PDA

View Full Version : Everything about the NFL Labor Agreement


Pages : 1 [2]

Lucky
03-20-2011, 01:26 PM
The players tend to forget that in 3 years most of them will be gone. The owners don't need these particular players near as much as the players need the owners to provide for them.
JB, there's no game without players. Just empty uniforms and empty stadiums. We pay to watch the best.

I can understand the fans' frustration over the impasse. Though it hasn't cost a single game. But why does it matter to us how the pie is divided? The pie remains the pie. Ticket prices won't go down. Beer & peanut prices won't go down. We will not see fewer ads during the games we watch. The only thing that should matter is if and when a deal gets done.

JB
03-20-2011, 10:33 PM
NFLPA cites owners' fixed-salary offer (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940)



Uh huh. I wonder why the NFLPA walked away from a deal that would almost garuntee a strike in a few years.

They screwed the owners last time, and won't be happy unless they can do it again

GP
03-21-2011, 12:15 PM
In any other job industry, most of them out there at least, you can find laborers to sit and run a machine all day. Non-skilled labor.

In a job industry such as the NFL, the main laborers (the players) are in a special league of their own. Without them, as Lucky pointed out, there isn't an NFL product. There's a much less exciting form of entertainment if the current players all went to Tahiti for a year while the NFL had replacement players play in their absence.

Therefore, the players are wise in the idea that they SHOULD be able to enjoy a portion of the league's excessive profits. It's because of them that the other revenue exists at all. Alas, this isn't nearly as much of a which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg situation. Yes, the owners provide(d) the opportunity for the players, but the butts won't be in seats unless the best football players in the world are playing in the games.

It's entertainment.

I would love to be able to rent only movies that have screenwriters, directors, producers, camermen, and actors that are all like at a C-Level in terms of quality. Wouldn't that make for an exciting time? To go rent "Attack on Planet Klundar, Part 12" or maybe "Bionic Rats Invade Tokyo" seems like the same thing as watching Saving Private Ryan doesn't it? Of course it doesn't.

The people who are truly responsible for the ultimate rise or fall of entertainment are the ones who are special and unique in comparison to the other 99% of those who aspire to be at the top of the food chain. As such, I think it's only normal (and acceptable) that the paying customer realize this and understand the situation.

In addition, the paying customer will judge the actions of both sides of the argument and be able to judge (usually accurately) which side has the true beneficial standpoint for all parties involved.

I don't think the players are being foolish or trying to stick it to the owners. i think they're doing their due diligence and trying to not sign a bad deal that they would be unhappy with a few years from now. In that sense, they're not going away quietly. And they shouldn't. As the owners can testify, once you sign the dotted line...it's a done deal.

I think the owners, at least some of them, feel they might have signed the previous CBA in haste. Buyer's remorse, maybe? If so, then the players are learning from that lesson and trying to not do the same thing.

All in all, it will get settled IMO. Being as how the Texans are always operating at a glacial pace, maybe this has allowed them the extra time they need in order to evaluate free agents. However, this team's past history of "acting on free agents" makes it seem that we don't know how to be the first in line at doing something nearly as traumatic as other teams do. But one day, we'll use that saved cap space off the expiration of Casserly's dead money...which has been available for how long now? LOL.

BigBull17
03-21-2011, 12:22 PM
Did you guys see Adrian Peterson calling the situation a bit of "modern day slavery"? I mean really? I'm not even black and I want to pimp slap this *****! He and Lebron both, this is what we get for giving some people microphones though...comments about how being a celebrity, athlete and millionaire is JUST LIKE slave labor and all it's slavery goodness. Hey man, you should spend ALL DAY talking to some folks who spent their time fighting against segregation and see if that don't change your tone. They weren't even slaves and they got treated like shit! Seriously, and I want to emphasize that I'm being serious here, seriously if he needs to be shown what slavery is to get the point across I am ALL FOR putting him in chains, a shack and poorly sewn threads so that he can work 16 hours a day sweeping dirt off the ground. **** you Adrian Peterson. I hope you break your legs on your next run and you never get to play again.

Yeah, a silly comparison. You make millions, they made nothing. You own cars, they were owned. You play a game, they toiled on cotton and sugar plantations(some of the worst work ever, look it up). They were whipped and beaten and had their children stolen from them and sold. It's a completely stupid comparison to make. ********** moron.

IDEXAN
03-21-2011, 01:00 PM
I hated to hear about Petersons remarks because I've been a fan of his, but it's a shame how so many very wealthy black celebs (pro jocks or other types), play the victim card.

drs23
03-21-2011, 01:04 PM
You mean it's wrong for the laborers to desire to have a piece (not all, just a piece) of the profits, especially if the profits rise to a certain level?

In any other job industry, most of them out there at least, you can find laborers to sit and run a machine all day. Non-skilled labor.

In a job industry such as the NFL, the main laborers (the players) are in a special league of their own. Without them, as Lucky pointed out, there isn't an NFL product. There's a much less exciting form of entertainment if the current players all went to Tahiti for a year while the NFL had replacement players play in their absence.

Therefore, the players are wise in the idea that they SHOULD be able to enjoy a portion of the league's excessive profits. It's because of them that the other revenue exists at all. Alas, this isn't nearly as much of a which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg situation. Yes, the owners provide(d) the opportunity for the players, but the butts won't be in seats unless the best football players in the world are playing in the games.

It's entertainment.

I would love to be able to rent only movies that have screenwriters, directors, producers, camermen, and actors that are all like at a C-Level in terms of quality. Wouldn't that make for an exciting time? To go rent "Attack on Planet Klundar, Part 12" or maybe "Bionic Rats Invade Tokyo" seems like the same thing as watching Saving Private Ryan doesn't it? Of course it doesn't.

The people who are truly responsible for the ultimate rise or fall of entertainment are the ones who are special and unique in comparison to the other 99% of those who aspire to be at the top of the food chain. As such, I think it's only normal (and acceptable) that the paying customer realize this and understand the situation.

In addition, the paying customer will judge the actions of both sides of the argument and be able to judge (usually accurately) which side has the true beneficial standpoint for all parties involved.

I don't think the players are being foolish or trying to stick it to the owners. i think they're doing their due diligence and trying to not sign a bad deal that they would be unhappy with a few years from now. In that sense, they're not going away quietly. And they shouldn't. As the owners can testify, once you sign the dotted line...it's a done deal.

I think the owners, at least some of them, feel they might have signed the previous CBA in haste. Buyer's remorse, maybe? If so, then the players are learning from that lesson and trying to not do the same thing.

All in all, it will get settled IMO. Being as how the Texans are always operating at a glacial pace, maybe this has allowed them the extra time they need in order to evaluate free agents. However, this team's past history of "acting on free agents" makes it seem that we don't know how to be the first in line at doing something nearly as traumatic as other teams do. But one day, we'll use that saved cap space off the expiration of Casserly's dead money...which has been available for how long now? LOL.

I agree with this post and think it states the facts and situation more accurately than any I've read thus far. On the other hand, who can one believe?

MSR

EllisUnit
03-21-2011, 08:21 PM
Yeah, a silly comparison. You make millions, they made nothing. You own cars, they were owned. You play a game, they toiled on cotton and sugar plantations(some of the worst work ever, look it up). They were whipped and beaten and had their children stolen from them and sold. It's a completely stupid comparison to make. ********** moron.

YEAH that was a long time ago, how many white colleges do you see ? Do u see a NAACP for white people ??? I worked with 2 black people who had great jobs, they were 2 lazy to get up for work, so they got fired BOTH filled discrimination, and now the company pays both of them full salary. Do you think i enjoyed having to work 3 times harder cause them dudes called in cause they were always "SICK" no If it were me i would be fired and starving now. Enough with that B.S...... sorry but the shit gets old.

b0ng
03-28-2011, 11:33 AM
YEAH that was a long time ago, how many white colleges do you see ? Do u see a NAACP for white people ??? I worked with 2 black people who had great jobs, they were 2 lazy to get up for work, so they got fired BOTH filled discrimination, and now the company pays both of them full salary. Do you think i enjoyed having to work 3 times harder cause them dudes called in cause they were always "SICK" no If it were me i would be fired and starving now. Enough with that B.S...... sorry but the shit gets old.

Is this post for real or did I happen to stumble upon caste football by accident?

Also, I agree with GP in his point that the players are unique and an NFL with scrubs and washouts would be no better than watching UFL games.

CloakNNNdagger
04-02-2011, 11:32 AM
Another interesting twist.

Picks can’t be traded this year after they’re used (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/01/picks-cant-be-traded-this-year-after-theyre-used/)

Getty ImagesIn 2004, the Chargers drafted Eli Manning with the first pick in the draft. Three spots later, the Giants picked Philip Rivers. Eventually, the players were traded, with the Chargers getting some extra stuff including a 2005 first-round pick that was used to acquire Shawne Merriman.

This year, picks may not be traded after they are made, if the lockout has not ended.

“The Manning-Rivers type of trade cannot happen this year due to the lockout rules,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via e-mail on Friday. “A trade at this time can involve only draft picks. Once a pick is made, the player cannot be traded (or signed) until a new league start begins. No player transactions are currently permitted.”

Future draft picks may be traded as well. Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported last month that the league has informed teams that any team that gives up a 2011 draft pick for a future draft pick does so at its own risk, given the chance that the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit will result by next April in a ruling that the draft is illegal.

