nobody forces them to sign multi year contracts and cash signing bonuses. They are free to do as they wish with their lives.

The owners absolutely are not argueing they are not part of one entity. They have tried to make a deal, tried to show why the deal was insufficient, why they opted out, made several counter proposals while the union did NOTHING, not one counter proposal. All theh union wanted was litigation because they hired a aspiring politician to run them and this is nothing but a floor to gain exposure. He wants to win, not negotiate a deal. The players think they are more than they are, which is highly paid contracted employees given benefits the normal public can only dream about and still they want more, more, more. They don't care about the livelihood and sustainability of the league. They showed that when they turned down lifetime benefits and lifetime health care by instead just wanting more money now, now, now.

Clearly, you need to study the issues.

[Scalaid6]

For some reason everyone seems to forget about the banking and wall street executives who just ripped off America while giving themselves huge bonuses. Or, perhaps Enron executives who were paid huge bonuses while forcing their employees to leave their retirement accounts filled with Enron stock. I am saying all of this as an owner of a company that employs 125 NON-UNION employees. I understand the difference between taking a risk as a corporate owner and my employees receiving a guaranteed pay check. But I also understand that I don’t get to ignore antitrust laws while running my company. I can’t go to my competitors and say “let’s agree to a limit on how much we will spend on our employees!”… Instead I treat my employees with honesty and integrity and for the most part, I get that back in return. I also never get to say to an employee, “sorry Mr Mankin, you can’t go work for another company because I just designated you as my FRANCHISE EMPLOYEE, so you have to sign this ONE YEAR contract”!
You're a business owner and on the players side? C'mon, go tell another fairy tale.

You don't get to franchise a player? for an amount that is similar to an employee winning the lottery. An amount most people can retire from.

Do your employees freely negotiate contracts? Do those contracts have huge signing bonuses?

Do your employees gain lifetime benefits after 3 years of service?

Do your employees gain lifetime retirement benefits after 3 years of service?

Do your employees make enough typically in a 5 year career to retire?

Does your employees average a salary of $1.9 million/year despite doing nothing to develop and invest in the longevity of the league/team that pays that salary?

Fairytale? You started off by saying I'm not knowledgeable in terms of facts at hand. How is that statement working out for you? If you want me to continue to embarrass you then I dont have a problem with that. I wish the players and fans and UNINFORMED BLOCKHEADS would stop trying to compare NFL employment with that of the everyday joe. They’re not even close.

One thing I’d like to point out is that the players get %50 of all REVENUE not PROFIT. There is a rather huge difference between the two.

Now back to my point. NFL players are able to demand %50 of revenue because of various reasons. Among them being they are key cogs in a multi billion a year industry where in a free market only about 2000 of the best individuals in a nation of 350 million plus can perform.

Secondly…In order to maintain the anti-trust exemption the NFL currently enjoys….the same anti-trust exemption that played a part in making the NFL the $9 billion behemouth it currently is……in order to maintain that the owners must deal and negotiatiate with the player’s union in a partnership relationship rather than pure employer-employee relationship. The owners and Union are revenue sharing partners. This is exactly why owners don’t want a decertified union. It puts in jeopordy their anti-trust exemption.

All this and more are reasons why players are able to negotiate %50 revenue goes to players and your average joe isn’t at his job.

The NFL player/Owner employment structure is nothing like the structure of most employment structure in this country and we could save ourselves a lot of misplaced anger and rightous indignation if we keep that in mind.

[Blockhead]

The league average is suspect. Bill Gates walks into a room and the average salary skyrockets for everyone.
How the league average suspect? Bill Gates has nothing to do with anything.


The reality is 400K is 175K after taxes and agent/lawyer fees.... and these players can be cut at anytime.
The owners offered to guarantee up to $1 million of next years salary due to a previous year injury, thus they wouldn't simply be able to be cut due to injury. The union said no, more, more, more.


There should be a rookie cap.
The owners offered a system that paid the 1st round less, 4 year contracts at max, not 6 as well as spreading the savings to increase rounds 2-7 drafted players and max 3 year contracts, thus player getting paid more and reaching FA and second contracts sooner. The owners also started the pay for performance package which pays bonuses to lesser drafted players who perform.

The union said No, more, more, more, now, now, now.

[Blockhead]

Fairytale? You started off by saying I'm not knowledgeable in terms of facts at hand. How is that statement working out for you? If you want me to continue to embarrass you then I dont have a problem with that. I wish the players and fans and UNINFORMED BLOCKHEADS would stop trying to compare NFL employment with that of the everyday joe. They’re not even close.
Again, incorrect. I highly doubt you manage anyone, let alone run a business.


One thing I’d like to point out is that the players get %50 of all REVENUE not PROFIT. There is a rather huge difference between the two.
Right and owners are showing rising expenses, thus lowering profits.


Now back to my point. NFL players are able to demand %50 of revenue because of various reasons. Among them being they are key cogs in a multi billion a year industry where in a free market only about 2000 of the best individuals in a nation of 350 million plus can perform.Players have gained leverage because of weak owners. Players are highly paid contracted employees and very replaceable. Happens every year.


Secondly…In order to maintain the anti-trust exemption the NFL currently enjoys….the same anti-trust exemption that played a part in making the NFL the $9 billion behemouth it currently is……in order to maintain that the owners must deal and negotiatiate with the player’s union in a partnership relationship rather than pure employer-employee relationship. The owners and Union are revenue sharing partners. This is exactly why owners don’t want a decertified union. It puts in jeopordy their anti-trust exemption.
The decertification is a clear sham. Nobody with an ounce of common sense can deny that. Clearly, the players do not intend to all have independent representation and no union in the future. Nobody with an ounce of common sense can even deny they plan to form a union again.


