Official CBA Thread

[mestevo]

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.

Obviously both sides want to play football here. They cant simply resume playing under existing rules because that violates the law, that's why there was a lockout, because of the union decertified

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[N51_rob]

Obviously both sides want to play football here. They cant simply resume playing under existing rules because that violates the law, that's why there was a lockout, because of the union decertified

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

So you are saying that there would not be a lockout had the union not decertified? I find that hard to believe if that is you are saying.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[mestevo]

So you are saying that there would not be a lockout had the union not decertified? I find that hard to believe if that is you are saying.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

There wouldn't be a lockout instead the players probably would have had a strike.

Under current conditions the lockout is to prevent the nfl from breaking antitrust laws, which they're already being sued for in the Brady litigation.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[N51_rob]

There wouldn't be a lockout instead the players probably would have had a strike.

Under current conditions the lockout is to prevent the nfl from breaking antitrust laws, which they're already being sued for in the Brady litigation.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

I have to respectfully disagree. Why would the players strike? Everything that was said leading up to the decertification made it seem like the Owners planned to lock-out the players if mediation didn't prove fruitful. I don't know as I'm not privy to all the information but I doubt the players would've gone on strike.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I have to respectfully disagree. Why would the players strike? Everything that was said leading up to the decertification made it seem like the Owners planned to lock-out the players if mediation didn't prove fruitful. I don't know as I'm not privy to all the information but I doubt the players would've gone on strike.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The owners wanted to keep mediating, but the players instead decertified. The owners then immediately locked them out because they can't enforce rules for 32 teams against a non-union labor pool without breaking the law. The union's actions caused the players to be locked out. We could argue what if's all day, but that's what happened, the owners were trying to continue mediation, and tried to extend again but instead the players issued a 'show us your books' ultimatum to extend negotiations and then before the NFL could even respond they decertified.

[wwharton]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Obviously both sides want to play football here. They cant simply resume playing under existing rules because that violates the law, that's why there was a lockout, because of the union decertified

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The owners wanted to keep mediating, but the players instead decertified. The owners then immediately locked them out because they can't enforce rules for 32 teams against a non-union labor pool without breaking the law. The union's actions caused the players to be locked out. We could argue what if's all day, but that's what happened, the owners were trying to continue mediation, and tried to extend again but instead the players issued a 'show us your books' ultimatum to extend negotiations and then before the NFL could even respond they decertified.

It's not much of an ultimatum without any action behind it. It's VERY clear that the owners have been preparing for a lock out for years now. Hell we were in here talking about it throughout the season (and not once was the conversation about a potential strike). Like I said, we can go back and forth on the details from each side. But there's nothing that will convince me that the owners are the ones who stopped football. In the same sense, if the players had gone on strike, I'd be on the owners side.

It's not any argument on who's right in their demands or what should be in the CBA, who's being unreasonable, etc. It's only about the league being out of commission and who I'm pointing the finger at for that. They both deserve a level of blame and they need to get this crap straightened out, but right now there is an issue bc of a lock out by the owners.

[N51_rob]

Re: Official CBA Thread

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The owners wanted to keep mediating, but the players instead decertified. The owners then immediately locked them out because they can't enforce rules for 32 teams against a non-union labor pool without breaking the law. The union's actions caused the players to be locked out. We could argue what if's all day, but that's what happened, the owners were trying to continue mediation, and tried to extend again but instead the players issued a 'show us your books' ultimatum to extend negotiations and then before the NFL could even respond they decertified.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Which is par for the course for us in this thread. When I think back to Owners like Jerry Richardson wanting to "crush the union." Then there was the slush fund that was negotiated into the recent TV deals in the event of a lockout. I don't really think that continued mediation would've prevented a lock-out. I could be wrong but that is my opinion.

[wco81]

Re: Official CBA Thread

It's not a matter of opinion. There's a certain sequence of events.

Owners said they were opting out of the CBA, then they locked out.

Then the union decertified, after negotiations past the original deadline failed to produce an agreement.

Players have not asked for a bigger share of the revenues than the previous CBA.

It's the owners saying they need a bigger share than what they thought they needed. But they're refusing to prove that they need a bigger share of what is probably the most lucrative sports league in the world.

When it came down to it, they didn't prove it. Money talks, bull**** walks and the owners walked.

Now Goddell is pulling a despicable PR move, trying to say the players want to eliminate all the rules. He knows they're using those as bargaining chips, because he can't have free agency or the draft as they were set up without the consent of the players.

As of right now, the NFL already gave those things up when they opted out of the CBA. Without an agreement with the players, they can't have those things because of the antitrust exemption.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

It's not a matter of opinion. There's a certain sequence of events.

Correct, unfortunately this is one of the few things in your post that is right

Owners said they were opting out of the CBA, then they locked out.

The owners opted out of a VERY player friendly CBA going into/during a poor economy, with 22 blackouts vs 9 the previous year, it's pretty clear they were right in doing so. The NFL did not lock out the players until after they decertified. They could have done the minute the Super Bowl ended much earlier than that, but instead tried to mediate.

Then the union decertified, after negotiations past the original deadline failed to produce an agreement.

The union decertified before an extended deadline expired a few hours later. Several hours later the lockout was enacted to prevent the NFL from violating antitrust laws.

