Who do you blame for the current lockout?

[Pats2006]

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

[fyo]

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

Per CBS Sports:

Freeman writes that â

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%).

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

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.

[MikeO]

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%).

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.

[BigDaddyFin]

I'm voting for Canada.

[fyo]

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

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?

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Pappy13]

^^ 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?

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Pappy13]

Both sides are gaming the system.

I can agree with that.

[MikeO]

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

THANK GOD!!!

[Pappy13]

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.