All this and more are reasons why players are able to negotiate %50 revenue goes to players and your average joe isn’t at his job.

The NFL player/Owner employment structure is nothing like the structure of most employment structure in this country and we could save ourselves a lot of misplaced anger and rightous indignation if we keep that in mind.
And they are paid well and have negotiated in the past. Good for them, they made good deals. Deals the owners chose to opt out of and attempt to negotiate a new deal. The union wants nothing to do with negotiating. This has been proven by their actions.

As Jerry Richardson said, time to take back the league. The players union has used their leverage and gained great deals. Time for the leverage to sway back to those that make the league, the owners.

[Scalaid6]

Did he add anything to my well informed post? Did he refute anything?

Collateral attacks aside he has proven why he is a blockhead. For the record it is not a nom de plume. Folks, it's rare to see such a stunning example of the Dunning- Kruger Effect. Take a good look. It could be a while before we see its like again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

[pfelix73]

My reasoning is purely based on what I've learned as a business owner and how we (the company- which is a team afterall) treat our employees. I would like to go into specifics on what was done for a number of employees many years ago, but it might not be good to do so on such a public forum. Let's just say that many high paying jobs were saved even though it is cheaper to make product overseas.- It was the right thing to do. Not many companies would have done this, but greed is not a likeable word in my vocabulary. My life is more fulfilling when I know employees are taken care of....

Anyway... I will make a few other comments. I do agree that opening up the 'books' is a crazy idea. I would NEVER do that. Heck, I get offended when insurance companies want to see our statements. So, I doubt many/ if any owners will do this.

We are dealing with millionaires (players) vs. billionaires (owners) so this is a quite unique situation. It's not a manufacturing co. vs. employees making $15-$20 per hr.

However, there are still comparisons. Getting into each specific thing that the players want out of a new deal will have to be looked at more closely here as the days go by. Maybe you can start to list each one of them individually and we can open it up for discusssion. We all might learn something.

Getting back to Goodell's image- just based on the Steeler fan base, you can see that he is not a likeable commissioner. Sure Ben's situation has something to do with this, but that is another subject. He does represent the entire NFL.

:tt1

[Blockhead]

My reasoning is purely based on what I've learned as a business owner and how we (the company- which is a team afterall) treat our employees. I would like to go into specifics on what was done for a number of employees many years ago, but it might not be good to do so on such a public forum. Let's just say that many high paying jobs were saved even though it is cheaper to make product overseas.- It was the right thing to do. Not many companies would have done this, but greed is not a likeable word in my vocabulary. My life is more fulfilling when I know employees are taken care of....
You think it's greed to pay players, many without educations despite having opportunities to gain those educations free, hundreds of thousands or millions per year, provide free lifetime health and pension benefits for a mere 3 years of employment? You consider that greed? If the players feel this way, perhaps they should go achieve real jobs and work for companies like yours. Do your employees gain lifetime healthcare and pensions after 3 years of employment?


Anyway... I will make a few other comments. I do agree that opening up the 'books' is a crazy idea. I would NEVER do that. Heck, I get offended when insurance companies want to see our statements. So, I doubt many/ if any owners will do this.
I couldn't agree more. The CBA is not based on individual books anyway so it means nothing. It's a PR move by the players, nothing more.


We are dealing with millionaires (players) vs. billionaires (owners) so this is a quite unique situation. It's not a manufacturing co. vs. employees making $15-$20 per hr.
Most owners aren't billionaires. Dan Rooney is worth $150 mill. Peyton Manning will be worth more when he retires and likely many others, including Ben.


However, there are still comparisons. Getting into each specific thing that the players want out of a new deal will have to be looked at more closely here as the days go by. Maybe you can start to list each one of them individually and we can open it up for discusssion. We all might learn something.
The issues are out there for everyone to read if they so choose.


Getting back to Goodell's image- just based on the Steeler fan base, you can see that he is not a likeable commissioner. Sure Ben's situation has something to do with this, but that is another subject. But he does represent the entire NFL.

Goodell's image is meaningless imo. I don't expect Steelers fans to like him, simply because of the Ben situation. He works for the owners and the owners are happy with his representation. Actually, some are happy the players didn't accept his last offer as they thought it was too much so it seems he overstepped the boundaries of the owners to try and get a deal but the players said no, more, more, more.

[Scalaid6]

You must understand that asking for 10 years of financial data means that they want to look at the last 5 years. It’s just like when bartering for goods, you start high and end up somewhere in the middle. It’s likely that somewhere in the last 5 years, something changed or happened with league money and the Union will likely suspect tv revenue streams; the NFL’s cash cow. Also, there is no “competition” when it comes to the NFL strategy for market share. The NBA, MLB, and NHL all know what and how the NFL has become so marketable. The problem for those other sports entities is that that cannot even come close to competing with them without having the fans to shell out the dollars.
Also, you forget the league was dead set on a lockout. Up until the most recent verdict of not giving the league the TV revenue insurance, the NFL held ALL of the leverage and they were going to the full court press. In actuality, both sides had a nuclear bomb and both were prepared to use it.
This is a problem where both sides are equally to blame.

How much profit is enough? Do you feel the same way about the owners in the energy market (Exxon. Shell, etc?) Of course not; then why would the owners in the NFL be any different? They are cut from the same cloth. The players are in this for a few years and sacrifice bodies, etc, to play the game. They are not slaves (gladiators) from the Roman era. Yeah, some, and I mean some, get very healthy salaries, but come on, do you really feel that for their health, and a few years of physical devastation, that they dont deserve good compensation?

