Roger Goodell: No CBA by March 4=No Free Agency!

[Stout]

Roger Goodell just had a great press conference. He addressed all issues with a cool head and calm words. Calm doesn't mean strong, however, and when pressed by Florio, I think it was, said for certain that if there isn't a deal done by the end of the current CBA, there WILL NOT be ANY FA this offseason. Um, WOW! And, um, boy, does that SUCK for us!!! I'm sure teams like the Packers are licking their chops, though.

 

[Zeno]

Wasn't that a given? No CBA = No free agency, no player trades

 

[MigratingOsprey]

yeah - i'm curious as to that as well .... without any rules to govern the player movement there never was going to be FA or trading without an agreement

is this going a step further and saying that if the agreement lapses then there will not be FA at all, even once the new CBA is put into place?

if so, then I think this is going to be a long off season as I'm sure players aren't going to want to give up any potential eligibility as FAs ... not to mention all the guys without contracts - there would have to be a mechanism in place for them to play next year

i'm sure it would have to be limited to just no FA during the time no agreement is in place

 

[kerouac9]

How is this news to anyone who's been reading this site for the last two months?

 

[Crazy Canuck]

It is a given that without a CBA there is no legal or financial framework for free agency.

 

[PDXChris]

I think Stout is misunderstanding this. It sounds like he thinks if there is a lockout and then a new CBA, then there still would be no FA's.

 

[Stout]

How is this news to anyone who's been reading this site for the last two months?

You are missing the point. If it lapses and is signed two days later, there will be no FA--THAT is Goodell's stated stance as of today.

It is a given that without a CBA there is no legal or financial framework for free agency.

Yeah...AT ALL...even if there ends up being a CBA later.

I think Stout is misunderstanding this. It sounds like he thinks if there is a lockout and then a new CBA, then there still would be no FA's.

I'm not misunderstanding it; I watched Goodell live. He coolly and calmly stated the NFL's stance--if the negotiations don't bear fruit and the CBA lapses, there will be NO FA---NOT EVEN if one does get signed later.

Edit: I realize that this is a negotiating ploy, and a real one, but I bet owners would be thrilled with it--keep their players for basically a discount. This is a real threat to the players' stance--no mobility and no raise. Very crafty by the Commish, but very scary for fans of teams like us.

 

[kerouac9]

The players have to agree to free agency, or no. The fact of the matter is with no CBA there's no free agency. If the Commish wants to stick with that stance, there's no difference to the status quo.

Of course, since none of the major media outlets are echoing your statement (and it would be very big news), then I'm guessing you may have misunderstood.

 

[lobo]

The players have to agree to free agency, or no. The fact of the matter is with no CBA there's no free agency. If the Commish wants to stick with that stance, there's no difference to the status quo.

Of course, since none of the major media outlets are echoing your statement (and it would be very big news), then I'm guessing you may have misunderstood.

The players will never give that up...totally a positioning ploy by the commish.

 

[Duckjake]

The players have to agree to free agency, or no. The fact of the matter is with no CBA there's no free agency. If the Commish wants to stick with that stance, there's no difference to the status quo.

Of course, since none of the major media outlets are echoing your statement (and it would be very big news), then I'm guessing you may have misunderstood.

There could be free agency and regular football without a CBA. All the players would have to do was ditch the union and go open shop. Of course then its every man for himself and who knows where that would lead. I don't believe any player has the old reserve clause in his contract so any player whose contract had expired would be able to negotiate with any team he wanted, right?

Probably be like baseball where the top teams would get all the top players. Sadly in the NFL teams can't quickly get back competitive with young players like they can in baseball.

 

[az jam]

Just think logically. Once a new CBA is in place there has to be free agency as there are players contracts that will have expired. How can a team keep a player without a contract?

 

[kerouac9]

There could be free agency and regular football without a CBA. All the players would have to do was ditch the union and go open shop. Of course then its every man for himself and who knows where that would lead. I don't believe any player has the old reserve clause in his contract so any player whose contract had expired would be able to negotiate with any team he wanted, right?