Lucky
04-03-2011, 01:58 PM
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported last month that the league has informed teams that any team that gives up a 2011 draft pick for a future draft pick does so at its own risk, given the chance that the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit will result by next April in a ruling that the draft is illegal.
That will limit the number of draft day trades. No one will take a 2012 1st rounder for a 2011 2nd rounder. That's why I think Belichick will reverse gears and use his 6 picks in the 1st 3 rounds to move up and take an impact player (likely a WR).

Ryan
04-03-2011, 02:03 PM
That will limit the number of draft day trades. No one will take a 2012 1st rounder for a 2011 2nd rounder. That's why I think Belichick will reverse gears and use his 6 picks in the 1st 3 rounds to move up and take an impact player (likely a WR).

or us maybe trying to trade up to get a guy like Fairley or trying to trade up really high to get Von Miller.

CloakNNNdagger
04-03-2011, 09:22 PM
Even if the lockout is lifted, it is likely that last year's CBA FA rules (6 years) will be in effect instead of the pre 2010 rules (4 years, same as the anticipated new CBA rules). This would leave some very unhappy players that expected to be FAs this year.

infantrycak
04-04-2011, 10:00 AM
Even if the lockout is lifted, it is likely that last year's CBA FA rules (6 years) will be in effect instead of the pre 2010 rules (4 years, same as the anticipated new CBA rules). This would leave some very unhappy players that expected to be FAs this year.

Why? I would think going to the old rules would be an almost given concession by the league. If anything, I would think there may be further restriction on the use of franchise tags and loosening of free agency.

ChampionTexan
04-04-2011, 10:47 AM
Why? I would think going to the old rules would be an almost given concession by the league. If anything, I would think there may be further restriction on the use of franchise tags and loosening of free agency.

I'm not sure why you would expect any concessions to be given by the league, but it looks like this scenario would just throw more issues in the direction of the courts.

If the players are successful in their attempt to lift the current lockout by the league, the NFL is expected to use the 2010 season's free-agency rules in '11, according to the Washington Post.

According to the Post, the reason this system would be used is because "it might have a better chance of withstanding an antitrust challenge by the players, given that the union previously agreed to those rules for an uncapped year in collective bargaining." However, attorneys for the players have already said they would challenge any league rules if the lockout is lifted.

LINK (http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/14/report-nfl-expected-to-use-10-free-agency-rules-if)

infantrycak
04-04-2011, 11:35 AM
I'm not sure why you would expect any concessions to be given by the league, but it looks like this scenario would just throw more issues in the direction of the courts.

I don't think returning to the free agency rules which have been in place for a long time is even considered a concession by the owners and I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hades the players agree to a six year path to free agency as the norm. On the flip side the owners are looking for concessions by the players on % of revenue going into the cap. They are going to have to give something to get it. One thing the players hate is repetitive franchise tags. I think capping it at two or three is an easy concession for the owners. It avoids the hold-outs that virtually always result in the owner conceding not to franchise again plus the money gets stupid anyway.

Not talking about the courts at all. They will not be determining this kind of issue. The Post is just making stuff up in this instance. If the court rules for the players then there are no rules unless the parties agree to have some. The court doesn't get to just make up whatever it wants.

ChampionTexan
04-04-2011, 01:32 PM
I don't think returning to the free agency rules which have been in place for a long time is even considered a concession by the owners and I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hades the players agree to a six year path to free agency as the norm. On the flip side the owners are looking for concessions by the players on % of revenue going into the cap. They are going to have to give something to get it. One thing the players hate is repetitive franchise tags. I think capping it at two or three is an easy concession for the owners. It avoids the hold-outs that virtually always result in the owner conceding not to franchise again plus the money gets stupid anyway.

Not talking about the courts at all. They will not be determining this kind of issue. The Post is just making stuff up in this instance. If the court rules for the players then there are no rules unless the parties agree to have some. The court doesn't get to just make up whatever it wants.

CAK - I hold a higher opinion of you than the vast majority of posters on this board, but if your response is "The Post is just making stuff up", then I'm at a loss to respond, beyond stating "No they're not". That and it's consistent with other sources I've read regarding the topic.

infantrycak
04-04-2011, 03:07 PM
CAK - I hold a higher opinion of you than the vast majority of posters on this board

Not sure if that is a back-handed insult or compliment. So the vast majority have a lower opinion? j/k hopefully. Anyway...

but if your response is "The Post is just making stuff up", then I'm at a loss to respond, beyond stating "No they're not". That and it's consistent with other sources I've read regarding the topic.

Don't care how many sources report it. The proposition is facially incorrect legally. Actually your quoted material doesn't even make sense. It acknowledges the players' position is no rules apply. Legally that is correct. There is no agreement in place. The Post speculates about using the last set of rules but that is outside the power of the courts. Sure the parties could agree to it but if they are going to do that they more likely will just agree to a whole new CBA. But the courts have no power to say well gee you played under these rules last year so you have to play according to them this year.

