RIP NFL

[Blockhead]

Re: RIP NFL

They take no risk in their contracts?

This is not baseball where the contract is guaranteed. An NFL player can be cut at any time and their contract voided.

I am not on the side of the players in this, for the most part, but to say they take no risk when the average career is 3.5 years and contracts are not fully guaranteed, is incorrect.

They sign them based on the guarantees. If they are cut, they are free to sign elsewhere. Nobody gives them a bill for expenses of the stadium, training, field maintenance, etc. They get paid but bear no expenses.

[ScoreKeeper]

Re: RIP NFL

They take no risk in their contracts?

This is not baseball where the contract is guaranteed. An NFL player can be cut at any time and their contract voided.

I am not on the side of the players in this, for the most part, but to say they take no risk when the average career is 3.5 years and contracts are not fully guaranteed, is incorrect.

They sign them based on the guarantees. If they are cut, they are free to sign elsewhere. Nobody gives them a bill for expenses of the stadium, training, field maintenance, etc. They get paid but bear no expenses.

Yep, no expense at all. No health risks, no medical bills, no nothing.

Like I said, I am not on the players side, but your view is short sited and, in all honesty, ignorant.

[Crash]

Re: RIP NFL

They sign them based on the guarantees. If they are cut, they are free to sign elsewhere. Nobody gives them a bill for expenses of the stadium, training, field maintenance, etc. They get paid but bear no expenses.

Um...that's why this lockout is occurring. They want players to pitch in for stadium financing.

The players say OK, but show us why.

The owners refuse to open the books.

As this goes on it's apparent that the owners didn't want to hurry to a deal. They had their $4 billion nest egg.

Now that Judge Doty has squashed it, now they seem willing to talk.

[Blockhead]

Re: RIP NFL

Yep, no expense at all. No health risks, no medical bills, no nothing.

Like I said, I am not on the players side, but your view is short sited and, in all honesty, ignorant.

They don't pay for their health insurance and receive a guaranteed pension in a very short time.

They get paid big money for the risk factor. If they wish not to take it, they are free to find employment in other fields.

[ScoreKeeper]

Re: RIP NFL

Yep, no expense at all. No health risks, no medical bills, no nothing.

Like I said, I am not on the players side, but your view is short sited and, in all honesty, ignorant.

They don't pay for their health insurance and receive a guaranteed pension in a very short time.

They get paid big money for the risk factor. If they wish not to take it, they are free to find employment in other fields.

Pension in a very short time? Health Insurance? Yeesh. We'll stop here. Both are a joke.

And to the other post by Crash: The owners should not open their books to the players. No company owner has the onus to open their books to any employee.

[Blockhead]

Re: RIP NFL

Pension in a very short time? Health Insurance? Yeesh. We'll stop here. Both are a joke.

How so? Players receive top notch care, rehab, preventative and pension in 3.5 years iirc.

Actually, just checked. It's 3 years and minimum of $290/year so after 5 years, a player gets a pension equal to at least $1450/month. Name me another employer that offers such a pension plan so quickly. Most employers don't even offer pension plans. You'll have to forgive me but I have no sympathy for NFL players.

[ScoreKeeper]

Re: RIP NFL

Pension in a very short time? Health Insurance? Yeesh. We'll stop here. Both are a joke.

How so? Players receive top notch care, rehab, preventative and pension in 3.5 years iirc.

Actually, just checked. It's 3 years and minimum of $290/year so after 5 years, a player gets a pension equal to at least $1450/month. Name me another employer that offers such a pension plan so quickly. Most employers don't even offer pension plans. You'll have to forgive me but I have no sympathy for NFL players.

Fine. That's your opinion. An ignorant and short sited opinion, but your opinion non the less. But when you look at the former players that served major time (Johnny U., Webby, etc), made the league what it is and the money machine it is, and then could not get enough insurance to cover his medical bills, something is broken.

Take all that fine money and put it towards player benifits after they retire. That would make sense.

[Blockhead]

Re: RIP NFL

Fine. That's your opinion. An ignorant and short sited opinion, but your opinion non the less. But when you look at the former players that served major time (Johnny U., Webby, etc), made the league what it is and the money machine it is, and then could not get enough insurance to cover his medical bills, something is broken.

Take all that fine money and put it towards player benifits after they retire. That would make sense.

Nobody is debating the rules of the sixties/seventies. We are talking about today's CBA.

The NFL owners do a lot more than the players union in regards to retired players and trying to rectify things of the past. I think your blame might be misguided, at least partially.

That said, I am so sick of hearing how the players of old built the league. That is such bull****. The owners built the league. Nobody forced Joe Namath to play then or to waste all of his money on alcohol and celebrity. He's made plenty. If he's broke, I have no sympathy.

[hawaiiansteel]

Re: RIP NFL

Steelers, Colts, Packers would be OK, but Titans, Broncos, Browns won't be as lucky

BY GREGG ROSENTHAL
NBCSports.com
March 3, 2011


I lost hope in Indianapolis.

