The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Maybe a poll should be created,

Who do you blame for the current lockout the players, owners or both equally?

The fans.












I just said that to rile up MikeO. :) We all know it's the players fault.  >:D

Organized religion is to blame for the lockout

...and everything else.

Millionaires vs Billionaires.  Some of these guys make more money in one year than I'll see in a lifetime..... and I'm pretty well off. 

I have no sympathy for these crybabies.  Turns out Davonne Bess is digging ditches in Costa Rica as part of a humanitarian project.  Let's see when some more of these guys have to do it for $10 per hour.

Both.

Owners.

They backed out of the current deal in place and locked out the players. Everything was running along smooth. The owners got greedy

I would be neutral on this lockout, except for one factor:  the TV contract.

When the league negotiated the last TV contract (and built in the continued-pay-during-lockout), they committed two major offenses, in my mind:

1) They did not aggressively seek the best possible price, choosing instead to bargain for a deal that continues TV pay (to the league) during a lockout.  The players are contractually entitled to a certain percentage of revenue, so in effect this gave the players less money for a TV deal that was designed to undermine the players' bargaining position.

2) In seeking such lockout guarantees, the league seems unwilling to shoulder the same hardships that the players must face during the lockout.  If you are unwilling to face the financial consequences of a lockout, don't enact one.

Canada

Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh

i added a poll as requested

The poll appears to be locked.  I'm unlocking it now.

I chose the owners.  I'm normally a big owner supporter, when it comes to holdouts.  However, all of the teams are making big money, and the earning potential for players is a limited time.  It's also a stupid time for a lockout, when everyone is making cash.

Owners and players.  They're all greedy. 

^^Ditto. Can't figure out a way to spend 9 Billion dollars. Please.

One thing people forget. The players aren't asking for anything more. They want nothing than what they have.

The owners are cutting HUGE TV deals where they make more and more money, and the players aren't asking for a bigger cut or a piece of that. Nope, they players are content.

This is all on the owners. They made this mess and have no clue how to clean it up.

It really is striking how many times you can be wrong in just a few sentences.

There is no current deal. The players don't have a deal. There WAS a deal. It EXPIRED per the conditions in the deal, that both sides agreed to.

Anyway, there were many elements in the old deal that meant that the players were indeed asking for a bigger cut. Not only did their cut in percentage terms increase every year of the deal (and would have continued to do so had the deal no EXPIRED), but they were also guaranteed to get at least the same total amount in absolute terms as the year before. In other words, if the pie shrunk, the players would get a relatively larger piece of the pie and the owners would have to settle for "leftovers" (big chunk, not disputing that).

With regards to making money... Remember that team that has made its financials public? You remember, the one you were adamant didn't exist? Well, they're making a pitiful amount of money. No, not losing money, but then they do get a great deal from revenue sharing (the stuff that isn't shared, they have a lot of, the stuff that is shared is where they are weak). But they are making PEANUTS and fewer peanuts every year for the past 4-5 years. Even a year or so more of that trend and they'd be in the red. Simply not tenable.

So because one or two teams aren't making a truckload of money lets blow up the whole system. They are still making money hand over fist, but just because they want to do NO WORK to make MORE money, its time to bring the sport to a hault. It's a joke! Newsflash, its a BUSINESS!!  So if the Packers can't make a HUGE profit then its time to either find a way to make more money or the city should sell the damn team to an owner with a brain who can cash in like the vast majority of NFL owners do.

I'm sorry if Jerry Jones sells 10 million Tony Romo jerseys Im sorry, the Panthers, Bills, and Packers shouldn't get a cut of that. And if those lazy ass owners don't like it, then get out of the NFL business.

This notion that NFL teams are going into the  RED  or on the brink of it and going under is laughable. If NFL teams can't survive in the NFL's greatest era of success, then how did they survive all of these other years.

And don't say the deal expired, the deal could have continued that was also an option ya know, the owners wanted out and backed out of the current deal. They bargined in bad faith with the TV networks and the players to bail out of this deal. They have been sleezy since day 1 and not upfront.

The pie hasn't shrunk since the 70's, that stupid analogy holds no water either

You need a course in economics. Considering absolute numbers for profits is stupid. What counts is the profit margin and it's pathetic. Doing just about anything else with the money would yield a greater return on investment. That's not "making money hand over fist".