CloakNNNdagger
04-04-2011, 09:26 PM
Cak,

Not being a lawyer, a lot of times I look to you to make sense of many things that I find hard to make sense of. My only other "sources" rely on what may be published........which many times gets me even more confused......and/or open for misinterpretation (much like when lay people surf the web for medical answers.......and many times they walk away with poor direction). That's why I post articles and/or my personal interpretation/opinion in hopes of a response as to their validity.

Here is an piece from the The Times-Picayune (http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2011/04/nfls_loss_in_ruling_could_be_s.html) which was just put out there tonight offering interpretation of what may occur to FA rules in 2011 if the courts force the lifting of the lockout. I welcome your comments.

Many observers of the labor battle between the NFL's owners and players say there's about a 50-50 chance the owners will be forced to end their lockout. And if that happens, the league is expected to resume business under its 2010 rules, which means free agency would begin under the same guidelines as last season:

No salary cap (or salary floor)

Free agents would need six years of service to become unrestricted.

Free agents with three to five years of service would become restricted.

............................................

...............There are still a lot of "what-ifs" associated with that scenario. Federal judge Susan Richard Nelson could rule in favor of the NFL owners that the lockout is valid, or an appeals court could eventually do the same. Or it could be determined that the lockout can remain in place until a separate argument is decided by the National Labor Relations Board, a process that could take months.

The NFL also could institute new rules for the 2011 season if it's forced to get back to work, but the league likely wouldn't want to risk doing anything that might be deemed unfair in the upcoming antitrust lawsuit filed by the league's players, including plaintiffs Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

"My guess as to what they would likely do (is return to last year's rules if the lockout is lifted)," said Tulane law professor Gabe Feldman, one of the country's leading experts in the field of sports law. "The owners could conceivably use any rules they want. They could implement the most restrictive rules possible, they could eliminate the salary floor, they could eliminate minimum salaries. (But) any rule they put in place would then be subject to attack by antitrust law, and the owners may feel that their safest option is to just implement the rules they had in place in 2010 and argue that the players had agreed to it, so how could it be an antitrust violation?"

And finally, the owners and players could agree to a new collective bargaining agreement before free agency takes place, although that seems the least likely scenario at this point.

HOU-TEX
04-05-2011, 09:39 AM
Either way, it's going to be screwed up. If the lockout is lifted and they choose to go with 2010 rules, they should stick with them throughout the season. If they choose to change rules once a new CBA is done it'll be chaos. Also, if we end up going with 2010 rules for a second year it'll be a FA frenzy next season. Damn near half the league will probably be FAs.

It's a mess! The longer they take, the more pissed I get. The more pissed I get, the further I'm pushed away from the NFL. F'em all

infantrycak
04-05-2011, 10:07 AM
Cak,

Not being a lawyer, a lot of times I look to you to make sense of many things that I find hard to make sense of. My only other "sources" rely on what may be published........which many times gets me even more confused......and/or open for misinterpretation (much like when lay people surf the web for medical answers.......and many times they walk away with poor direction). That's why I post articles and/or my personal interpretation/opinion in hopes of a response as to their validity.

Jean, you know we are cool. Hou-Tex nails it - the court might rule against the league and lift the lockout and then they (the parties) might choose to use the most recent rules. But that will be a choice of the parties. That is all I have been saying. The court doesn't have the power to do that. Of course one could enter that order but it would be overturned.

GP
04-05-2011, 10:21 AM
How will this affect every person who has employment via the NFL?

Will every owner continue to pay all employees, even right down to the lowest man on the totem pole? Or will those people be frozen out of their normally scheduled compensation? I know that SOME emplyees in each franchise are still being paid...but what about EVERY single one of them?

I would think that it would be in the best interests of our federal government (and I'm normally NOT an advocate of larger government involvement) to step in and mandate that something get resolved or else the feds will institute some sort of legislation that requires each franchise's employee to continue to receive all normally scheduled compensation regardless of if there is a season or not.

My thoughts on this are due to what is already a shaky and turbulent economy, the need for tax money to continue to roll into the fed's coffers, and just the overall benefit and welfare of each person who makes the NFL world go 'round.

I know that in some cases, each franchise is still paying a portion of their staff regardless of the current stalemate. However, what about the concession stand workers? What about the other similar positions that, although it's a minimum wage job, might be a much needed source of income for each person needing it? Will THAT person be taken cared of in the event of an extended lockout?

I have been keeping track of this thread, but do not remember seeing this particular discussion on what I am posting on right now. So forgive me if I skimmed over it, and relay me to the post where it was discussed.

My overall thoughts, right now, is "Should the feds step in, for the sake of the general NFL employee population, since it spans thousands of persons and cuts across a whole nation and not just one small faction of workers?"

infantrycak
04-05-2011, 10:30 AM
How will this affect every person who has employment via the NFL?