Probably be like baseball where the top teams would get all the top players. Sadly in the NFL teams can't quickly get back competitive with young players like they can in baseball.

That's the deal with decertification. But then there's no revenue-sharing (I think), and the league would have to figure out a way to keep everyone together. If the NFL unilaterally imposes a salary cap, then it's collusion.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

You are missing the point. If it lapses and is signed two days later, there will be no FA--THAT is Goodell's stated stance as of today.



Yeah...AT ALL...even if there ends up being a CBA later.



I'm not misunderstanding it; I watched Goodell live. He coolly and calmly stated the NFL's stance--if the negotiations don't bear fruit and the CBA lapses, there will be NO FA---NOT EVEN if one does get signed later.

Edit: I realize that this is a negotiating ploy, and a real one, but I bet owners would be thrilled with it--keep their players for basically a discount. This is a real threat to the players' stance--no mobility and no raise. Very crafty by the Commish, but very scary for fans of teams like us.

i don't see how that could happen at all though - you have players without contracts, they are expired

do they just not get to play next year?

 

[Stout]

i don't see how that could happen at all though - you have players without contracts, they are expired

do they just not get to play next year?

Oh no. Get this--they have to play for the same team as the last season, and at the same salary! That's been widely reported as what will happen should the CBA not be passed until late into training camp or into the season.

Now, maybe Goodell's just using this as a bargaining stance, but he stated live on the NFL network just what this thread title says.

 

[azsouthendzone]

Oh no. Get this--they have to play for the same team as the last season, and at the same salary! That's been widely reported as what will happen should the CBA not be passed until late into training camp or into the season.

Now, maybe Goodell's just using this as a bargaining stance, but he stated live on the NFL network just what this thread title says.

So what happens to guys who are cut whose teams don't want them? This doesn't hold a lot of water. Pure negotiating tactic at best. This always happens with every sport. Doom and gloom. I remember last year folks saying MLS would fold if their CBA didn't get done...even as Philadelphia was set to open a new stadium. I'm not buying anything Goodell is selling.

 

[Hypothesis]

I understand what he's saying regarding FA, but I seriously doubt it will ever get to that point. I'm about 100% certain that there will be a FA period at some time this offseason.

 

[Stout]

So what happens to guys who are cut whose teams don't want them? This doesn't hold a lot of water. Pure negotiating tactic at best. This always happens with every sport. Doom and gloom. I remember last year folks saying MLS would fold if their CBA didn't get done...even as Philadelphia was set to open a new stadium. I'm not buying anything Goodell is selling.

Guys that were cut are allowed to sign. FAs will not be allowed to leave without a CBA. That doesn't just come from Goodell...that's acknowledged by both sides.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

No way that would hold up legally - you can't force a guy who isn't under contract to sign a new deal under the old parameters ......... wouldn't happen and no way the players would agree to such a deal

if they try to force that in there and make it so there is no FA - there will not be a season next year

 

[Stout]

No way that would hold up legally - you can't force a guy who isn't under contract to sign a new deal under the old parameters ......... wouldn't happen and no way the players would agree to such a deal

if they try to force that in there and make it so there is no FA - there will not be a season next year

I'm just winging it on this one, but I *think* that this is written into the CBA. I *think* I heard that somewhere, but I cannot be sure.

 

[Assface]

No way that would hold up legally - you can't force a guy who isn't under contract to sign a new deal under the old parameters ......... wouldn't happen and no way the players would agree to such a deal

if they try to force that in there and make it so there is no FA - there will not be a season next year

Free agency didn't even exist in the NFL until 1989. Free agency as we know it came in to effect in 1993.

 

[Duckjake]

Free agency didn't even exist in the NFL until 1989. Free agency as we know it came in to effect in 1993.

Right because teams had a reserve clause in all contracts. Those are gone now.