The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/08/eighth-circuit-rules-that-lockout-is-legal/

Win for the owners.  Hopefully this will help and not hurt the negotiations. 

I don't think it changes much. Basically the courts are telling the owners and the players they need to work this thing out between them. It's up to them to decide if there's going to be football in 2011 or not. As it should be.

The lockout of players with an existing employment relationship is legal. However, players not under contract (i.e. rookies and free agents) are a bit of an unknown. Subject to the lower court (judge Nelson, who initially ruled in favor of the players), these players would not be subject to the lockout. Refusing to deal with any of them would likely constitute a violation of the Sherman Act (anti-trust).

The appellate court had warned the NFL and NFLPA that neither side would like the ruling. That appears to be the case.

^^^ FYO.  I am not sure if that is as horrible for the owners as I have seen claimed elsewhere.  Sounds like it is actually a win-win for the owners.

Lock out continues.

But even with the lockout continuing you can start the FA period, negotiate with and sign drafted and undrafted rookies and hold rookie minicamps all before the deal is finalized. 

If I am a coach in the NFL I am trilled with this and would announce rookie mini camp would be starting on Monday. 

^^^

If the owners WANTED to sign players, sure, then that becomes a valid argument. They don't, however.

Without a CBA, it's basically impossible to start signing players. You could easily risk structuring a contract poorly with respect to something in the new CBA and you wouldn't know what the caps (total and rookie) were.

With no CBA, it isn't even clear who is a free agent and who's not.

If the owners wanted to really break the NFLPA, they could try and start signing FAs and draft picks right now. That would mean NO CBA for the upcoming season and a continual lockout of all "old" players.

The lockout itself makes it perfectly clear that the owners don't want a season without a CBA. If that was what they wanted, they could have just started negotiating individually with the players after the union dissolved itself. They didn't. They locked the players out instead.

^^^ Not nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be.

Offer rookies contracts based on the numbers of the last offer the owners made to the union regarding a rookie pay scale.  You can be sure the final version isn't going to have numbers that are lower than what the owners are offering.  The union will either agree to the owners offer or demand higher numbers. If the player's agent demands it write in the contract the player will get a raise if the CBA has a higher figure for his pay scale.   

Only sign players as FA that would be FA under the owners last offer to the union.  You can be absolutely certain the union isn't going to demand less players are eligible to be FA than what the owners are offering. 

You know the cap will be at least as large as what the owners are offering and no larger than what the union is proposing. 

^^^ Without a CBA, it would be illegal for the owners to collude on wages.

No collusion.  I, as a responsible the owner or GM of a team, is not going to offer a rookie more than what the last rookie wage scale proposed to avoid getting screwed when the CBA is signed.  If another owner such as Al Davis or Dan Snyder wants to do something stupid and get screwed by the cap I can only hope the owners in my division are equally as stupid. 

^^^ The courts would bust the owners for collusion even if it were some kind of unspoken agreement.

And if ALL the owners weren't in lockstep, it would be impossible to get them to agree on a new CBA, since some of them would have to agree to terms that would completely screw them.

Bottom line is that the owners want a CBA, that's why they locked the players out in the first place. Negotiating with some players before an agreement is reached makes it considerably more difficult, if not outright impossible, to get a new deal done.