It depends on the state laws where each franchise is located. For most the teams have no obligation other than the contracts they have written and generally only the top guys have multi-year contracts. Most folks are at will employees. Now having said that teams aren't going to want to dump everyone and have to free for all if an agreement is reached so they will voluntarily do something to keep their staffs.

GP
04-05-2011, 11:28 AM
It depends on the state laws where each franchise is located. For most the teams have no obligation other than the contracts they have written and generally only the top guys have multi-year contracts. Most folks are at will employees. Now having said that teams aren't going to want to dump everyone and have to free for all if an agreement is reached so they will voluntarily do something to keep their staffs.

Curious: Why would it be a state issue if there's a federal judge handling the antitrust case? Is it because this case is a "federal" issue dealing with TV monies, in contrast to an employee in Houston TX who is earning a wage strictly within states lines?

Just thinking out loud here...

I can see how it WOULD be a state issue, since the franchise is an entity within the state and would certainly conduct its business within state lines...but it also sells product across state lines too. How is everything categorized in a way that allows some items to be state issues and some items to be federal issues?

This has just made me very interested in how each franchise is designated as it pertains to state and federal rules of commerce.

:frownyface: I should have paid more attention in business and marketing classes at college.

infantrycak
04-05-2011, 12:48 PM
Curious: Why would it be a state issue if there's a federal judge handling the antitrust case? Is it because this case is a "federal" issue dealing with TV monies, in contrast to an employee in Houston TX who is earning a wage strictly within states lines?

Just thinking out loud here...

I can see how it WOULD be a state issue, since the franchise is an entity within the state and would certainly conduct its business within state lines...but it also sells product across state lines too. How is everything categorized in a way that allows some items to be state issues and some items to be federal issues?

This has just made me very interested in how each franchise is designated as it pertains to state and federal rules of commerce.

:frownyface: I should have paid more attention in business and marketing classes at college.

The anti-trust case deals with federal law. But the individual employees are governed by the state laws where their contracts if any exist. Keeping track of the parties is important in looking at this. The anti-trust suit is between the players and the league. The contracts you are talking about are between the franchises and their employees. Those contracts aren't under consideration by any court.

CloakNNNdagger
04-05-2011, 02:42 PM
Jean, you know we are cool. Hou-Tex nails it - the court might rule against the league and lift the lockout and then they (the parties) might choose to use the most recent rules. But that will be a choice of the parties. That is all I have been saying. The court doesn't have the power to do that. Of course one could enter that order but it would be overturned.

I think I now understand most of what your saying. My only real remaining question refers to this quote:


"My guess as to what they would likely do (is return to last year's rules if the lockout is lifted)," said Tulane law professor Gabe Feldman, one of the country's leading experts in the field of sports law. "The owners could conceivably use any rules they want. They could implement the most restrictive rules possible, they could eliminate the salary floor, they could eliminate minimum salaries. (But) any rule they put in place would then be subject to attack by antitrust law, and the owners may feel that their safest option is to just implement the rules they had in place in 2010 and argue that the players had agreed to it, so how could it be an antitrust violation?"And finally, the owners and players could agree to a new collective bargaining agreement before free agency takes place, although that seems the least likely scenario at this point.

Could the owners really unilaterally use ANY rules they wanted in this scenario? And if they did, what would the players really have to counter?

infantrycak
04-05-2011, 02:52 PM
I think I now understand most of what your saying. My only real remaining question refers to this quote:

Could the owners really unilaterally use ANY rules they wanted in this scenario? And if they did, what would the players really have to counter?

No offense to the esteemed professor but no. There is no option where the court says "hey league, impose any rules you want." I mean sure there are whack judges out there that do strange things but realistically or better legally that isn't an option. The court could refuse to rule and refer the case to the NLRB to decide whether the players negotiated in good faith and if it concludes they did not then they could order the terms of the last offer (not last season) apply.

axman40
04-06-2011, 06:03 PM
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The federal judge overseeing the NFL players' request to lift a lockout by the owners said it will take "a couple of weeks" to rule.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson, however, urged both sides to get back to the bargaining table.

Nelson heard arguments from lawyers for the players and NFL owners Wednesday in St. Paul.

The players say their careers are being irreparably harmed by the lockout. The owners say Nelson doesn't have the jurisdiction to issue an injunction while their is a complaint before the National Labor Relations Board.


Read more: http://sports.excite.com/news/04062011/v3760.html
:tiphat:

disaacks3
04-06-2011, 06:40 PM
Here's Boies' (& the League's) latest argument...

The injunction sought by plaintiffs here is precisely the kind of relief that Congress barred by enacting the Norris-LaGuardia Act."

According to the brief, the Norris-LaGuardia Act withdraws jurisdiction from the court to grant the injunction. It cites Section 4 that prohibits the injunction from being granted even if the NFLPA is no longer a union in the strictest definition of the word.