[Blockhead]

You must understand that asking for 10 years of financial data means that they want to look at the last 5 years. It’s just like when bartering for goods, you start high and end up somewhere in the middle. It’s likely that somewhere in the last 5 years, something changed or happened with league money and the Union will likely suspect tv revenue streams; the NFL’s cash cow.
I would never show employees in depth business statements. They have no reason to know what I pay my secretary, accountant, etc. I don't ask to see their checkbooks. The CBA is based on "shared revenue" and individual books are meaningless, a PR move, nothing more. They were given P/L statements for the last 10 years of each team.

Also, you forget the league was dead set on a lockout. Up until the most recent verdict of not giving the league the TV revenue insurance, the NFL held ALL of the leverage and they were going to the full court press. In actuality, both sides had a nuclear bomb and both were prepared to use it.
The owners made several proposals. The Union did not and prepared a lawsuit. It's clear who wanted to negotiate and who wanted to litigate.

This is a problem where both sides are equally to blame.
Sure, the owners are looking and protecting themselves long-term. The players want as much now as possible. So much so that they won't give up ANY money to receive lifetime healthcare and help retired players, which they will be soon enough.


How much profit is enough? Do you feel the same way about the owners in the energy market (Exxon. Shell, etc?) Of course not; then why would the owners in the NFL be any different? They are cut from the same cloth. The players are in this for a few years and sacrifice bodies, etc, to play the game. They are not slaves (gladiators) from the Roman era. Yeah, some, and I mean some, get very healthy salaries, but come on, do you really feel that for their health, and a few years of physical devastation, that they dont deserve good compensation?
I have absolutely no problem with huge bonuses being paid based on profits. It's exactly how it should be done and how my industry works and why a crappy salesperson works and makes $50-75k and is fired in short order while top performers make over $200k and top sales managers over $300.

I agree, they are not slaves. They turned down a deal that would have had the cap $161 million per team in 2014, provided lifetime health care after 3 years of service and lifetime pension after 3 years of service. If that's slavery, I'll start tanning tomorrow.

That said, basing any debate on an NFL team, with an average of $200 some million in revenues to companies with $15-20 billion in revenues is meaningless.

[birtikidis]

Blockhead, I kinda feel they're both to blame. But to say that the players were the ones playing hardball is not entirely true. They weren't the ones to opt out of the CBA in the first place. The reason that the union wants to see the books is because of the anti-trust lawsuit they filed. If the NFL and NFLPA are supposed to work like partners instead of a employer/employee relationship, they should have the right to those records.

[Crash]

Anyone who says the players are playing hardball is a fool.

BOTH parties had the option of getting out of the 2006 agreement.

It was the owners, not the players, who did.

That is all.

[Scalaid6]

Blockhead doesnt understand that again, The players introduced a pay cap system, where you give the owners cost certainty. You limit the growth, you pull it back a little bit to earlier years at the beginning. The next year you create something like deferred compensation plan. More than fair in my opinion. If not at least address it.

The owners whole thing is "We have to pay more for our stadiums because we arent getting any local money". They assert that they have more cost and it is outpacing the revenue and the players are getting a greater share. On this point the owners have merit, you cant argue that. But the shared compensation plan is a SOLUTION to that situation. The players in this plan are saying "Ok we will share in the risk. We will give you cashflow right now, this will reduce the amount you would be spending. We will give you cost certainty and that way we will BOTH share in the growth".

10 years down the road you pay that deferred compensation and it's perfomance driven because its based on the player being in the league. The NFL is a performance driven business so of course if you dont perform, you wont be in the league. This was a fair model that can work but the owners refused to even address such a proposal

[Blockhead]

Blockhead doesnt understand that again, The players introduced a pay cap system, where you give the owners cost certainty. You limit the growth, you pull it back a little bit to earlier years at the beginning. The next year you create something like deferred compensation plan. More than fair in my opinion. If not at least address it.

The owners whole thing is "We have to pay more for our stadiums because we arent getting any local money". They assert that they have more cost and it is outpacing the revenue and the players are getting a greater share. On this point the owners have merit, you cant argue that. But the shared compensation plan is a SOLUTION to that situation. The players in this plan are saying "Ok we will share in the risk. We will give you cashflow right now, this will reduce the amount you would be spending. We will give you cost certainty and that way we will BOTH share in the growth".

10 years down the road you pay that deferred compensation and it's perfomance driven because its based on the player being in the league. The NFL is a performance driven business so of course if you dont perform, you wont be in the league. This was a fair model that can work but the owners refused to even address such a proposal
link?

[Blockhead]

Blockhead, I kinda feel they're both to blame. But to say that the players were the ones playing hardball is not entirely true. They weren't the ones to opt out of the CBA in the first place. The reason that the union wants to see the books is because of the anti-trust lawsuit they filed. If the NFL and NFLPA are supposed to work like partners instead of a employer/employee relationship, they should have the right to those records.
The fact they opted out should tell you all you need to know. If it was a good deal, why would the owners opt out and why would the players be fighting so hard to keep it the same.

The players themselves have turned down extended benefits, more guarantees, etc. all for the need for as much money today. They couldn't care less about the future and think all of those costs should be beared by the owners.

How many of you have fully paid health benefits for life after 3 years of service? How many of you would take a 1-2% less wage today to gain that benefit?

[Crash]

If it was a bad deal they should have never passed it.

[Steel Life]

•Smith consistently sought to present the players as partners in the league with the owners. As much as the ability and charisma of players have put America's most popular sport at its apex, they are employees. The owners are employers.
Regarding the Chicago Tribune article...to borrow a line from Asian, this article is "logic in excess".