That's one heck of an unsubstantiated claim. The players were offered a great deal of economic insight on the teams, including bottom line figures, but turned it down without even looking at it. Yet YOU know the teams are turning huge profits... right...


It's unclear from you statement above whether you're aware that the money from those jersey sales is subject to the revenue sharing agreement between the teams (with some limitations). If you are, it nicely undermines your point in the previous section of your post.


Economics really isn't your strong suite, is it? Look at the airline industry, automobile industry or any one of the once major industries that have been decimated by high labor costs. News flash: The players pile of money NEVER goes down. NEVER. If owners are struggling to turn a DECENT profit in a time where the NFL, as you correctly point out, is experiencing great success, how are they ever going to survive if other expenditures increase (which they have) or popularity falls? The owners should, just like the players, be making piles of money during this time. All indications are that they are NOT.

As for how they survived "all those other years", how about looking at their labor costs -- just related to the on-field product. It's SKY ROCKETED. Both in absolute terms and in terms of "share of the pie". And, again, the players don't take a pay cut if the pie shrinks... they keep their absolute amount.


The TV network deal was unconscionable, at least as represented in the media. You'll get no argument for me there. Sorry. (Yes, I'm capable of a nuanced view, something you might want to look into.)

And, sure, the owners could have chosen to continue with the old deal, which included more escalators for the players, meaning they would have gotten an even larger piece of the pie in 2010 -- and even larger than that in 2011. Not to belabor the point, but the players wouldn't be taking pay cuts if revenues decreased (which all indications are they have, so your "the pie never shrinks" is implausible at best); they were guaranteed at least as much in absolute terms as they got the previous year.

The deal the players agreed to contained an opt-out provision exactly because there was considerable uncertainty as to how tenable the deal actually was, especially if the economic boom didn't continue. News flash: it didn't. And that has had a profound effect on teams with large debts (hint: just about every team but the Packers has HUGE amount of debt that needs financing and that's become a lot harder to do in this economy). The old deal was based on the premise that securing capital for stadium enhancements or new stadiums would be easy and cheap. Look around... that's not the world we live in today.

And they won't accept one penny less either. I feel so bad for Peyton and his family. Where should I send a donation so that he doesn't starve? The rest of the country is going through some tough financial times. Is it unreasonable to ask the players to negotiate a new contract? One that takes some of the money out of the hands of a few first round draft choices before they play a single game and puts it into the hands of veteran players? One that spends some money on the stadiums in which the players play to give the fans the best possible experience while coming to the games? One that pays a little more to retired players so that they can get the necessary medical attention they need after abusing their bodies for years playing football? And yes one that helps out some of those owners who clearly AREN'T making money hand over fist and may need a little help from the league?

Here is what the players turned down:

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

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=pfw-20110311_nflpa_has_decertified

"What's amazing, and what shows the absolute distrust the players have for the owners, is that the NFL offered the players to have an independent auditor -- to be determined by both sides -- study the audited financial statements. The independent auditor would have studied the statements, then reported to the union the year-by-year profit-and-loss statements for each team. Theoretically, that would have shown whether teams were becoming less profitable in the past two or three years, a core argument of the ownership."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/11/fallout.from.decision/index.html#ixzz1O2H2lISi

Yes, it is.  Now stop talking like a fan and look at it from a business perspective.  You had a contract and it ran out. What do you do? You negotiate a new contract. I fail to see where that runs aground of good business.

op·tion   /ˈɒpʃən/ [op-shuhn]   
–noun
1. the power or right of choosing.
2. something that may be or is chosen; choice.
3. the act of choosing.

Maybe that helps?

The players had a choice too. Negotiate the best possible deal they could or take it to the courts. They chose the latter.

The owners had a choice: negotiate the best possible deal or lock the players out.
The players had a choice: negotiate the best possible deal or try to force the league to end the lockout via litigation.

I am forced to wonder if the pro-owner posters would be backing the players in the case of a strike.

I absolutely would be backing the players on the RIGHT to strike if the owners seemed to be unwilling to sit at a negotiation table. I'm also not oposed to the players going for litigation if the owners were unwilling to negotiate, but that does not seem to be the case from where I sit.

Some people would have me believe that the owners hold all the cards. That simply is not the case. The players have plenty of options as do the owners. Why should I back the players? The owners have simply been using the tools that they have to renegotiate a new contract, I wouldn't take those rights away from the players, why should I take them away from the owners?