"The question whether the NFLPA remains a collective-bargaining representative is fundamental to determining numerous rights and responsibilities of the parties under the labor laws. It is therefore a core labor-law question that demands uniform resolution by the expert agency. If this Court were to enter an injunction reflecting its view that the Union has validly disclaimed, but the NLRB were to determine otherwise and issue an order compelling the Union to return to the collective bargaining table as the players’ representative, all parties to this controversy would find themselves in an untenable position.'

"Under the [National Labor Relations Act], a union’s disclaimer of interest in collective bargaining is effective only if it was “unequivocal” and “made in good faith.” Disclaimers are made in bad faith—and are therefore ineffectual and invalid—when they are done as a “tactical maneuver,” or when the disclaimer was “obviously employed only as a measure of momentary expedience, or strategy in bargaining.”

Link (http://theredzone.org/BlogDescription.aspx?EntryID=15878)

IDEXAN
04-07-2011, 08:21 AM
Talk about living in one's ivory-tower, this judge has definitely got her own personal version of such an environment. Apparently working at her own leisurely pace, she reportedly is going to take a full 2 weeks to reach her conclusions about this case while the real world outside of the judges own comfortable, insulated habitat works full-speed, 24/7 under deadlines and ultimatums. No wonder our court system is backed-up and screwed-up ?

CloakNNNdagger
04-07-2011, 02:37 PM
And the games continue. All that seems to be going on these days is the mastery of PR trickery by both sides to gain fan favoritism.........with no intentions of truly getting anything done.

During Wednesday’s hearing on the question of whether the lockout should be lifted while the Brady antitrust lawsuit continues, Judge Susan Nelson encouraged the parties to return to mediation. A day later, the players will officially ask the league to continue talks.

Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the players will be sending on Thursday a letter asking the NFL to submit to mediation under the supervision of the federal court.

The league has made clear, most recently through attorney David Boies (pictured, and again flanked by Elwood Blues) its lack of interest in negotiations aimed at settling the lawsuit. Thus, it’s likely that the NFL will simply reject the players’ offer — or possibly respond with a letter inviting the players to return to collective bargaining.

The NFL presumably doesn’t want to negotiate a settlement of the Brady case because the NFL doesn’t want to have a federal judge supervising the next labor deal. If that’s the case, the NFL should respond by articulating that concern. And then the two sides can try to come to an agreement on that point.

And then that agreement can be used as momentum toward reaching another agreement. And another. And another. Until perhaps they resolve all their differences.

Yeah, right.

But at least we can dream a little.
link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/07/players-will-formally-ask-league-to-return-to-mediation/)


NOT TO BE OUTDONE BY THE PLAYERS, THE LEAGUE MAKES THEIR MOVE:


Before the players could send their letter inviting the league to submit to mediation under the ultimate supervision of Judge Susan Nelson, the league has sent a letter to the players urging resumed collective bargaining before George Cohen.

Mark Maske of the Washington Post reports that the league’s letter leaves open the possibility of resuming mediation with the decertification of the NFLPA remaining in place. It’s a minor concession that the league could have made weeks ago. Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy acknowledged on PFT Live only days after the talks broke down on March 11 that it would be a simple process to protect the legal rights of the decertified union.

The offer from the league indicates that owners would be involved in the talks, and that the goal would be to resolve “all outstanding issues.” However, Maske says that its doesn’t “initially appear” that the players will agree to resumed mediation before George Cohen.

So, basically, one side continues to speak French while the other side is speaking German at a time when both sides need to find a way to get back to English.

It’s enough to make me mutter Italian curse words.
link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/07/league-sends-a-letter-of-its-own/)

CloakNNNdagger
04-07-2011, 04:47 PM
The NFL Players Association released the contents of its letter to federal Judge Susan Nelson to ProPlayersInsiders.com on Thursday. It reads:


"Dear Judge Nelson:

"We are writing in response to the Court's suggestion that the parties engage the services of the federal court in Minnesota in an effort to mediate and settled the current litigation. We take your comments regarding protecting the parties positions to heart. As class counsel on behalf of the Brady class, we think this is an excellent suggestion and are prepared to engage in such mediation without delay.

"Our agreement is, of course, contingent on the NFL defendants' agreement that they will not attempt to use this, our willingness to mediate, against the Brady class in some way, for example by arguing that such mediation efforts constitute 'collective bargaining' or otherwise arise out of a 'labor relationship'."

Note: Both sides are asking for mediation. However, the league wants it to back to the original mediator Cohen, and the players are looking for a potentially more favorable federal mediator. Therefore, progress so far........essentially NADA.

Double Barrel
04-07-2011, 05:24 PM
I don't understand why either side cares about the perception of fans. We have absolutely no power to influence any of this, and the only impact we have is as a collective force to turn our backs on the NFL...which is just not going to happen.

