NFLPA applies for decertification.

[Chris_Sanders]

As far as demanding to see the owners books, that is also not as simplistic as some of you make it sound.

The players didn't "Walk in and demand to see the books"

The players were 100% happy to continue to play under the current labor agreement. The last collective bargaining agreement said "We will split (x) profit."

This is more the equivalent of you agreeing to work for a company for a salary + percentage of profit compensation. You do your job and the company looks like it is doing well. You aren't asking for a raise, just to get what you believe you agreed to.

Then your boss tells you that while things look great, they are terrible and you are going to get a 10% reduction in your expected pay. I really doubt many of you would take that at face value.

I can promise you that the NFL will have to open these books in court. That is why they decertified. The NFL is going to have to prove it's claims.

 

[cardpa]

They can all go pound sand as far as I am concerned. At some point in time they will come to some agreement and guess who will pay for that, you and me in the form of tickets, merchandise, Sunday ticket, etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if after all this is done the fans impose their own strike and stay away from the games. Let them play their games in an empty stadium for a couple of weeks. Do not buy any NFL related merchandise. Do not buy Sunday ticket. This is the only way we as fans can make a statement that we are fed up with their selfish ways.

I got Sunday ticket last year and I am more than ready to tell Direct to keep it.

Hit them in the only place the players and the owners care about, their wallets.

 

[Matt L]

I would be interested to find out how much a health insurance premium is for a former NFL player wtih 3 years in the league.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Amen Shane. Screw the players...I live in a small 3 bedroom house, make 50 grand/yr & yet many of these clowns live their short careers living like kings with 5 cars, 3 mortgage payments & 15 people posse's.

You are an owners dream. You buy into a stereotype that only a fraction of the players have.

 

[40yearfan]

As far as demanding to see the owners books, that is also not as simplistic as some of you make it sound.

The players didn't "Walk in and demand to see the books"

The players were 100% happy to continue to play under the current labor agreement. The last collective bargaining agreement said "We will split (x) profit."

This is more the equivalent of you agreeing to work for a company for a salary + percentage of profit compensation. You do your job and the company looks like it is doing well. You aren't asking for a raise, just to get what you believe you agreed to.

Then your boss tells you that while things look great, they are terrible and you are going to get a 10% reduction in your expected pay. I really doubt many of you would take that at face value.

I can promise you that the NFL will have to open these books in court. That is why they decertified. The NFL is going to have to prove it's claims.

This is what Smith is hanging his hat on and is the only ace in the hole the players union has. If the judge decides against it, or the owners prove they are actually making less profit, this whole thing could go against the union. This is a huge gamble.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I will tell you one thing that really jumps out at me.

NFL wants to install a rookie salary cap at 5 years when the average career is 3.5 years. My guess is they eventually divide the difference between the 3 the players want to 4.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

This is what Smith is hanging his hat on and is the only ace in the hole the players union has. If the judge decides against it, or the owners prove they are actually making less profit, this whole thing could go against the union. This is a huge gamble.

Absolutely it is. Either way once the books are out in the open, everything will get wrapped up quick.

 

[Buckybird]

This is what Smith is hanging his hat on and is the only ace in the hole the players union has. If the judge decides against it, or the owners prove they are actually making less profit, this whole thing could go against the union. This is a huge gamble.

I wonder what would happen if the owners at some point showed their books, sued & won a settlement of 100's of millions of dollars against the players? I know the chances are slim, but how would the players pay?

 

[Chris_Sanders]

There is no precedence for Doty to rule in their favor, even though he always does.

Because legally the owners have little ground to stand on. The NFL by it's very nature violates federal Anti Trust laws. Basically each NFL franchise is it's own company. They even admit it when they say they don't share financial information.

Legally, the NFL locking out it's players is collusion between 32 separate businesses to artificially deflate wages.

This is why the NFL has to collectively bargain with it's players because otherwise there would be no draft or trades as they would be illegal. Each franchise would have to operate individually instead of collectively.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I wonder what would happen if the owners at some point showed their books, sued & won a settlement of 100's of millions of dollars against the players? I know the chances are slim, but how would the players pay?

You are not understanding the lawsuit at all. The NFL has no grounds to sue the players as the players are not violating any laws.

The best case scenario for the NFL in this is that they are given an Anti Trust exception, which they have been denied in the past.

The worst case scenario is that the NFL will have to operate as 32 individual franchises, there is no draft, trades, or slotted salaries. It becomes a free market and wages will be set at market value based on franchise earnings.

Somewhere in between those scenarios an agreement will be reached and football will be played.

 

[moklerman]

As far as demanding to see the owners books, that is also not as simplistic as some of you make it sound.

The players didn't "Walk in and demand to see the books"

The players were 100% happy to continue to play under the current labor agreement. The last collective bargaining agreement said "We will split (x) profit."

This is more the equivalent of you agreeing to work for a company for a salary + percentage of profit compensation. You do your job and the company looks like it is doing well. You aren't asking for a raise, just to get what you believe you agreed to.

Then your boss tells you that while things look great, they are terrible and you are going to get a 10% reduction in your expected pay. I really doubt many of you would take that at face value.

I can promise you that the NFL will have to open these books in court. That is why they decertified. The NFL is going to have to prove it's claims.

Doesn't that work both ways though? Didn't the players "agree" to the opt-out being available to the owners in that previous agreement?

 

[Buckybird]

You are not understanding the lawsuit at all. The NFL has no grounds to sue the players as the players are not violating any laws.

The best case scenario for the NFL in this is that they are given an Anti Trust exception, which they have been denied in the past.

The worst case scenario is that the NFL will have to operate as 32 individual franchises, there is no draft, trades, or slotted salaries. It becomes a free market and wages will be set at market value based on franchise earnings.