I'm not saying that the owners aren't greedy. I fully admit they are. What I'm saying is that the players are every bit as greedy. Both sides need to sit down at a table and figure out a way to cut up the pie. The owners have been wanting that for years and the players don't feel like they should have to. I don't understand why they feel that way. Can you explain it?

In the gaming world we have a saying "Shut up and take my money" It refers to games that are so good that the developers can pretty much do and charge whatever they want and gamers will pay for it. Gamers know they are probably getting screwed, but hey it's the best thing out there, they'll take it. The NFL is kinda like that for players. The NFL is willing to pay you a LOT of money to play a game for a living. Shut up and take the money.

Pappy13, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the owners are wrong to lock the players out.  But I'd like to know why you seem to believe that the owners are putting forth a more genuine effort at the negotiating table than the players.

The owners negotiated a TV deal that would pay dividends in the event of a lockout several years ago.
The players did not undertake litigation until after the lockout went into effect (they decertified approximately one day before).

If anyone is to be accused of being unwilling to negotiate in good faith, it should be the owners.

Well I'm not privy to the conversations that have gone on inside the negotiations, but the owners have been adament in their stance that the only way to resolve this is with negotiations. It is the players who have insisted that they would rather take it up with the courts. The owners certainly don't want this to be decided for them, why wouldn't they want to try to work out an agreement? Now maybe what the owners feel is fair is different from what the players feel is fair, but that's part of the negotiation.

I linked above to a couple of reports that the owners have in fact tried to give the players some concessions like getting a 3rd party auditor to go over their books and report on their findings.  Why would that be unacceptable to the players? They also backed off on trying to go for an 18 game schedule. They were also willing to split the difference with the players between where they were as far as compensation goes. What exactly have the players offered in return? I have not heard of a single concession made by the players. In fact many of them have expressed the feeling that what they have they worked hard for and they won't give it up under any circumstance. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like someone who's willing to negotiate.

They seem to have the same general feeling that MikeO has been portraying. We like what we got and we can either continue playing with the rules exactly as they are or you can lock us out. We dare you. We double dog dare you.

WHY THE F' SHOULD THEY? The league has never been stronger ever. That isn't when you take cuts.  In fact the players SHOULD be asking for more in reality!

YES! Exactly. The league isn't losing money. The league made some $9 billion last year. When has it ever made that much before? Answer: NEVER! If a few teams are having trouble that is an owner vs owner issue. Decide how to split up YOUR PIECE of the pie among yourself and don't touch the players piece of the pie!

So obviously whatever deal is in place is working as the league is growing, the fans are happy, and the money is flowing in at a record rate. Yet the owners want the players to take a cut? HA! Good luck with that.

And comparing it to the auto industry or the airline industry as you did in your long ass diatribe is LAUGHABLE! Those industry's were on the verge of BANKRUPTCY! They were damn near finished and gone under. It was take cuts or goodbye. The NFL isn't in that situation, the leverage is with the players in this situation.

 ::)

That is not true.  The owners' stance has been that they will lock the players out and then attempt to resolve this with negotiations.  The players' counterargument is that they will sue to stop the lockout and then attempt to resolve this with negotiations.  (You can see that after the initial ruling in the players' favor that ended the lockout, the players did not simply declare, "We won, time for football" but rather that it was time to go back to the bargaining table.)   So what is the difference?

Well, the players have been open about their willingness to potentially institute a rookie wage scale, as well as their willingness to accept 50% of gross revenue (instead of 59% of the remainder after certain operating costs have been subtracted), but that's really beside the point.  Neither of us are privy to the discussions and cannot intelligently comment on who was willing to give up what.  For all of the concessions that the owners purportedly offered, you have no idea of exactly what they were asking in return (and vice versa).

The league didn't "MAKE" $9 billion last year.  They "Grossed" $9 billion.  Huge difference.  What the net profit to the owner's was is unknown.

Is that why we had a thread from disgruntled season ticket holders about why they decided to cancel their tickets?

What evidence do you offer to support your claim? I gave you some examples that supported my belief, lets see some examples that support your belief.

The players didn't declare they had won because they hadn't. The NFL immediately filed an appeal and asked for a stay. The judge wouldn't grant a stay, but that decision was overturned and they were granted the stay until the appeal could be heard. It also appears that the NFL will prevail on appeal.