[birtikidis]

Blockhead, I kinda feel they're both to blame. But to say that the players were the ones playing hardball is not entirely true. They weren't the ones to opt out of the CBA in the first place. The reason that the union wants to see the books is because of the anti-trust lawsuit they filed. If the NFL and NFLPA are supposed to work like partners instead of a employer/employee relationship, they should have the right to those records.
The fact they opted out should tell you all you need to know. If it was a good deal, why would the owners opt out and why would the players be fighting so hard to keep it the same.

The players themselves have turned down extended benefits, more guarantees, etc. all for the need for as much money today. They couldn't care less about the future and think all of those costs should be beared by the owners.

How many of you have fully paid health benefits for life after 3 years of service? How many of you would take a 1-2% less wage today to gain that benefit?
Well, I would say, why won't the owners prove that they're not in a state of hardship?

[Blockhead]

Blockhead, I kinda feel they're both to blame. But to say that the players were the ones playing hardball is not entirely true. They weren't the ones to opt out of the CBA in the first place. The reason that the union wants to see the books is because of the anti-trust lawsuit they filed. If the NFL and NFLPA are supposed to work like partners instead of a employer/employee relationship, they should have the right to those records.
The fact they opted out should tell you all you need to know. If it was a good deal, why would the owners opt out and why would the players be fighting so hard to keep it the same.

The players themselves have turned down extended benefits, more guarantees, etc. all for the need for as much money today. They couldn't care less about the future and think all of those costs should be beared by the owners.

How many of you have fully paid health benefits for life after 3 years of service? How many of you would take a 1-2% less wage today to gain that benefit?
Well, I would say, why won't the owners prove that they're not in a state of hardship?
They showed 10 years of team by team profit and loss numbers. No owner should have to show that, let alone more, to employees.

[birtikidis]

no they didn't. the NFLPA wanted 10 years, when the owners refused they decertified. Also, they're not employees. they're partners. Otherwise the NFL would be breaking anti-trust law (Unless I am mistaken).

[Blockhead]

no they didn't. the NFLPA wanted 10 years, when the owners refused they decertified. Also, they're not employees. they're partners. Otherwise the NFL would be breaking anti-trust law (Unless I am mistaken).
Wrong! They are not partners. They are not listed on anything as partners. They do not bear the risk of ownership. They are contracted EMPLOYEES!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882 (http://www.planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882)

[birtikidis]

no they didn't. the NFLPA wanted 10 years, when the owners refused they decertified. Also, they're not employees. they're partners. Otherwise the NFL would be breaking anti-trust law (Unless I am mistaken).
Wrong! They are not partners. They are not listed on anything as partners. They do not bear the risk of ownership. They are contracted EMPLOYEES!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882 (http://www.planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882)
wow, you sure got excited. like you came for the first time. congrats buddy.

[eniparadoxgma]

no they didn't. the NFLPA wanted 10 years, when the owners refused they decertified. Also, they're not employees. they're partners. Otherwise the NFL would be breaking anti-trust law (Unless I am mistaken).
Wrong! They are not partners. They are not listed on anything as partners. They do not bear the risk of ownership. They are contracted EMPLOYEES!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882 (http://www.planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882)
wow, you sure got excited. like you came for the first time. congrats buddy.

:lol:

[birtikidis]

oh and btw, it doesn't say anything in that article about the specifics of their business relationship.
clean off your keyboard. i'd imagine it's sticky by now.

[BURGH86STEEL]

Union chief's ego gets in way as he overplays players' hand

When NFL dust settles, owners still will be rich and the players will have gained … what?

March 13, 2011


In trying to absorb the avoidable antitrust lawsuit filed Friday under Tom Brady vs. the NFL that preceded the league's first work stoppage in 24 years, one thought won't go away.

If DeMaurice Smith, the leader of the now-decertified NFL Players Association, showed as much interest in making a deal as he seemed to have in making history, perhaps we would be debating who got the best of whom in the new collective bargaining agreement.

Instead, 1000 Football Drive leading to Halas Hall has become 2011 Lockout Lane, and Smith as much as anybody steered the sport down an uncharted road that looks bumpy.

"We're disappointed in the need to take this step, but it is necessary for the long-term health of our league,'' Bears President Ted Phillips said in a statement about the NFL's lockout. "Ultimately we believe an agreement will be reached at the bargaining table.''

Forcing the dispute into a courtroom only threatens to cure our national addiction to the NFL.

In football parlance, all the players needed Smith to do was manage the game. Be Kyle Orton in a $5,000 suit and keep the chains moving. Based on reports, Smith insisted on trying to force the big play. The only people dancing in the end zone now are Washington law partners. Who has David Boies in the Fantasy Football Lawyers League anyway?

The players didn't need Smith's inappropriate analogies to war or 11th-hour ultimatums. They needed perspective. They needed compromise; they got confrontation over money.

Smith's risky decision to establish leverage by decertifying the union and turning this into a protracted courtroom battle ignored the league's last-ditch proposal that addressed critical player concerns. The NFL said the offer Smith walked away from included the following:

1) Maintaining a 16-game schedule through 2012; 2) implementing a rookie wage scale and funneling savings to veterans and retired players; 3) cutting the number of offseason workouts and organized team activities; and 4) contributing $82 million into a fund for retired players and offering current players lifetime health coverage.

The league also vowed to disclose limited audited profitability information and reduce the money owners should be given off the top of league revenues from $1 billion to $325 million. A lawyer for the former NFLPA responded by saying the league had "lied.''

That's always a possibility. The NFL spins better than a new toy on Christmas morning. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners deserve a measure of blame for not doing a better job of building or earning trust. But lost in Friday's inflamed rhetoric assessing the failure were two key points.

•If current players really wanted to do something profound for those before and after them, they would have focused on the league's offer of lifetime health coverage and increased retirement benefits instead of the disparity in profit. That's sacrifice in the name of something.

•Smith consistently sought to present the players as partners in the league with the owners. As much as the ability and charisma of players have put America's most popular sport at its apex, they are employees. The owners are employers.

Players and owners aren't partners on equal footing. Without the NFL, most owners still would be filthy rich. Dare I suggest you can't say the same about many of the 1,900 players.

That doesn't mean players need to take a deal on terms the owners dictate. But it should mean players recognize they benefit from the opportunities the NFL provides more than these negotiations have shown.

The lack of trust between players and owners is nearly as old as the league itself. But before Friday, the league never had been healthier. Players never had been richer. The game never had been better. Everybody was, duh, winning.

Workers in this union aren't being oppressed. The average NFL salary in 2010 was $1.9 million. Sure, it's a violent sport, but the NFL's final offer improving short- and long-term health coverage reflected that reality.

"A deal will get done, and we expect to play football in 2011,'' Phillips said.

I want to believe Phillips. Just as I will want to believe the next player who swears he's playing for the love of the game.

But as long as Smith remains in a position of influence with players whose best interests he claims to represent, I will have my doubts.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...7161607.column

This has been about Smith since Day 1 and his desire to establish his labor leader credentials. He could give a rat about the players and the fans and the future of the NFL.

It's been about what the owners wanted when they opted out of the deal in 2008.

[Scalaid6]

no they didn't. the NFLPA wanted 10 years, when the owners refused they decertified. Also, they're not employees. they're partners. Otherwise the NFL would be breaking anti-trust law (Unless I am mistaken).
I already told him that but........... he is a blockhead so..............

[hawaiiansteel]

2011 could wind up being an uncapped year

March 13, 2011
Posted by Andy Benoit


At some point in the near future, the NFL is going to establish some rules for doing business in 2011. That point could be fairly soon if the injunction request issued by players in their antitrust lawsuit is granted.

In that case, league-wide business would resume (not quite business as usual, but business nonetheless). Most importantly, free agency would begin.

Mark Maske of the Washington Post writes, “Sources from throughout the sport on both sides of the dispute said over the weekend that the system the league would enact at that point would be very likely to be the same system that was in effect last season, when there was no salary cap in the final year of the just-expired labor agreement between the NFL and the players’ union.”

The 2010 uncapped rules would mean no salary floor, as well. Players with expired contracts would need six years of NFL service in order to reach unrestricted free agency, which means a significantly dwindled free agent class. Each team would also have an extra transition tag (in addition to the one franchise tag and transition tag) and teams that reached the divisional round of the 2010 postseason would have limitation places on their ability to sign free agents.

Maske writes, “The reason that system would be used, sources said, is that it might have a better chance of withstanding an antitrust challenge by the players, given that the union previously agreed to those rules for an uncapped year in collective bargaining.”

http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports. ... 8/27895672 (http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/27895672)

[Chadman]

Not great...not perfect...but better than no season at all.

[RuthlessBurgher]

We all know the person who is truly to blame for this lockout...

Bruce Arians, of course!!! :wink:

[Northern_Blitz]

Not great...not perfect...but better than no season at all.

I thought this was only if the Players win their suit. If the League wins the suit, then it's a lockout, right?

[Oviedo]

Not great...not perfect...but better than no season at all.

I thought this was only if the Players win their suit. If the League wins the suit, then it's a lockout, right?

Yes. Plus the owners will also argue that the decertification was a sham because they were still negotiating.

[birtikidis]

no they didn't. the NFLPA wanted 10 years, when the owners refused they decertified. Also, they're not employees. they're partners. Otherwise the NFL would be breaking anti-trust law (Unless I am mistaken).
Wrong! They are not partners. They are not listed on anything as partners. They do not bear the risk of ownership. They are contracted EMPLOYEES!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882 (http://www.planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882)
wow, you sure got excited. like you came for the first time. congrats buddy.
must have been an incredible experience.. i haven't read anything form him for a while...


and... he's spent.

[Chadman]

no they didn't. the NFLPA wanted 10 years, when the owners refused they decertified. Also, they're not employees. they're partners. Otherwise the NFL would be breaking anti-trust law (Unless I am mistaken).
Wrong! They are not partners. They are not listed on anything as partners. They do not bear the risk of ownership. They are contracted EMPLOYEES!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882 (http://www.planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16882)
wow, you sure got excited. like you came for the first time. congrats buddy.
must have been an incredible experience.. i haven't read anything form him for a while...


and... he's spent.

You won't be hearing from him again I believe..or some others..

[birtikidis]

I actually hate to be rude to people, but some people really aggravate me

[Steel Life]

Another interesting take on this...

Smith more bluster than bargain
By Len Pasquarelli
VikingUpdate.com
Posted Mar 12, 2011

As the NFL and the group formerly known as the union continue to point fingers, it appears one man was focused on celebrity status more than negotiating. DeMaurice Smith’s predecessor knew how to cut a deal, something Smith could have learned from.

Paraphrasing the old joke about how one might characterize a thousand attorneys buried at the bottom of the ocean floor: What do you call a fast-talkin' lawyer with a decertified union, no pulpit from which to preach to a congregation and technically no association to executively direct?

A good start.

At the risk of alienating the rank-and-file— and less important, since I wasn't on the Twitter or fax accounts of assistant executive director/minister of propaganda George Attallah, the NFLPA brass — the Friday afternoon decertification maneuver by the players' association was the move DeMaurice Smith has had in mind for a long time. And now the fait has met the accompli, and it's time for the NFLPA to turn to someone who knows how to cut a deal.