CloakNNNdagger
04-07-2011, 06:01 PM
I don't understand why either side cares about the perception of fans. We have absolutely no power to influence any of this, and the only impact we have is as a collective force to turn our backs on the NFL...which is just not going to happen.

Narcissism and its need for admiration is probably one motive. Also last year from what I've read, there was a significant drop in licensing revenues (jerseys, trading cards, caps, etc). It could be a sign that in this economy, fans are possibly still willing to go to games (although possibly now from a less limited pool of fans in that now DIFFERENT numbers of fans may sit their tails in seats their were once occupied by only one fan), but are more selective as to what player or team paraphernalia they may purchase.

For the average fan, given a necessary choice, would you rather go to an occassion game or pick up an official Mario Williams jersey?

CloakNNNdagger
04-07-2011, 08:27 PM
Twitter

The players' side believes talks with Cohen would be unproductive since the previous round of talks with him didn't yield a settlement.
about 4 hours ago via web
.MarkMaske [Washington Post]

HOU-TEX
04-08-2011, 09:36 AM
This is becoming more childish every day. Millionaires vs billionaires, whatever the hell they're calling it....pffft! It doesn't sound any different than two kids arguing at the playground.

This has become nothing more than a joke to me, honestly. To me, both sides have lost a lot of credibility. It'll take time and, of course, football to restore their credibility.

HOU-TEX
04-08-2011, 10:14 AM
Sure hope Judge Nelson provides some sort of sanity to the phone call

The NFL and Brady class counsel in the case of Brady et al v. the National Football League et al submitted a total of four letters to the federal court in Minnesota on Thursday, discussing Judge Susan Nelson's suggestion that the NFL and NFL Players Association reenter mediation.

The final letter, from NFL outside counsel David Boies to Judge Nelson, referenced a Friday conference call between the sides to discuss how and where, and under whose authority, they are willing to resume mediation. The conference call will take place at 10 a.m. ET, and Judge Nelson will be on the call.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f23342/article/nfl-players-plan-conference-call-to-discuss-mediation-isssues?module=HP_headlines

CloakNNNdagger
04-08-2011, 10:21 AM
This is becoming more childish every day. Millionaires vs billionaires, whatever the hell they're calling it....pffft! It doesn't sound any different than two kids arguing at the playground.

This has become nothing more than a joke to me, honestly. To me, both sides have lost a lot of credibility. It'll take time and, of course, football to restore their credibility.

If football doesn't start up before the regular season.........or for that matter before preseason, I predict we likely see a noticeable quality drop off on the field of the entire league product until at least midway into the regular season..........but, my dear fans, don't expect any form of compensation in return.......except, maybe, hearing from those millionaires and billionaires "Be happy you have football!"

infantrycak
04-08-2011, 10:52 AM
If football doesn't start up before the regular season.........or for that matter before preseason, I predict we likely see a noticeable quality drop off on the field of the entire league product until at least midway into the regular season..........but, my dear fans, don't expect any form of compensation in return.......except, maybe, hearing from those millionaires and billionaires "Be happy you have football!"

That's very possible. It is also a recipe for dramatic standings changes.

HJam72
04-08-2011, 04:26 PM
Our scabs are better than your scabs. :wiggle:

CloakNNNdagger
04-08-2011, 05:07 PM
If football doesn't start up before the regular season.........or for that matter before preseason, I predict we likely see a noticeable quality drop off on the field of the entire league product until at least midway into the regular season..........but, my dear fans, don't expect any form of compensation in return.......except, maybe, hearing from those millionaires and billionaires "Be happy you have football!"

That's very possible. It is also a recipe for dramatic standings changes.

Evidently, we are not the only ones concerned. My post was placed at 10AM.
At 11:10AM, USA TODAY released this piece........Andrew Whitworth: The longer the lockout, the lazier players will be (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/04/andrew-whitworth-the-longer-the-lockout-the-lazier-players-will-be/1).
And about two hours ago PFT posted the following in response to the USA Today article.:

We’re five months away from the scheduled start of the 2011 NFL regular season, which might seem like more than enough time to reach a labor deal and get players ready to play.

But Bengals left tackle Andrew Whitworth, the team’s player representative, views things differently.

Whitworth told USA Today that it’s only natural for players to take it easy during the lockout, and that as a result they’ll show up rusty and out of shape whenever the labor dispute gets resolved.

“Guys are human beings. And if you tell guys ‘It doesn’t look like you’re doing anything until July or August,’ guys will lose a lot of incentive to train and to get better,” Whitworth said. “You will get a lot of guys who will say, ‘We’re not even going to play. I’m not going to work hard all the time.’”

Whitworth thinks everyone should be ready for sub-par football if players don’t have a full offseason to get ready.

“You’re going to ruin the chance for quality football,” he said. “There will be more injuries and things that affect the game. Period.”