The things I mentioned WERE offered, even the players did not dispute it, they merely said that it wasn't good enough. You're right, we have not been in the negotiations so we don't know for sure all what was offered, but frankly actions speak louder than words. The players are the ones that decertified so they could take it to the courts, that is a fact and it's undisputable. They walked away from the negotiation table first and then the owners locked them out. The players made the first move away from negotiations, not the owners.

OK.  My evidence to support my claim that the owners chose to lock the players out before negotiating a complete resolution is the lockout that is currently in effect, enacted by the owners.  My evidence to support my claim that the players chose to sue to end the lockout before negotiating a complete resolution is the lawsuit brought by the players to stop the lockout.

What part of this is in dispute?

That stay wasn't granted until a few days later.  Meanwhile, immediately after the ruling, DeMaurice Smith said that the players were eager to resume mediation (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084).

They decertified in response to the owners' declared intention of locking them out on x date, as well as the owners' action of securing a TV contract clearly designed to outleverage the players.

If I tell a roommate (and by "tell," I mean repeatedly, over the course of several years) that I'm going to kick her out on June 15 unless she meets certain conditions, and she packs up her stuff  and leaves on June 13, did she "make the first move"?

As has been pointed out already, Gross income does not equate to net income. The owners are not suggesting they are losing money, only that their profit margin is shrinking while the players profit margin is increasing.

Are the owners and the players not BOTH of part of the NFL? Would there be a league for the players to play in if the owners closed shop? Doesn't it behoove the players to try to reach an agreement with the owners?

Yes it's working fine for the players as their yearly intake is growing each year.

The fans are only happy when the games are being played which requires a league. There is no NFL without the owners.

According to the owners, they have been taking a smaller cut each year. Maybe you find that hard to believe, but the fact of the matter is the owners were unhappy with the CBA and the players weren't. Usually the one unhappy is getting the short end of the stick. On top of that the owners were willing to allow a third party to look at the financials of each team and report to the players whether or not their profit margins were in fact shrinking. I don't think they would be willing to make that concession unless it were actually true.

I don't know where I compared it to the auto industry or the airline industry specifically.

EXACTLY! And that is why they don't want to negotiate. They have the NFL by the balls for the first time and they are squeezing them hard. I don't exactly begrudge them that, but then the NFL has EVERY RIGHT to say enough is enough and lock the players out. If the players don't win in the courts, the side that gets to do the squeezing might be changing. I'll feel bad for the players then, but it will be there own fault. Now if they win, I just don't hope they destroy the NFL as we know it.

After the players decertified. What else were the owners supposed to do at that point? Throw up their hands and say "You got us, we give"? There was no union left to negotiate with.

That's recent events. That does nothing to support your claim that it has ALWAYS been that way. How does that support your claim that the owners were NOT negotiating in good faith? They locked out the players only AFTER the players decertified, NOT before.

The owners had already filed an appeal. The imposed resumption of the season wasn't going to last unless the players won on appeal which would have happened well before the season was to start. They had won nothing at that point except a lower court's ruling which they were expected to win and which was expected to be overturned on appeal. Everyone knew that was merely the first step in a very long process.

Ah, declared intention. I see. I don't suppose the players declared any intentions did they?

If I tell a roomate that I have a contract with that says the last day she can live with me is June 12th and I tell her that I'm not going to renew that contract, but that I would be more than happy to negotiate a new one and she fails to negotiate a new contract, should she leave on June 12th or continue to live there? And if she's still there on June 13th, should I just allow her to stay for as long as she wants or should I be allowed to put a lock on the front door so that she can't come back? If not, why not? And which of the above 2 scenario's is closer to actual events?

Are you seriously representing that the owners would not have locked the players out (after promising to for over 2 years) if only the players had not decertified?

You're putting the cart before the horse, here.  The decertification was in response to the lockout, not the other way around.  You cannot claim with a straight face that the players would have decertified without the looming lockout.  There would have been no point to doing so.

Irrelevant.  There is no union now and the league is still negotiating with the players.

The terms of the TV contract show that the owners were not negotiating in good faith.

Again, semantics.  Without a lockout, a decertification doesn't even accomplish anything.  The decertification was a response that, for legal reasons, had to be enacted before the lockout officially took effect (in order to allow the players to sue to stop the lockout under anti-trust laws).

1) I challenge you to cite major news outlets that "expected" the players to win their case.
2) You speak as if the ruling has been overturned already; it has not.  The decision not to stay the ruling was overturned, but that's not even remotely the same thing as overturning the ruling itself.

So let's get you on record now: if the players win the appeal, and their response is to return to the negotiating table (exactly as it was after they won on the original ruling), how does that affect your position on whether or not the players have been negotiating genuinely?

For your analogy to be accurate, all players' contracts would have to have been scheduled to end on June 12th.  And yet, for reasons unknown, owners continued to sign players to contracts past the end of the time where they planned to lock players out (unless their desired conditions were met).

Are you seriously representing that the players would not have decertified and filed an anti-trust lawsuit after promising to for over 2 years and then going ahead and doing it?

Shocking since it was prior to it.

I absolutely can. They decertified because they had to prior to the end of the CBA to be able to file anti-trust charges at that time, they would have had to wait 6 months. That's the whole point of litigation, anti-trust charges, they couldn't wait 6 months lockout or no lockout.

Which I find quite odd. I'm assuming that any agreement would have to include the NFLPA recertifying? I don't know how they can reach a collective bargaining agreement now without certifying again.

No it doesn't, it shows the lack of faith they had that the players would negotiate and they were attempting to protect themselves.

Yes it does, it allows them to file anti-trust litigation against the league which includes the lockout, but is not restricted solely to the lockout.

Wrong, the decertification had to be done prior to the end of the CBA or they wouldn't have been able to file for another 6 months. It had nothing to do with when the lockout was called, it had to do with when the CBA expired.

I'll see what I can do.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6557162

"The 8th Circuit's decision to keep the lockout in place could be a signal of how the two sides will fare in the full appeal. The majority opinion, from Judges Steven Colloton and Duane Benton, sided with the NFL. Judge Kermit Bye dissented in favor of the players."

"The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the players no longer are represented by a union," the majority wrote. "We have considerable doubt about this interpretation."

What exactly makes you think the judges are gonna change their minds before June 6th?

It doesn't change it in the slightest. They will continue to put up a front that they would like to negotiate, all the while doing everything possible to win in the courts. The NFL has nothing to gain in the courts. Either the players win and things change considerably or the owners win and things go back to the way they have always been, trying to reach a new CBA.

It doesn't matter because if a new agreement is reached, contracts would be unaffected. In other words, the league was proceeding as if a new CBA could be reached. I fail to see how that proves the owners were not bargaining in good faith.

Please explain what possible benefit would result from decertifying without an imminent lockout.

The point of decertifying is to challenge the lockout as an anti-trust violation.  If there is no lockout, what does decertifying accomplish?

And what anti-trust charges can they bring without the owners locking them out?

So in other words, when the owners take the first action in negotiating lockout-friendly TV contracts, they are "just protecting themselves" and not acting in bad faith.  When the players respond to this by decertifying, not only are the players not "just protecting themselves," but somehow this proves that they were never seriously negotiating all along?

It simply does not make sense for party A to accuse party B of negotiating in bad faith when the first action taken by either side is party A trying to actively undermine party B's bargaining position.

Likewise, the owners will continue to put up a front that they would like to negotiate, all the while attempting to starve out the players while they continue to receive money from the TV contracts.

I fail to see how this gives the owners any sort of moral authority.

Players and teams have agreed to contracts.
Owners are refusing to honor these signed contracts, opting instead to lock players out.
Owners have been very vocal about their intention to lock players out, in spite of the contracts they have just signed their players to.
How can you come to the conclusion that the players' response to a threat that was repeated publicly many times (and carried out!) means that the players were negotiating in bad faith?

That's what we are about to find out should the players win on appeal.

I'm done arguing this Spider. We can go 'round and 'round all day and it won't change anything. Just FYI, I wasn't the one who voted players in the poll, I actually voted it's both of their fault as it is. However I do hope the players lose the lawsuit so that they will get back to the negotiations table and get CBA before the season is completely lost. I believe that's the only way it will happen and I fear what might happen should the players win.

At this point I think it's just a pi$$ing contest between both sides, both wanting to show the other side they are "right".  Unfortunately, until the players start losing paychecks, and the owners start losing ticket/concession revenues, nothing will get accomplished.  Then we'll have a couple weeks of sloppy, turnover filled games not worth watching.

they are obviously the vocal minority of one team.

When you look at 32 teams across the board that information is the opposite of a handful of people in one thread on one message board.  ::)

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

give me a break ::)

Really? We have also pointed out that ticket sales have declined for three straight years but I forgot that you don't like to observe facts that counter your point.. I'd say the evidence of fan satisfaction (at least with the stadium experience) is on my side.