We're not smart enough, or well enough versed in labor law, to have prepared any suggestions. But there has got to be, somewhere, anywhere, a viable alternative to Smith, essentially Elmer Gantry in a business suit and goofy hat. Smith exponentially raised the ante with his incendiary rhetoric, demonizing the league and its owners and their financial statements, declaring the negotiations a war.

Well, on Friday afternoon, he may have won a battle. But in egotistically rejecting a treaty that would have ended the war for another half-dozen years or so, and made his constituents a lot of money, he may have led his mesmerized charges to the brink of football hell.

Can he dig it?

Over the last several months, Smith has talked a lot of fire and brimstone. The players ought to heed the first of those two and jettison Smith. The suspicion here is that Smith never really wanted an agreement, just the celebrity that accompanied the fight. And now, instead of celebrity, he's got notoriety. Smith is certainly smart enough to recognize the difference in connotation between the two.

Make no mistake, this columnist had a lot of battles with the late Gene Upshaw, and was one of the people who felt he and his cronies were too cozy with former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue. But give credit to Upshaw for this much: He knew when a deal was a good one, when to bury the rhetoric, and sign on the dotted line, and permit the money to flow.

A guy who never met a sound bite, who apparently believed every question required a seven-minute answer, Smith seemingly reveled over the sound of his own voice. Negotiation, by definition, is give-and-take. It's hard to offer a rebuttal, or counter, we're guessing NFL legal counsel Jeff Pash learned, when you can barely get in a word edgewise.

Part of Upshaw's appeal to union members was that he played the game. Smith, on the other hand, played games. Upshaw didn't possess the curriculum vitae Smith owns, for sure, but, by comparison, he was a latter-day Solomon. Sometimes, deeds are more powerful and lasting than fancy words and bluster.

Just ask Rex Ryan.

If all this sounds contrarian, a plebian hack siding with billionaires, 16 of whom showed up on the Forbes Magazine list of the wealthiest 400 Americans this week, well, we apologize. If readers want, we'll go to our bureau drawer and unearth all the union cards and dues books we've held the past 40-some years. But having been raised in a blue-collar, union environment doesn't mean that you swallow all of the talk that goes along with that status.

The players, who hopefully heeded the NFLPA's advice that they squirrel away 25 percent of their income in each of 2009 and 2010, swallowed Smith's spiel, and look where it's gotten them. Without a union, Smith shouldn't be able to collect a salary now, right? Good, because he doesn't deserve any reimbursement for the mess he helped to create.

No doubt, there is plenty of blame to spread around, and Smith shouldn't escape his share of the finger-pointing.

The post-decertification presentation by Pash, the owners' hired gun, but a guy who has been through this before and has been trustworthy, might have been a little bit one-sided. The blame isn't, however, and Smith should own up to that. When he portrays the owners as bad guys, Smith might want to steal a glance in the mirror. What we had here, among other things, was a failure to communicate. For a man who makes a living with multisyllabic utterances, that must be a comedown, but also a failure.

Time and again, as he delineated point by point the league's final offer on Friday afternoon, Pash concluded, "Apparently, it wasn't enough."

Hey, Jeff, as far as DeMaurice Smith was concerned, it was never going to be.

[Chadman]

Chadman's belief/point through the whole process was that the Union was giving very little except demands.

Negotiation is a 2-way street, and to get some of what the Union wanted, they had to give to the Owners some of what they wanted.

In the end, the Owners came up with a few bargaining points- dropping the 18 game schedule, payment funds for retired players & a greater distribution of rookie salaries.

The Union came up with nothing- no middle ground, not even a slight budge on their stance.

That's not negotiation. That's strong-arm tactics- a typical move of Unions in todays society.

The players will tell you that there is no NFL without them. Fair enough.

But guess what...

there's no NFL if these players don't get paid by these owners. They sure as Hell won't play for the love of the game.

So all they've done, really, is cut off their livelyhood until further notice.

And let's say the Owners are telling the truth- that the expenses of running a franchise are increasing, that profits are dropping. What happens when these owners start to lose money? They'll sell, that's what- or go broke.

As I argued with "He Who Shall Not Be Named", billionaires get to be billionaires by making investments in products that make them money. Who's going to buy into a franchise/product if the risk/reward is not worth their trouble?

[PSU_dropout43]

You won't be hearing from him again I believe..or some others..
banned?

[birtikidis]

Chadman's belief/point through the whole process was that the Union was giving very little except demands.

Negotiation is a 2-way street, and to get some of what the Union wanted, they had to give to the Owners some of what they wanted.

In the end, the Owners came up with a few bargaining points- dropping the 18 game schedule, payment funds for retired players & a greater distribution of rookie salaries.

The Union came up with nothing- no middle ground, not even a slight budge on their stance.

That's not negotiation. That's strong-arm tactics- a typical move of Unions in todays society.

The players will tell you that there is no NFL without them. Fair enough.

But guess what...

there's no NFL if these players don't get paid by these owners. They sure as Hell won't play for the love of the game.

So all they've done, really, is cut off their livelyhood until further notice.

And let's say the Owners are telling the truth- that the expenses of running a franchise are increasing, that profits are dropping. What happens when these owners start to lose money? They'll sell, that's what- or go broke.

As I argued with "He Who Shall Not Be Named", billionaires get to be billionaires by making investments in products that make them money. Who's going to buy into a franchise/product if the risk/reward is not worth their trouble?
Lord Voldemort posts here? Sorry, I'm a middle school teacher now... I get to know all this stuff.

[Chadman]

You won't be hearing from him again I believe..or some others..
banned?

I believe we are 4 posters down from yesterday...so, yes.

[Oviedo]

Another interesting take on this...

Smith more bluster than bargain
By Len Pasquarelli
VikingUpdate.com
Posted Mar 12, 2011

As the NFL and the group formerly known as the union continue to point fingers, it appears one man was focused on celebrity status more than negotiating. DeMaurice Smith’s predecessor knew how to cut a deal, something Smith could have learned from.

