PDA

View Full Version : NFL Owners Vote to Break Contract Talks


Kaiser Toro
03-02-2006, 10:32 AM
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_NFL_OWNERS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-02-10-50-55

NEW YORK (AP) -- NFL owners voted unanimously Thursday to break off talks with the players' union on a contract extension, leaving the current salary cap in place with the start of free agency looming - and possibly forcing the mass dumping of veterans.

The owners, who met for 57 minutes Thursday morning, endorsed a recommendation by their management council executive committee to reject the union's latest proposal.

NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue was expected to have a news conference later Thursday morning.

TEXANS84
03-02-2006, 10:52 AM
And the next 12 hours, utter chaos will ensue.

Double Barrel
03-02-2006, 12:16 PM
This weekend is going to be crazy with all the big name players (and their salaries) being jettisoned. It's exciting and depressing all at the same time.

Corrosion
03-02-2006, 12:24 PM
I think that is the only move they could make at this point . They made major consessions in what funds the players actually get a cut of from "designated gross revenues" primarily television and ticket sales to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit of money a team generates.
That has the potential to be a very large difference in their profits .


I expect to see every team make many more cuts and very very few FA's signed until there is a new CBA in place With a salary cap

The more players that get cut ..... the less who have jobs .... the less support the union heads will recieve from those they represesnt ....

michaelm
03-02-2006, 02:32 PM
I think that is the only move they could make at this point . They made major consessions in what funds the players actually get a cut of from "designated gross revenues" primarily television and ticket sales to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit of money a team generates.
That has the potential to be a very large difference in their profits .


I expect to see every team make many more cuts and very very few FA's signed until there is a new CBA in place With a salary cap

The more players that get cut ..... the less who have jobs .... the less support the union heads will recieve from those they represesnt ....




I posted this in another thread already, but it is more appropriate here.

This morning on ESPN News I heard a teaser before commercial about the players possibly having a meeting after the deadline (midnight?) about decertifying the Union (NFLPA I assume?).
I'm not sure if this is true or what it means... I didn't get any additional info as I had to leave the house.
Has anyone heard anything about this? What does it mean if it happens?

*edit*

I did a quick search and came up with this link which is a previous story involving NFLPA decertification. It seems to involve the anti trust laws and the NFLPA's legal authority to represent the players, I assume to avoid the NFL from breaking anti-trust laws. I guess they're saying with no certified authority representing the players, the NFL is subject anti trust laws...?
I have to run out at the moment, so I didn't read it all the way through and also am not 100% sure if this is what the NFLPA is trying to achieve (some leaverage against the league I would assume), but it makes a little sense...

http://www.ccgpa.com/atart12.htm

MojoX
03-02-2006, 02:52 PM
From what I gather, decertification means the owners can't lock out the players. It was done in 1987 to get the games to continue. NFL.com has a pretty good article on this:
Upshaw insisted the union is prepared for decertification, which involves disbanding and going to antitrust court to ask for a set of rules under which the NFL would operate. The union did that to end the monthlong 1987 strike and played without a contract until 1992, when the court ruled in its favor -- leading to the current deal negotiated with commissioner Paul Tagliabue and the owners. That deal included free agency for the first time, as well as the salary cap, which took effect in 1993.

"We've demonstrated we are not afraid to decertify," Upshaw said. "We understand the laws and what's available to us."

Upshaw warned if the dispute continues through 2007, then the salary cap is likely to be gone -- for good.

Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, said if the decertification strategy is used, it could keep the owners from locking out the players and allowing games to continue. "If there is no union, the labor laws would not apply, so you wouldn't have a lockout," he said.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9204548

The rest of the article has pretty good info.

Maddict5
03-02-2006, 03:25 PM
does that matter? thinking about it all the owners have to do is release all the players-(fantasy draft lol). no but seriously they could do that if the union plays hardball

MojoX
03-02-2006, 03:52 PM
does that matter? thinking about it all the owners have to do is release all the players-(fantasy draft lol). no but seriously they could do that if the union plays hardball
Not if the union takes it to the courts. The NFL would come under antitrust jurisdiction. In other words, the union can set it up so the feds come in and make the NFL keep business going. The courts/feds could say that cutting all the players is an antitrust violation. Besides, the owners wouldn't deep six their entire rosters over th CBA.

Frills
03-02-2006, 04:23 PM
Not if the union takes it to the courts. The NFL would come under antitrust jurisdiction. In other words, the union can set it up so the feds come in and make the NFL keep business going. The courts/feds could say that cutting all the players is an antitrust violation. Besides, the owners wouldn't deep six their entire rosters over th CBA.


The owners are in the NFL to make money, if the returns on their investment aren't meeting expectations, there will be changes made. Players are Assets, nothing more, they are as replacable as a delivery truck for UPS.

Most the owners didn't get to their financial status by being weak businessmen

MojoX
03-02-2006, 05:14 PM
The owners are in the NFL to make money, if the returns on their investment aren't meeting expectations, there will be changes made. Players are Assets, nothing more, they are as replacable as a delivery truck for UPS.

Most the owners didn't get to their financial status by being weak businessmen
If it were only that simple...

The players are assets; some more valuable than others. And no good businessman will cut away his valuable assets, leaving them to be gathered by other, competing, owners. There will be changes, but I don't think we will see the Peyton Mannings of the league cut. Those guys, the elite players, aren't as replaceable as delivery trucks.

Both parties have a lot to lose and gain, here. The players need the owners and the NFL infrastructure. The owners need the players and their incredible athletic ability/marketability. That is why talks have resumed (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2351271).

No worries, even if it goes to the courts, the league will survive. Heck, the current CBA, the one everyone praises so much, is the product of a process that once involved the courts.

texasguy346
03-04-2006, 08:27 PM
NEW YORK -- Talks between the NFL and its union broke off Saturday with no progress, although the sides agreed to meet again Sunday.

The stalemate increased the possibility that many high-priced free agents would come on the market as teams struggled to get under the salary cap by 6 p.m. EST Sunday, the deadline for when teams must be under the cap.

"No progress has been made, but we expect more discussions to take place before Sunday night," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

Troy Vincent of the Buffalo Bills, the union's president, said Gene Upshaw, its executive director and chief negotiator had flown back to Washington but could return Sunday for talks. "There's not much movement," Vincent said.





http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=2354199