Official CBA Thread

[mestevo]

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?

So you're saying there shouldn't be a draft, or free agency rules, each team should provide insurance, no drug testing, any of that? There shouldn't be rules for minimum spending, so the Bucs and other teams can run a team on $20 million player salary with poor benefits and the Cowboys can run theirs on $200m and their benefits include a bottle of PEDs and happy endings? There would be no rules. That's what the NFL would be if they moved forward without violating antitrust laws. The players don't want that either, because it would screw more people than it would help. 90% of the NFL would make less money.

The league can't impose rules on a non-labor work force across 32 entities. It's an antitrust violation. You can have those rules over a labor work force, they're typically collectively bargained or the result of the settlement of a lawsuit during the labor dispute.

The NFL had insurance in their TV deals, 'lockout insurance' is the fancy name the media and the plantiffs have given it, but in the end it wasn't 'if lockout, we pay you' no... it's 'if there's no season, payments continue'. It doesn't matter what their intention is or was, they didn't lock the players out prior to decertification which is what you said/implied in your previous post. It was insurance, because in the end the owners are the one running a business and taking on 100% of the risk of running franchises.

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Essentially, take the economic imbalance of Major League Baseball and make it worse by making any incoming rookie a free agent (i.e. no draft whatsoever). That's what the players' nuclear option is.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

From @SportsLawGuy on Tiwtter:

2 confusing statements by Nelson: 1) "Nothing in this Court’s Order obligates the NFL to even enter into any contract with the Players"

2) "Defendants are under no obligation to enter a new contract with any player."

Different ways to interpret it,but seems to simply mean that Order only prevents owners from agreeing to not sign players, etc.

Owners can agree on any rules they want-- subject to potential antitrust scrutiny--or can individually agree not to sign contracts w players

@ProFootballMgmt But, they are not permitted to agree with each other not to enter into contracts. That would violate the injunction

Nothing prevents individual owners from making individual decisions. If they are agreeing to lock out, different story...

Individual NFL team conduct cannot violate antitrust law. Must have an agreement among the teams

###

So basically... wait and see what the teams will do, meanwhile the NFL is still trying to get a stay just at the next level of court.

The NFL thinks it will have a decision from the 8th circuit as early as next week.

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

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."

This is where I'm confused; how can the NFL act as if there is a stay, when there currently is no stay as it was explicity denied by Judge Nelson? Wouldn't they be in contempt of court?

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

This is where I'm confused; how can the NFL act as if there is a stay, when there currently is no stay as it was explicity denied by Judge Nelson? Wouldn't they be in contempt of court?

Yup. Contempt definitely a possibility, depends on what they do, or don't do.

[wco81]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Owners can have the draft, salary cap, etc. back.

They may have to give up on their demands though.

Both sides have bargaining chips which neither side are going to give away. Owners want the players to give up their bargaining chips (draft, cap, FA restrictions) and also give up more of the revenues.

What are the owners offering in return for the players making those concessions? That they won't be replaced by scrubs?

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

According to Mike Florio, Judge Nelson's verdicts are simple: by court order the league must begin free agency and allow trades involving players under contract. By not already doing so they are already in contempt of court.

The NFL is biding its time until at least tomorrow morning, at which point it will advise all of its teams how to proceed.

[Bellsprout]

Re: Official CBA Thread

So... in hypothetical land... could we see things tomorrow like Kevin Kolb being dealt for picks? Or a free agency flurry on top of the draft?

Could be fun. Until the court **** kicks in again. Though I'm not totally convinced the NFL will win in the 8th Circuit anyways. As I heard on our radio channel yesterday, the 8th Circuit might be pro-business, but ruling for the League basically forces the players to reform a union, which is something they might not want either.

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

So... in hypothetical land... could we see things tomorrow like Kevin Kolb being dealt for picks? Or a free agency flurry on top of the draft?

In a word, yes. Again, we'll know what the NFL is going to do tomorrow morning; not doing so would be directly violating court order.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Okay, so if they are ordered by the court to do business as usual, could teams still not sign/trade players and say they just don't have any offseasons "needs" or whatever? While we all know that's BS, I don't see how anyone can say a team HAS to make trades/sign players. Am I missing something?

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Okay, so if they are ordered by the court to do business as usual, could teams still not sign/trade players and say they just don't have any offseasons "needs" or whatever? While we all know that's BS, I don't see how anyone can say a team HAS to make trades/sign players. Am I missing something?

The players would argue that all 32 teams making no roster moves would be an open-shut collusion case. And I think they'd easily win.

[Hooe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Free agency, as far as Texans FB Vonta Leach is concerned, has started. Look for other free agent players (and their agents) to follow suit.

[skydog71]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Free agency, as far as Texans FB Vonta Leach is concerned, has started. Look for other free agent players (and their agents) to follow suit.

Oh boy, this is hilarious. Quote from Leach's agent from the article:

“They can take my calls, ignore my calls or tell me not to call back. The judge has already ruled twice against the league. The NFLPA is telling us we need to do our jobs.”

So the union is back?

EDIT: According to the comments below that article, it looks like the NFLPA is now a trade association like the NRA? Oh well, I don't know.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Oh boy, this is hilarious. Quote from Leach's agent from the article:

“They can take my calls, ignore my calls or tell me not to call back. The judge has already ruled twice against the league. The NFLPA is telling us we need to do our jobs.”

So the union is back?

No, just another example that it was never gone. Part of the NFL's case being presented to the 8th Circuit goes into how the Judge Nelson ignored the pending NLRB case and just accepted the decertification. The NFLPA has never ceased to exist, but a trade union really doesn't have any say over the agents and players. Most probably also say 'NFLPA' instead of class counsel too, could just be a simple case of semantics (though that excuse wont work for Mike Vrabel's comments)

[skydog71]

Re: Official CBA Thread

No, just another example that it was never gone. Part of the NFL's case being presented to the 8th Circuit goes into how the Judge Nelson ignored the pending NLRB case and just accepted the decertification. The NFLPA has never ceased to exist, but a trade union really doesn't have any say over the agents and players. Most probably also say 'NFLPA' instead of class counsel too, could just be a simple case of semantics (though that excuse wont work for Mike Vrabel's comments)

Yeah, it could just be a case of semantics. Kinda like how everybody still referred to Prince as Prince, even though he changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol.