Official CBA Thread

[RememberMe12]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Gee, how can they say that they are no longer a union when they are still acting like one? Liars.

[Chrisksaint]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Legally they aren't a union, but nothing stops the players from acting as a similar minded group

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Legally they aren't a union, but nothing stops the players from acting as a similar minded group

While that's true, the players have no say about what is being legally decided unless their name is on the lawsuit (not one of the class), and while they are also defending themselves from the accusation that the decertification is a sham (actual legal term from previous CBA) acting as a union could completely dismantle the player's current litigation.

That's why it was a big deal that Mike Vrabel responded to reports that mid-tier players weren't really being represented with the quote that a new board could be elected.

If it were ruled that they are still acting as a union then they could be forced to rectify (or their decertification would be void) and the owners would have all of the cards. That's something that hasn't yet been decided.

If the union is rectified then it isn't an antitrust violation to impose rules across 32 teams for things like free agency, and the Brady lawsuit would be invalid.

[wco81]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I thought the league couldn't have things like the draft, salary cap or free agency rules UNLESS they had an agreement with a union of some kind.

Otherwise, they lose the antitrust exemption and they're liable to the kind of civil suits which are in motion.

So the league may have no choice but to proceed with no rules of any kind, unless they can get Judge Nelson to issue a stay or unless the 8th Circuit could quickly issue a stay. Not sure what kind of turnaround there is but they may not be able to have formal hearings before the Appeals Court before the season begins.

Of course the owners could have unwritten rules such as not poaching each other's free agents without abiding by the previous rules on free agency. But then they could be open to charges of collusion.

The lockout was their shot at breaking the players up -- some will be more antsy than others not to miss paychecks -- and force the kind of concessions they want.

If they can't get a stay before the season is to start, they could either take their ball and go home, not have a season, disband the league in effect.

Or they proceed with no rules and let the players have the upper hand in any new negotiations.

Seriously, does anyone believe the owners that any of them were under economic duress? They wouldn't produce the books because people will find out that the most lucrative sports league in the world isn't unprofitable.

But now, I hear that NFL employees, including lower-level ones not making very much, have had their pay cut by 25%, even though there hasn't been a revenue impact yet. That's what the judge found that the owners weren't suffering economic harm like the players.

The teams are selling tickets and the TV money will come if the games are played as scheduled. No doubt Direct TV will market and sell Sunday Ticket packages on the normal schedule.

The owners won't demonstrate that their cash flow has been affected -- they haven't canceled any games yet and they're still selling merchandise and engaging in revenues-producing activities. They haven't been paying the players but they're taking it out on low-level employees?

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I thought the league couldn't have things like the draft, salary cap or free agency rules UNLESS they had an agreement with a union of some kind.

Otherwise, they lose the antitrust exemption and they're liable to the kind of civil suits which are in motion.

So the league may have no choice but to proceed with no rules of any kind, unless they can get Judge Nelson to issue a stay or unless the 8th Circuit could quickly issue a stay. Not sure what kind of turnaround there is but they may not be able to have formal hearings before the Appeals Court before the season begins.

Of course the owners could have unwritten rules such as not poaching each other's free agents without abiding by the previous rules on free agency. But then they could be open to charges of collusion.

The lockout was their shot at breaking the players up -- some will be more antsy than others not to miss paychecks -- and force the kind of concessions they want.

If they can't get a stay before the season is to start, they could either take their ball and go home, not have a season, disband the league in effect.

Or they proceed with no rules and let the players have the upper hand in any new negotiations.

Seriously, does anyone believe the owners that any of them were under economic duress? They wouldn't produce the books because people will find out that the most lucrative sports league in the world isn't unprofitable.

But now, I hear that NFL employees, including lower-level ones not making very much, have had their pay cut by 25%, even though there hasn't been a revenue impact yet. That's what the judge found that the owners weren't suffering economic harm like the players.

The teams are selling tickets and the TV money will come if the games are played as scheduled. No doubt Direct TV will market and sell Sunday Ticket packages on the normal schedule.

The owners won't demonstrate that their cash flow has been affected -- they haven't canceled any games yet and they're still selling merchandise and engaging in revenues-producing activities. They haven't been paying the players but they're taking it out on low-level employees?

This is why it's hard to believe the league spend millions of dollars for good publicity only to turn around and throw it away coming off looking like greedy billioniares.

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

This is why it's hard to believe the league spend millions of dollars for good publicity only to turn around and throw it away coming off looking like greedy billioniares.

Let's not act like the players didn't have a hand in this; they've done just as much damage as the owners. It's become increasingly hard to favor either side in this situation, I just want them to get something done so there can be football.

[12]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Let's not act like the players didn't have a hand in this; they've done just as much damage as the owners. It's become increasingly hard to favor either side in this situation, I just want them to get something done so there can be football.

Exactly. I don't see how anyone can pick a side on this one.

[Chrisksaint]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Pretty easy to pick sides,despite being a fan of the team itself I have a Brees jersey, not a Tom Benson jersey

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I kinda thought a lot of the bull**** stuff that the players were asking for were just for leverage, but didn't expect them to ever ask for point number 2 below. This is what the players are asking for if a stay is granted, from PFT:

1. The players asked for a $1 billion bond if the stay is granted. (Cue bad Austin Powers jokes.) That is the estimated damages from the player’s side if the stay is granted.

2. The players want the NFL to immediately implement a system which does not violate antitrust laws. (Does that mean a system without a draft or free agent restrictions? Discuss amongst yourselves.)

3. The players argued that the NFL is unable to prove they are likely to win an appeal, which seems like a fair point to this non-lawyer.

4. They also say a stay is not in the public’s interest. That’s the best argument yet.

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Exactly. I don't see how anyone can pick a side on this one.

Easy. I'm on the side of the party that wants to play football. It super simple the owner want more money. Are the player completely exempt no, but they also didn't op out of the CBA the owners did. Then ask for an additional billion off top without providing any reason why. Are the players playing hardball, yes. Should they that's debatable, but I think it's pretty clear who the "greater evil" is in this equation.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Easy. I'm on the side of the party that wants to play football. It super simple the owner want more money. Are the player completely exempt no, but they also didn't op out of the CBA the owners did. Then ask for an additional billion off top without providing any reason why. Are the players playing hardball, yes. Should they that's debatable, but I think it's pretty clear who the "greater evil" is in this equation.

IMO, asking for no rules to free agency, no drug testing at all, no minimum player salary, messing up league benefits, no salary floor is the worst action taken by either side this morning, and that's exactly what the players asked for this morning.

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

IMO, asking for no rules to free agency, no drug testing at all, no minimum player salary, messing up league benefits, no salary floor is the worst action taken by either side this morning, and that's exactly what the players asked for this morning.

IMO once the owner opted out of the CBA then locked the player out the gloves came off. Once again whether or not the players should be playing hardball is up for discussion. I think it's safe to say the players really don't want(or at the least expect) those demands to be met. It's just a part of negotiations.

[p_rushing]

Re: Official CBA Thread

IMO, asking for no rules to free agency, no drug testing at all, no minimum player salary, messing up league benefits, no salary floor is the worst action taken by either side this morning, and that's exactly what the players asked for this morning.

Yep and the owners should offer minimum wage to all free agents. That will stop that nonsense.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

IMO once the owner opted out of the CBA then locked the player out the gloves came off. Once again whether or not the players should be playing hardball is up for discussion. I think it's safe to say the players really don't want(or at the least expect) those demands to be met. It's just a part of negotiations.

The ability to opt out was collectively bargained, either side was able to do it. If the owners had been the ones boasting that it was a great deal for them (like the players had been doing) the players would have been the ones to opt out of it.

[wwharton]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The ability to opt out was collectively bargained, either side was able to do it. If the owners had been the ones boasting that it was a great deal for them (like the players had been doing) the players would have been the ones to opt out of it.

And then many would've been on the side of the owners. There are many details here and all are worth discussion, but picking sides with the group that wants to play isn't really a bad way to look at it. And I'm not even saying the owners shouldn't have locked the players out, but it definitely keeps me from being on their side.