Players have not asked for a bigger share of the revenues than the previous CBA.

The players would love to have the status quo maintained, certainly, but they've asked for more money.

It's the owners saying they need a bigger share than what they thought they needed. But they're refusing to prove that they need a bigger share of what is probably the most lucrative sports league in the world.

They've attempted to prove it, but the players won't even look at anything but the complete open books of franchises. They could have at least looked at what was offered, but did not.

When it came down to it, they didn't prove it. Money talks, bull**** walks and the owners walked.

The players didn't even consider the NFL's attempts to prove it.

Now Goddell is pulling a despicable PR move, trying to say the players want to eliminate all the rules. He knows they're using those as bargaining chips, because he can't have free agency or the draft as they were set up without the consent of the players.

The players filed this morning to do exactly what Goodell outlined in his WSJ article in the event there's a stay. Also, what do you think the Brady lawsuit is? It asserts that any rules the NFL asserts over the clubs is an antitrust violation. This morning with the players filing they've told the court they want the league year forced to start absent any of those rules.

As of right now, the NFL already gave those things up when they opted out of the CBA. Without an agreement with the players, they can't have those things because of the antitrust exemption.

I really don't see things like rules for free agency, the NFL draft, drug testing, and league wide benefits being something the NFL is 'giving up'. They are things very much worth fighting for and they're now the things that the NFLPA is suing to have undone.

The league would be much less interesting if the handful of owners that actually are the billionaires that everyone thinks they all are open their pocketbooks and are the only competitive teams every year. Parity depends on these rules and processes that have been in place for so long. I don't want a league where there are a handful of good teams with great benefits and a bunch of teams like the Bengals and Bucs with owners looking for every penny to pinch... can you imagine the benefits package Mike Brown would pick out vs what Robert Kraft would offer for their players?

I am for the players and the owners in this. I use the term players a lot above, but when it comes to negotiating really I am referring to the union. People like De Smith are why we are in this situation, he's ultimately the one I have the biggest problem with. Statements like 'worst offer in the history of sports' only serve to bolster egos and make it harder to compromise when it comes time to do so.

Unfortunately, his plan of decertification and litigation is working so far, I just hope the NFL I know and love is still around when the dust settles.

I'd like the see the judge deny the stay, and somehow allow the league to set rules that are consistant with the previous CBA pending appeal. Unfortunately both the owners AND players would rush to appeal.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: Official CBA Thread

So knowing what we know about the 8th circuit court, is it safe to say that if the owners lose there then what they are trying to do is pretty much illegal? I mean there isn't a more employer friendly court around.

Anyone else get the vibe that Goodell and the NFL seriously underestimated the players?

Oh and Goodell WSJ piece just screams of desperation. Pretty much what I gather is "the players want a free market for their labor and uhhh THAT'S STUPID". If he's trying to send a message to football fans then why is he using the WSJ? Not exactly the same demographic as the NFL. Just seems like a bad spin piece.

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Per PFT, Judge Nelson has denied the stay request by the NFL. The lockout remains by technicality over by court order, pending the 8th Circuit appeal.

[Cubfan]

Re: Official CBA Thread

How much of a chance is there that the court of appeals overturns this?

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

So knowing what we know about the 8th circuit court, is it safe to say that if the owners lose there then what they are trying to do is pretty much illegal? I mean there isn't a more employer friendly court around.

Anyone else get the vibe that Goodell and the NFL seriously underestimated the players?

Oh and Goodell WSJ piece just screams of desperation. Pretty much what I gather is "the players want a free market for their labor and uhhh THAT'S STUPID". If he's trying to send a message to football fans then why is he using the WSJ? Not exactly the same demographic as the NFL. Just seems like a bad spin piece.

Almost everything that's happened so far has been expected, so I am not sure why the NFL would look desprate or underestimating the players. Before the stay today NFL lawyer David Boies had already notified the 8th Circuit that they will be having papers presented to that court.

The real question will be what happens tomorrow. From Adam Schefter: Judge Nelson said teams were under no obligation to sign free agents right away, although trades are “in question.”

I think things are currently on hold while Judge Nelson actually says what 'starting the league year' entails, but I'm not sure. With this quote from Chris Mortensen, it looks like she might not try to define it at all:

"Judge Nelson told league it will have to accept consequences of their decision on how they move forward with no lockout."

Albert Breer (former NFLN guy) says though "League saying the sides must wait to see what happens w/stay, players saying league year must start."

[wco81]

Re: Official CBA Thread

So you don't think the NFL was planning to lock out at all? They didn't really have a $4 billion lockout insurance (from TV money) planned until the judge blocked it?

They only locked out in reaction to the decertification?

Why would they have to lock out without a union? They could negotiate individual contracts, you know, have the same employer/employee relations as every other American, who can work anywhere he wants, for the employer who compensates him the best?

[wco81]

Re: Official CBA Thread

How much of a chance is there that the court of appeals overturns this?

Sounds like there's a good chance it will. That would mean the lockout returns and owners hope the players cave, giving them the terms they want.

But the appeals court may not hear the case for months, maybe not before when the season is suppose to start. However, the NFL could ask for an expedited decision on the request for the stay while they wait for a court date, which could be months away.