Paraphrasing the old joke about how one might characterize a thousand attorneys buried at the bottom of the ocean floor: What do you call a fast-talkin' lawyer with a decertified union, no pulpit from which to preach to a congregation and technically no association to executively direct?

A good start.

At the risk of alienating the rank-and-file— and less important, since I wasn't on the Twitter or fax accounts of assistant executive director/minister of propaganda George Attallah, the NFLPA brass — the Friday afternoon decertification maneuver by the players' association was the move DeMaurice Smith has had in mind for a long time. And now the fait has met the accompli, and it's time for the NFLPA to turn to someone who knows how to cut a deal.

We're not smart enough, or well enough versed in labor law, to have prepared any suggestions. But there has got to be, somewhere, anywhere, a viable alternative to Smith, essentially Elmer Gantry in a business suit and goofy hat. Smith exponentially raised the ante with his incendiary rhetoric, demonizing the league and its owners and their financial statements, declaring the negotiations a war.

Well, on Friday afternoon, he may have won a battle. But in egotistically rejecting a treaty that would have ended the war for another half-dozen years or so, and made his constituents a lot of money, he may have led his mesmerized charges to the brink of football hell.

Can he dig it?

Over the last several months, Smith has talked a lot of fire and brimstone. The players ought to heed the first of those two and jettison Smith. The suspicion here is that Smith never really wanted an agreement, just the celebrity that accompanied the fight. And now, instead of celebrity, he's got notoriety. Smith is certainly smart enough to recognize the difference in connotation between the two.

Make no mistake, this columnist had a lot of battles with the late Gene Upshaw, and was one of the people who felt he and his cronies were too cozy with former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue. But give credit to Upshaw for this much: He knew when a deal was a good one, when to bury the rhetoric, and sign on the dotted line, and permit the money to flow.

A guy who never met a sound bite, who apparently believed every question required a seven-minute answer, Smith seemingly reveled over the sound of his own voice. Negotiation, by definition, is give-and-take. It's hard to offer a rebuttal, or counter, we're guessing NFL legal counsel Jeff Pash learned, when you can barely get in a word edgewise.

Part of Upshaw's appeal to union members was that he played the game. Smith, on the other hand, played games. Upshaw didn't possess the curriculum vitae Smith owns, for sure, but, by comparison, he was a latter-day Solomon. Sometimes, deeds are more powerful and lasting than fancy words and bluster.

Just ask Rex Ryan.

If all this sounds contrarian, a plebian hack siding with billionaires, 16 of whom showed up on the Forbes Magazine list of the wealthiest 400 Americans this week, well, we apologize. If readers want, we'll go to our bureau drawer and unearth all the union cards and dues books we've held the past 40-some years. But having been raised in a blue-collar, union environment doesn't mean that you swallow all of the talk that goes along with that status.

The players, who hopefully heeded the NFLPA's advice that they squirrel away 25 percent of their income in each of 2009 and 2010, swallowed Smith's spiel, and look where it's gotten them. Without a union, Smith shouldn't be able to collect a salary now, right? Good, because he doesn't deserve any reimbursement for the mess he helped to create.

No doubt, there is plenty of blame to spread around, and Smith shouldn't escape his share of the finger-pointing.

The post-decertification presentation by Pash, the owners' hired gun, but a guy who has been through this before and has been trustworthy, might have been a little bit one-sided. The blame isn't, however, and Smith should own up to that. When he portrays the owners as bad guys, Smith might want to steal a glance in the mirror. What we had here, among other things, was a failure to communicate. For a man who makes a living with multisyllabic utterances, that must be a comedown, but also a failure.

Time and again, as he delineated point by point the league's final offer on Friday afternoon, Pash concluded, "Apparently, it wasn't enough."

Hey, Jeff, as far as DeMaurice Smith was concerned, it was never going to be.

Smith only cares about Smith and his rep. The players are getting led down a road they don't need to go down. Smith will turn the NFL into MLB. How'd you like the Steelers to become the Pirates?

Who do you trust for the future of the NFL? Art Rooney or De Smith???

[hawaiiansteel]

Jerry Jones’ gesture may have set the stage for decertification

Posted by Mike Florio on March 15, 2011


At the outset of a summary of last week’s collapse of negotiation sessions between the NFL and the players’ union, Jim Trotter of Sports Illustrated paints a picture of the kind of disrespect that likely helped the drive players toward the decertification-and-litigation option.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, not a bit humbler after last month’s Super Bowl seating fiasco or the prior day’s finding that the owners had abused their duty to max out revenues by cutting a deal for lockout insurance, opened a face-to-face meeting with the players on March 2 with the following message to the players who attended the session.

“I don’t think we’ve got your attention,” Jones said, according to several players who spoke anonymously to Trotter. “You clearly don’t understand what we’re saying, and we’re not hearing what you’re saying. So I guess we’re going to have to show you to get your attention.”

Per Trotter, Jones then tapped his fists together. The players interpreted the gesture as a sign that a lockout was coming. (Maybe he was simply using Friends code for giving the finger.)

Jones then stood up and walked out. Panthers owner Jerry Richardson reportedly prepared to leave as well, but Patriots owner Robert Kraft put a hand on Richardson’s forearm, prompting Richardson to stay put.

If the report is accurate, it’s troubling. And it helps us understand why the deal couldn’t get done.

And it makes us even more convinced that, if the talks were being handled by a mediator appointed by one of the two judges who have authority over the litigation between the parties, the owners would think twice before acting that way in the presence of a person who can promptly report back to Judge Doty or Judge Nelson any unreasonable or abusive or counterproductive conduct.