Somewhere in between those scenarios an agreement will be reached and football will be played.

Thanks for clearing that up Chris...but aren't the players (Brady, Manning, Miller, etc) who are suing each NFL franchise acting as individuals? Couldnt the teams file suit against each player now that there's no union? Sorry but I dont understand much of the legal process.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Thanks for clearing that up Chris...but aren't the players (Brady, Manning, Miller, etc) who are suing each NFL franchise acting as individuals? Couldnt the teams file suit against each player now that there's no union? Sorry but I dont understand much of the legal process.

Yes they had to sue as individuals not as a union. That is why they had to decertify. By decertifying, the players have said "My union no longer represents my best interest. I wish to bargain on my own"

The NFL then locked the players out to prevent individual bargaining. Brady and Manning want to work, but aren't allowed to due to the collusion of 32 businesses.

This is why it is different then a strike.

If the players were on strike, people could still cross lines and thus the players would have no grounds to stand on.

With a lockout, the players want to work but aren't being allowed to.

In reality, it is a bunch of posturing on both sides. I doubt either side is being honest at this point because it doesn't behoove either side to be honest. I don't begrudge the players their chance to negotiate though.

Pretty much though with the decertification, NFL will be played this year by a court ordered mandate. Probably under the last agreement.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Yes they had to sue as individuals not as a union. That is why they had to decertify. By decertifying, the players have said "My union no longer represents my best interest. I wish to bargain on my own"

The NFL then locked the players out to prevent individual bargaining. Brady and Manning want to work, but aren't allowed to due to the collusion of 32 businesses.

This is why it is different then a strike.

If the players were on strike, people could still cross lines and thus the players would have no grounds to stand on.

With a lockout, the players want to work but aren't being allowed to.

In reality, it is a bunch of posturing on both sides. I doubt either side is being honest at this point because it doesn't behoove either side to be honest. I don't begrudge the players their chance to negotiate though.

Pretty much though with the decertification, NFL will be played this year by a court ordered mandate. Probably under the last agreement.

Please give us an example of a privately owned business deemed non-essential being required to do business under court order?

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Please give us an example of a privately owned business deemed non-essential being required to do business under court order?

You are seeing the NFL as one business.

It is not. It is a collection of 32 individual businesses that are working together. That is why they are being sued under anti trust laws. Until given an exception, they are in the wrong.

As we are a capitalist country, it is illegal for businesses to band together to artifically changes wages and prices. These laws have been into place 1890 and courts have adjucated many cases on this.

The players have been complicit with this by collectively bargaining as a union. The government turns blind eye to it all. That is until it is brought to the courts, which is why the NFL doesn't have total control over the players.

The entire league is a house of cards.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

You are seeing the NFL as one business.

It is not. It is a collection of 32 individual businesses that are working together. That is why they are being sued under anti trust laws. Until given an exception, they are in the wrong.

As we are a capitalist country, it is illegal for businesses to band together to artifically changes wages and prices. These laws have been into place 1890 and courts have adjucated many cases on this.

The players have been complicit with this by collectively bargaining as a union. The government turns blind eye to it all. That is until it is brought to the courts, which is why the NFL doesn't have total control over the players.

The entire league is a house of cards.

I'm familiar with anti-trust statutes, we have similar laws. But, again, allow me to repeat the question: Please give us an example of a privately owned INDUSTRY deemed non-essential being required to do business under court order?

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Sorry that really didn't give you a simple reason while the courts will rule that the NFL has to be played this year.

Basically the courts will rule that the NFL can't lockout it's players because it is collusion between business entities.

At that point they will have to either shutdown business operations entirely or go back to business, likely under their prior labor agreement.

Varying from that risks further anti trust rulings against them.

I can only assume the NFL hopes to get an exception to the Anti Trust laws out of this. If so, the players lose all their leverage.

 

[splitsecond]

This is what Smith is hanging his hat on and is the only ace in the hole the players union has. If the judge decides against it, or the owners prove they are actually making less profit, this whole thing could go against the union. This is a huge gamble.

When you take into consideration the anti-trust exemption the NFL has, and how poorly courts look on anti-trust exemptions in general, its almost guaranteed the court is going to want the books opened up.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I'm familiar with anti-trust statutes, we have similar laws. But, again, allow me to repeat the question: Please give us an example of a privately owned INDUSTRY deemed non-essential being required to do business under court order?

They are doing business right now. They are scouting for the draft. They are collecting merchandising royalties.

You are correct that you can't be forced to do business. But you can be forced to completely desist operations or to comply with US Laws.

The NFL can always dissolve, but we know that isn't happening.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Sorry that really didn't give you a simple reason while the courts will rule that the NFL has to be played this year.

Basically the courts will rule that the NFL can't lockout it's players because it is collusion between business entities.

At that point they will have to either shutdown business operations entirely or go back to business, likely under their prior labor agreement.

Varying from that risks further anti trust rulings against them.

I can only assume the NFL hopes to get an exception to the Anti Trust laws out of this. If so, the players lose all their leverage.

Clever minds will no doubt be at work, but in the end it benefits neither to have the courts make a final adjudication that one of the parties deems unacceptable and then exercises its final option. It's the "fear" factor that is most important in all of this interplay, and in the end will drive both to find a settlement. The Union will then re-certify and give approbation.

According to what I've read the team's are looking for an extra $750M per annum off the top. Is it their bottom line? Are there creative ways to reach the figure without adversely effecting player compensation? Is the 18 game schedule, in fact, part of the solution?

A host of questions to be answered, and probably not before the courts.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

and in the end will drive both to find a settlement. The Union will then re-certify and give approbation.

I agree. This really is going to amount of nothing in the end. I will be shocked if a single game is missed this year.