At the NFL Scouting Combine, those behind the scenes no longer questioned the NFL work stoppage. It was assumed, just part of the schedule. The only question left was how long and how painful the lockout would be.

Publicly, NFL coaches and generals managers said things were business as usual.

“Whatever the rules are, there will be the same rules for 32 teams,” Chiefs G.M. Scott Pioli said.

That’s true, but not all 32 teams face the same challenges. Pioli’s Chiefs are relatively well situated to handle a summer off. Others aren’t so lucky. Let’s rank what teams will be hurt most by the lockout. (And what teams may actually benefit.)


1. Titans
Tennessee faces the trifecta of uncertainty: They have two new coordinators and absolutely no option to start at quarterback. (Uh, Rusty Smith??)

2. Broncos
This is the wrong offseason to break in a newbie football czar (John Elway) and a new defensive scheme under John Fox. Trading Kyle Orton could be nearly impossible, and Tim Tebow will miss valuable practice time.

3. Browns
Browns football czar Mike Holmgren will pay for delaying the end of the Eric Mangini era. Presumptive starting quarterback Colt McCoy won’t get to learn his new scheme and the defensive players don’t fit the team’s new 3-4 defense. With a first-time coach in Pat Shurmur, it’s like they are starting all over again.

4. Panthers
Notice a trend atop the rankings? Teams with new coaches are going to be at a big disadvantage if there’s a long lockout. The Panthers may be stuck with Jimmy Clausen as their Week 1 starter in a brand new offense.

5. Vikings
Promoting Leslie Frazier to coach should help the defense maintain continuity. Then again, the team has holes all over the roster and a potentially limited free agent period to address them. Finding a veteran quarterback will be difficult without being able to trade before the draft.

6. Seahawks
The Pete Carroll Program is entering Year Two, but how much progress was really made? Their quarterback position is actually more unsettled, and the team needs time to install a new offense. This is a team likely to continue a massive overhaul whenever a CBA is reached, so time is at a premium.

7. 49ers
Perhaps Jim Harbaugh has spoke so glowingly of Alex Smith this offseason because he knows he won’t have any better options. An abbreviated free agent period in August or September will lead to a lot of shotgun marriages. (And a high divorce rate next offseason.)

8. Dolphins
Miami would love to add pieces to their bankrupt offense, especially with new coordinator Brian Daboll. Instead, they could get stuck with another season of Chad Henne in a loaded AFC East.

9. Bengals
The best way to get value for Carson Palmer would be to trade him before the draft. That won’t be possible now, and it’s anyone’s guess what quarterback will run new coordinator Jay Gruden’s West Coast offense next year.

10. Cardinals
Pressing pause isn’t a great idea for a team with John Skelton as their best returning quarterback. Oh, and Arizona’s annually disappointing defense has yet another new coordinator.

11. Eagles
New coordinator Juan Castillo hasn’t coached defense since the 1980’s. He needs the offseason just as much as the players. Any team that is active in free agency like Philly could also get penalized this year. Speaking of which ...

12. Redskins
Without their annual offseason championship to win, what do the Redskins have? After one year of Mike Shanahan, the roster actually has more holes than when Jim Zorn was dumped.

13. Rams
Teams near the top of our list have a lot of young players with new coaches. St. Louis’ offense is extremely green at quarterback, receiver, and tackle. Post-lockout, they will have to take a crash course in Josh McDaniels’ playbook – one of the most complex in football.

14. Texans
It will be tough to Wade Phillips to install his 3-4 defense without practice time. The Texans have a lot of players like Mario Williams and Brian Cushing playing in very different roles. A bright side -- the offense has enough continuity and returning parts to survive a lockout just fine.

15. Bucs
The youngest team in the league needs as much time on the field together as possible.

16. Cowboys
Dallas brought in a new defense coordinator – Rob Ryan – but the scheme remains the same. Continuity is solid on offense, although that’s not necessarily a good thing with this aging offensive line.

17. Bills
Buffalo doesn’t rank too high because they have a returning coaching staff and they aren’t overly active in free agency. Still, a lockout could stall the progress of a potential incoming rookie quarterback.

18. Lions
Well, quarterback Matthew Stafford probably wouldn’t be healthy enough to practice much anyway. Detroit would like to be active in free agency, but a lockout wouldn’t be crushing for Jim Schwartz’s program.

19. Jets
Rex Ryan’s team has plenty of veterans that don’t need a lot of practice time. The tricky part here is the Jets have a lot of big free agent decisions and would love to pick up some veterans via trade and free agency. There will be no Santonio Holmes-type deals this time around for an annually active team.

20. Raiders
New coach Hue Jackson already ran much of the offense last offseason, so a transition shouldn’t be too rough. The Raiders lockout-proofed their roster by re-signing Richard Seymour, John Henderson, Stanford Routt and Kamerion Wimbley in February.

21. Bears
Jay Cutler and his young wideouts could use more time around Mad Mike Martz so they can figure out what he’s talking about.