Is it possible the owners are talking up ticket sales going strong to push fans to renew their seats, or other fans to buy now to get good seats??  Would the owners do something like that??  (that's sarcasm in case you can't figure it out)

From all reports it sounds like the owners have broke.

Only select owners are meeting with Smith and some NFLPA reps in these meetings thsi past week. And half of the owners are being kept out of the loop and found out about the meeting on the news and weren't even told about them.

Looks like the owners have finally turned on each other! THANK GOD!!

They need to just end it... everyone loses.. fans, players, owners.. tdmmc  COME ON!!

Dont know if I could go without football.. ill be lost

THE OWNERS ARE BREAKING!!!! Players will win, as I have said all along!

Per CBS Sports:

Freeman writes that â€

I will believe it when I see it

You seem to be unaware just how close the owners and players were before the players disbanded their union (which I'm not blaming them for, since there was a clock on it). It was on the order of a few hundred million. Seriously. Splitting REVENUE of $9 billion and they got stuck on what was effectively a few hundred million. It was that close.

And the owners had a full meeting a week ago. The NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE met alone with the players. SHOCKING, I know. An attempt was made to keep EVERYONE ELSE out of the loop: the media, the players not directly involved in negotiations, etc. Reports are, the lawyers weren't even invited, which seriously increases chances of anything productive happening.

The owners are every bit as unified as they were (which likely isn't 100%).

As is typically of MikeO it is all about MikeO wanting to prove to the world he is RIGHT.  Than any desire to have an actual intelligent discussion.  And a myopic world view that everything is black and white and the labor deal will have one winner and one loser. 

Nobody, owners included thought the owners would get everything in their original offer. You never present the final offer first.  Of course the final deal will not be what the owners intially offered.  Nor will it have everything the players want.  That is negotiations. 

The players and owners will both win if a deal is reached in time for a full football season, both will lose if they don't. 

If anyone wants to read the entire article instead of just the one paragraph the entire article MikeO is quoting can be found at

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/report-owners-made-concessions-during-recent-talks/

MikeO - From now on when you post a quote include the link.

Considering a lot of owners weren't even told about these meetings (forget about being there, but even told they were happening) and were left out in the cold and are totally pissed about that, I wouldn't say this isn't shocking. The owners turned on each other now and this group is cutting a deal with a bunch of owners out of the loop.

I'm voting for Canada.

You might want to consider getting yourself a less sensationalist news source. The "secret meetings" were conducted at judge Boylan's insistence, with him present. Just him and the two sides -- no lawyers. How on Earth that represents some split between the owners, only MikeO knows.

The NFLPA and NFL issued a join statement once the "secret" meetings became public, pointing this out:

http://nfllabor.com/2011/06/02/nfl-nflpa-statement/

It's been picked up and covered by every serious news outlet, so I'm not sure why you haven't caught wind of it yet.

Spider, I have an answer to your question now. I've been reading through the inital complaint by the players and along with the lockout the players are stipulating the following anti-trust violations.

1) The "Entering Player Pool", ie the Draft.
2) Free Agency restrictions including the "Franchise Player" and "Transition Player" designations.

Just FYI.

Well, yes, when the players have decertified as a union and are filing an anti-trust lawsuit, naturally they will put all available eggs in that basket.  That does not mean that those particular items are actually things that the players decertified to challenge.

The draft is a perfect example.  The NFLPA has happily complied with a draft for decades, and I doubt anyone would claim that the players decertified to end the draft.  But once you've taken the step of filing anti-trust litigation, the point is to win the case, and the draft is simply another item to throw against the wall and see what sticks.

Keep in mind that if the players win the lawsuit, it doesn't mean that everything they sued to stop is banned.  It just means that the players have to willingly agree to them for them to be implemented.  (And the players will not agree to a lockout.)

Furthermore, even if the players wanted to end the draft and franchise/transition tags, without a lockout in play it would be silly and unnecessary to decertify.  The players would simply strike.

^^ Well I don't really see how the draft and free-agency could continue if the players win the lawsuit. The only way for the players to win the lawsuit is to prove that the NFLPA has ceased to exist and any CBA agreements would also cease to exist. It would be a whole new NFL world. There would be no union to agree with. They'd have to get an agreement with every single player I suppose. Not sure how that would work. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either there is a union or there isn't. If there is a union then the owners and players are protected by the rules surrounding that union, if there isn't a union then the owners and players aren't protected. Everyone is free to do whatever they want.