Until that happens, the process would be better served if, when talks resume, some of the owners stay home and count their money.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ification/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/jerry-jones-gesture-may-have-set-the-stage-for-decertification/)

[Discipline of Steel]

Best reason in years to maintain my dislike of the cowboys.

That and the fact he's such good chums with ol rog.

[hawaiiansteel]

League makes three main arguments against lifting the lockout

Posted by Mike Florio on March 21, 2011


The NFL has responded to the motion for “preliminary injunction” filed by Tom Brady and nine other players with a 49-page raising on three main arguments, and bearing the names of twice as many lawyers.

Here are the league’s arguments, in English. Or as close to English as we can manage.

First, the league claims that a federal statute known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the U.S. District Court in Minnesota from intervening in the labor dispute. The league argues that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents any court from issuing an injunction against a lockout — regardless of whether the NFLPA operates as a union or a trade association.

Second, the league claims that the decertification of the union is not valid, and that the court in Minnesota should defer to the National Labor Relations Board, which is considering whether the union shut down in an effort to simply gain a tactical bargaining advantage.

As to whether the union legitimately shut down, the league’s brief cites comments from men like Kevin Mawae, DeMeco Ryans, Derrick Mason, Vonnie Holliday, Jeff Saturday, and Mike Vrabel. For example, the league points to the following September 2010 quote from Mawae as proof that the decertification is merely a tactic for gaining leverage: “[T]he idea of decertification, the tactic and the strategy worked back in 1989. . . . [T]he whole purpose [of disclaimer] is to have that ace in our sleeve. . . . And at the end of the day, guys understand the strategy, it’s been a part of the union strategy since I’ve been in the league. . . .” The league also notes that Vonnie Holliday, the Washington Football Club’s player rep, said after decertification of the union, “We want a fair CBA.” Likewise, the league points out that Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel said a week after decertification that “[o]ur Executive Commitee needs to negotiate with . . . their Executive Committee.”

The league believes that, if the union has truly become a trade association, its Executive Committee would have no role in labor negotiations.

Third, the league addresses the four factors that we outlined last night.

The NFL contends that the players are “demonstrably unlikely” to prevail in their case, given that the so-called “nonstatutory labor exemption” permits a lockout to proceed without antitrust laws being implicated, until a point “sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the collective bargaining process.” In English, or as close to English as we can manage, this means that the league is relying on a principle of law that, in the league’s view, prevents antitrust claims from being used to block a lockout, unless the antritrust lawsuit is filed long enough after the collective bargaining process has ended so that the antitrust lawsuit won’t interfere with collective bargaining.

The NFL also claims that the players aren’t likely to win the case because they failed to wait for the CBA to expire before shutting down the union. As the league explains it, the players opted to decertify before the CBA expired in order to file the antitrust lawsuit before the CBA expired. If the players had waited to decertify until after the CBA expired, the players would have had to wait six months to file the antitrust lawsuit, given a separate portion of the CBA.

The league calls the six-month waiting period an “obvious quid pro quo” for the league’s agreement not to argue that decertification was a sham. In other words, the league claims that it agreed to allow decertification of the union plus an antitrust lawsuit, only if the antitrust lawsuit is filed at least six months after the CBA has expired.

As to the issue of “irreparable harm,” the NFL argues that any damages can be compensated with money damages, making an injunction unnecessary. As the league states in its brief: “[T]he proper inquiry here is whether, assuming plaintiffs’ claims are meritorious, plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed by a period of [triply] paid leave — a period in which they will not face a risk of ‘career-ending injury’ . . . or any ‘wear and tear’ . . . ? To ask that question is to answer it.” (We made a similar point last night; “At a time when the players are complaining so loudly about playing more games, the prospect of eventually getting paid to play no games in 2011 could be reasonable, and for some players attractive.”)

The NFL claims that the third factor — the balancing of the hardships — favors the league because lifting the lockout “would likely lead to the more favorably-situated teams signing the best players,” a contention that the league doesn’t explain in much detail, and which we frankly don’t understand. Even if the NFL applied no rules to free agency upon the termination of the lockout, the “more favorably-situated teams” may not have any reason to sign the best players. For example, does anyone envision Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers, led by a G.M. who is notoriously conservative when it comes to free agency, pursuing Peyton Manning and Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins? Still, the league contends that ending the lockout “would irreparably harm the NFL by destroying the competitive balance that is essential to keeping it’s [sic; yep, even world-renowned, high-priced lawyers have typos] entertainment product attractive to fans.”

In our view, that’s another example of overlawyering. The league felt compelled to argue that the balance of the hardships favors the NFL, and the outside lawyers — who apparently don’t know football as well as they know the law — came up with a very flimsy and vague argument in support of that position. (Speaking of overlawyering, the league also claims that the provision of the CBA allowing the union to decertify should be disregarded because it violates public policy . . . even though the league agreed to the provision in 1993.)

Finally, the league argues that the public interest favors allowing a lockout to proceed. Um, no it doesn’t. The public interest favors football. The “public” (when considered in the most logical and commonsensical sense) doesn’t give a you-know-what about “the policy underlying the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB, and federal labor law generally.” The “public” wants football. And since an injunction ends the lockout and allows football to continue, the injunction is in the public’s best interests.

All that said, the lawyers representing the class of players who have filed suit have their work cut out for them in crafting the final written submission on the pending motion. On the two key factors we identified last night — likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm — the league has presented a compelling case. We only wish they’d gone with their best arguments and resisted the temptation to justify their fees and/or cover their rear ends by advancing weak arguments that undermine their best ones.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e-lockout/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/21/league-makes-three-main-arguments-against-lifting-the-lockout/)