22. Jaguars
You could make the argument a long lockout helps the young Jaguars a bit, if only because it hurts division rivals Tennessee and Houston.

23. Giants
The Giants own enviable continuity on offense and plenty of talent on defense. They aren’t a team that is afraid to spend in free agency, but a lockout wouldn’t hurt them much.

24. Falcons
Falcons G.M. Thomas Dimitroff and coach Mike Smith have been together longer than most of the NFC’s power tandems. That says a lot about job security in the league.

25. Ravens
Still searching for receivers after all these years. Baltimore may be prevented from making a splashy move like the Anquan Boldin trade, but their veteran roster should hold up well in a lockout.

26. Saints
Having a coach on the field like Drew Brees will be an advantage if there’s no actually coaching going this offseason. While they have a lot of free agents, New Orleans’ scheme continuity will help.

27. Chargers

Philip Rivers and his receivers should be able to hit the ground running. Ron Rivera’s absence could complicate things on defense, but it’s not like the Chargers can start any slower than they usually do.
28. Chiefs
Going back to Todd Haley as a de facto offensive coordinator should be a lot easier than bringing in a new guy.

29. Patriots
The weirder the rules are, the more that creative front offices should thrive. The Patriots and other quick-thinking teams can better adapt and sniff out market inefficiencies.

30. Steelers
Missing out on a free agent period won’t exactly be devastating for a draft-and-develop team like Pittsburgh. Perhaps more time off could actually help any Super Bowl runner up hangover.

31. Packers
We stacked the bottom of our list with the best front offices. Ted Thompson is going to stay the course no matter the league rules, and he has the ultimate trump card -- the most talented roster in the league.

32. Colts
It’s hard to imagine a team affected less by a lockout than the Colts. They could care less about free agency and their schemes haven’t changed in a decade. Their free agent class will be all their returning injured players.

[url="http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41881898/ns/sports-nfl/"]http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41881898/ns/sports-nfl/[/url]

[Crash]

Re: RIP NFL

If the Union decertifies, and then the NFL locks them out? Are the contracts still valid?

Looks like the Big 3 agree with me.


Brady, Manning, Brees file antitrust suit

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]

Re: RIP NFL

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.

good thing we got rid of that Vrabel fellow, we don't need no stinkin' troublemakers on our team...

[Crash]

Re: RIP NFL

Watch the media who gets paid by NFLN all of the sudden start bashing those three when they start playing again.

The fact that Tom Brady may cost him a paycheck/job could send Rich Eisen over the edge.

[Blockhead]

Re: RIP NFL

Watch the media who gets paid by NFLN all of the sudden start bashing those three when they start playing again.

The fact that Tom Brady may cost him a paycheck/job could send Rich Eisen over the edge.

Rich Eisen has had a multi million dollar salary for a lot of years. Something tells me he's fine and his contract is fully guaranteed. The NFLN isn't going to stop producing shows in a lockout.

[Crash]

Re: RIP NFL

League claims decertification came too early to avoid “sham” defense
Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011, 1:20 PM EST

The fact that the NFL has locked out a supposedly non-union work force implies that the league believes the union has not properly and effectively decertified.

And the NFL has now expressly said so.

“The union only pretended to decertify in 1990,” NFL outside counsel Gregg Levy said in a statement provided to PFT. “As history has confirmed, that purported decertification was a sham. In an effort to protect its ability to repeat the fraud a second time, the union tried in the White settlement to limit the NFL’s ability to challenge in an antitrust court any future attempt by the union to pull off a similar sham. But that limitation could have applied only if the purported decertification occurred after expiration of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The union was in such a rush to get to court that it did not wait until SSA expiration. The league is therefore free to show that this ‘decertification’ is also a sham.”

Levy is referring to Article LVII, Section 3(b) of the CBA, which states as follows: “The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority
of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives,
agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.” (Emphasis added.)

The problem for the players is that Article LVII, Section 3(a) of the CBA required them to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit if they failed to file it before the expiration of the labor deal. So they’ve opted, apparently, to file the lawsuit in accordance with the terms of the CBA and hope that they can cobble together an argument that will allow the waiver of the “sham” defense to still apply.

The league’s position is pretty simple. By failing to wait until the CBA expired to decertify, the plain terms of the agreement preserves the league’s ability to argue that the process of shutting down the union is a sham.

And it is a sham. Everyone knows it’s a sham. But if the league can’t argue in court that it’s a sham, it doesn’t matter. If the league can argue that it’s a sham, then the league will be in good position to avoid an injunction and maintain a lockout.

Of course, that’s bad news for the fans, because it means that a lockout will continue until a deal is reached at the bargaining table. With the players taking personally the treatment they’ve experienced of late, the players may be willing to cut off theirs noses to spite their faces, which means that the offseason could indeed be compromised if not completely forfeited.

[Blockhead]

Re: RIP NFL

The de-certification is clearly a sham. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.