Are you saying that's not really what the players want?

Let's explore that question for a minute. Who are the players that brought forth the suit? Any of them franchise players or transition players? What if those designations were suddenly removed? Wouldn't they be able to sign with any team that was willing to spend the most money on them? Are you SURE that's not what they want? Would that be good for say Peyton Manning and Tom Brady? Wouldn't some teams maybe be willing to spend a lot of money to get those players on their team? Like maybe those teams that are doing pretty well, I don't know, just speculating but say the NY Jets for instance? Maybe a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady would look awfully nice in gang green?

And what about the draft? Suppose for instance that Cam Newton decides he doesn't want to play for the Panthers? Maybe he'd rather play for the Jets? What would prevent him from challenging the draft and signing with the Jets?

If the players won the lawsuit, the lockout would be ended, at which point players-under-contract would start reporting.  In order to proceed with free agency, draftee signing, etc., in practice there would have to be a new CBA, which would require a union to negotiate with.  The recertification of a new players' union would certainly be part of the negotiations.

The problem with this logic is that franchise/transition tags and a draft are things that the players explicitly agreed to in previous CBAs.  While they might prefer a world without them, these are concessions that they are willing to make (for "the health of the sport", or maybe just because there are other issues they find more important).

In contrast, a lockout is not a concession that they are willing to make.  So if the goal is to end the lockout, previous concessions (that they previously determined to be "acceptable losses") are now back on the table.

Isn't this what the owners are arguing? That the lawsuit is merely a bargaining tool? That the players in fact do not want an NFL without a union, they just want a better CBA?

The players seem to be perfectly happy using the lawsuit as a bargaining tool, but are against the owners using a lockout for the same purpose.

The decertification and lawsuit are in response to the (repeated threat of a) lockout.  Quid pro quo.

The players would have been happy to continue with their union in the absence of a lockout.  With the owners repeatedly threatening a lockout, the players' best counter is decertification.  Both sides are gaming the system.

I can agree with that.

Looks like this thing will be over by 4th of July if not sooner! Not even a preseason game to be missed.

THANK GOD!!!

I hope you're right, but people have said the sides are close to an agreement before and nothing came of it. I do think that both sides are starting to realize that the courts don't want any part of this disagreement and would really like to see the players and owners just work it out for themselves. This is not really something that should be decided in the courts. The owners and employees are both making plenty of money, they just can't decide on who gets what. That's not really what the courts were designed to determine, that should be determined by the people involved.

Read today that things were going great, and Tuesday both sides called the lawyers into these meetings and all hell broke loose. Smith had to calm down the NFLPA lawyers and tell them to chill. Goodell the same with his lawyers.  Seems like some level heads are runing things now so this should be over with in a matter of weeks.

When I saw the multitude of optimistic pieces about "getting close" and that the lawyers were being brought back in... well, both sides seem to be severely misunderstanding the role of lawyers in negotiations: None.

The lawyers should only be there to make sure the text reflects what the negotiators have agreed upon. Seriously, why did the lawyers have to be "removed from direct negotiations" (per ESPN)? They should never be negotiating. This isn't a matter of law (mostly). Their expertise is "simply" needed to make sure the text of the agreement reflects what the sides have negotiated. They are, in effect, glorified scribes.

That may be a slight exaggeration, but I really cannot fathom why lawyers would ever be doing the actual negotiating. That's just asking for trouble.

Well Smith is a lawyer so he gives the NFLPA a slight leg up going up agaisnt Goodell. I can see why the Owners might want lawyers involved

LOL. I wanted to vote for Sean Hannity and Limbaugh.  I went with players and owners though.  I side with the players but it's not logical to say it's solely because of the owners there is a lockout.

Well the players didn't lock themselves out  ::)

Why is that a leg up?

Lawyers are needed to make sure the agreements are actually legal, enforceable, and actually state what was agreed upon. Having lawyers a part of the direct negotiations is in no way an advantage. Maybe I'm just jaded from actually having tried to negotiate contracts with the legal departments of a few companies, but that was hell and the only way to actually get something done was to go above their heads, get an agreement "in principle", then let the lawyers write things up (while only managing to mangle parts of the agreement in the process).

I'm not saying being a lawyer is a disadvantage. It's just that there's very little "law" in negotiations. The lawyers mainly become part of the equation to make sure one party doesn't screw the other party over (and that's great, of course).

^^^Agreed, it's really about the dollars, being a lawyer is really no advantage (unless he has some special negotiating skill).  Better to have a couple accountants in there calcualting the tax consequences in combination with the various offers.

No, they just rejected various offers put forth by the owners.  The owners made concessions, and were willing to open their books to a certain degree; the players wanted every detailed item on operations  - which is NEVER done in a contract negotiation.  Would Peyton Manning provide a detailed accounting of how he spent every penny he made??

what world are you living in and what newspapers are you reading? Seriously. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED!

Owners never willing to open their books.
Owners made NO concessions, they wanted MORE...(hence the lockout)
The players wanted NOTHING they were happy with status quo!

Riiiiiiiiight...

There's a fight / argument from both sides.  No agreement as of yet.  Hence, the lockout. 

 

He would if:

- he had a contract with some other entity that required that he give them x% of Peyton Manning income, and
- he was telling said entity that this percentage needs to be adjusted (in his favor) because he's not making enough to pay the bills now (<--- this part is important)

So now that the news is out and confirmed that the players had ammased a secret trust fund that would pay them at least 200k ( which works out to over 360 million) it begs a couple questions.
1. Where did the money come from and how long did it take to amass?
2. If the players went out of their way to gather a trust fund for a lockout, why wsa it so bad for the owners to do the same via a tv contract?

Oh yeah and it is the 15th I guess Mike O's prediction of being done by the 4th is null

I wasn't a trust fund. It was an insurance policy. No big mystery (although it was kept secret... even from players).

Oh, and the reason the owners couldn't do the same with the TV contracts was that they were legally obliged to get the best deal possible for both themselves AND the players, since they were negotiating on behalf of the players (and themselves, of course).

The players and owners can both do whatever the hell they want with their own money -- even create a "secret fund", although that's not what the NFLPA did. They took out an insurance policy, just like every single player could have (and maybe should have) done.

DeMaurice Smith is a freaking genius.  He got approval from the executive committee to get this insurance, kept this card extremely close to the vest (telling only a handful of players outside of the executive committee), and then, with games on the verge of being cancelled, dropped an atomic bomb on the owners.  (fyo already nailed the difference between this and the TV contracts: the owners are contractually obligated to get the best possible deal from the networks, and that doesn't include giving a discount so that the players can get screwed.)

The main focus of the owners' strategy was, "We'll get paid by the TV contracts, you won't, and your players are too bad at managing money to be able to survive."  Now, with the TV money under legal dispute, and the wall suddenly being moved a lot further away from the backs of the players, the owners knew the jig was up.

The best part about the timing of this reveal is that some players will have already been taking some hard looks at their bank accounts.  If the insurance was on the table to begin with, those players would have spent the money before it arrived.  Now, it'll be a welcome cash infusion at the point when they KNOW their game checks are not arriving.

Well played, Mr. Smith.  Well played.  I can only hope that the NBA players' association leadership is as crafty, though I am skeptical that will be the case.

That's why when I said when the lawyers left the room and the talks came down to Goodell and his inside circle and Smith and his inside circle, the edge went to Smith. Smith is a lawyer and he was dealing with people who probably have never been in those kind of high level talks before!! That is a huge edge!

Smith played his hand perfectly and had this insurance thing in his back pocket the whole time. He will come out of this smelling like roses!

^^^ Yeah I'm sure the NFL's Millionaire & Billionaire owners don't have people that know anything about "high level talks".  I fear the insurance policy will only serve to draw out the negotiations, and possibly lead to a shortened season.  $200K will tide the players over for a month or two, but not much longer for some.  The owners aren't going to completely cave in for the long term over short term losses.

I don't think either side comes out smelling too well... The amount for this year will (according to reports) end up being $141M per club ($120M cap + $21M benefits), which is exactly the amount the owners offered before the NFLPA disbanded itself back in March. A deal Smith called the worst deal ever in any pro sport.

In addition, there's a rookie cap and all "tags" are still in place.

And if the latest reports are to be believed, the players will cave on judicial appeals as well, meaning that disputes get settled by binding arbitration (although the arbitration panel isn't "Goodell" as it pretty much was before).

The one thing players got out of this compared to the March owners proposal is that future revenue is based on actual revenues and not projected revenue. So if growth outstrips projections, the players will get more money in later years of the CBA.