So even if a deal gets done in time for the season to start five months from today, that doesn’t mean the quality of play will be what NFL fans have come to expect.

Rey
04-08-2011, 06:53 PM
I think the owners are going to give some ground.

I've been thinking about it, and I really think they overplayed their hands' after the season ended. Take McNair for example. He went out and hired Wade Phillips and a few position coaches...No way you want to pay a coach to not even be coaching anybody. No way they want to pay for the upkeep of those stadiums and not have any revenue coming in. I don't think anyone got break the bank money, but some teams even went out and signed FA's....

I think it comes down to who has more to lose...

I listened to Dorin Dickerson the other day on the radio and he didn't really sound too worried about the possibility of their being no football. He has his degree and he knew what he wanted to do with it. He made a couple hundred thousand this past year, so he can really do a lot of things...

Guys that have been in the leauge and have managed their money well probably aren't too worried either.

I think some folks make the mistake of just labeling these guys football players...Sure they stand to lose out on money...millions for quite a few...But I don't think a lot of these guys view no NFL games as being the end of the world.

I think the owners are a lot more worried about the prospects of their being no football. They have a lot more to lose IMO.

Thorn
04-10-2011, 09:57 AM
My views on this mess haven't changed. If anything, it's made me become more disinterested in football. I quit watching baseball and basketball because of this crap, and I'm in the first stages on boredom with football. Right now, I don't miss it a bit. That will change, I'm sure, as the draft gets near. Participating in the draft on TexansTalk is a lot of fun! :)

Still, this has made football much less important in my personal world.

CloakNNNdagger
04-10-2011, 08:09 PM
Judge Nelson will order the league, players to return to mediation (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/10/judge-nelson-will-order-the-league-players-to-return-to-mediation/)


Well, the silence lasted two days.

On Wednesday, Judge Susan Nelson urged the NFL and the players suing the league to return to mediation. On Thursday, the two sides agreed to do so, while disagreeing about the format and location of the talks.

On Friday, Judge Susan Nelson convened a conference call with the parties regarding mediation. Neither side was talking after the discussion, at the specific command of Judge Nelson.

On Sunday, ESPN’s Adam Schefter has reported that Judge Nelson told the two sides that she will impose mediation on them “early this week.”

It’s unclear why she didn’t do so on Wednesday. Perhaps she wanted to see whether they could agree to it on their own, as the first step toward reaching other more important agreements. Perhaps she didn’t want to come off as heavy handed, given the possible bastardization-in-translation that could have caused fans to conclude that she was forcing the parties against their will to reach an agreement.

The truth is that judges routinely compel parties to engage in mediation. It doesn’t mean that the parties are required to settle the case. Instead, they must simply participate in the process in good faith.

It remains to be seen whether the mediation will occur in D.C. under the supervision of George Cohen, or whether Judge Nelson will appoint a different mediator. We believe that Judge Nelson should appoint Cohen, since that approach would give each side a little bit of what they desire. The owners want to utilize Cohen’s 17-day head start on the process, and the players want the mediation to occur under the umbrella of the Brady antitrust litigation.

If that happens, Cohen will have much more power over the parties this time around, since he’ll be able to go directly to Judge Nelson if Jerry Jones does the knuckle-bang-and-leave-the-table move, or if the players try to shut mediation down over the potentially trumped-up notion that they didn’t spend enough time in the presence of men who would be inclined to do the knuckle-bang-and-leave-the-table move.

Judge Nelson also could decide to mediate the case on her own, which would make the parties even less likely to act unreasonably or disrespectfully toward each other.

Speedy
04-10-2011, 10:56 PM
If anything, it's made me become more disinterested in football.

Same here. I can't even get interested in the draft. Ain't wasting my time with it if they don't give a flip to play it or not.

Joe Texan
04-10-2011, 11:17 PM
we damn sure know the ticket office is not locked out, And that is part of the teams employees, I do not understand how the team will not get paid but the ticket office will. This whole thing is bullshitz and The need to get it over with quickly

Double Barrel
04-11-2011, 12:15 PM
My views on this mess haven't changed. If anything, it's made me become more disinterested in football. I quit watching baseball and basketball because of this crap, and I'm in the first stages on boredom with football. Right now, I don't miss it a bit. That will change, I'm sure, as the draft gets near. Participating in the draft on TexansTalk is a lot of fun! :)

Still, this has made football much less important in my personal world.

What would you be doing at this point in the off-season that is different this year?

None of this stuff has phased me in the slightest. I won't really start to feel anything until July at the soonest, when we should be hearing the rumble of looming training camps. Once August rolls around and there is no pre-season, then I will start to share your feelings. But at this point, I'm doing the same thing I always do which is live life while my Sundays are free.

axman40
04-11-2011, 05:12 PM
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The federal judge handling the lawsuit against the NFL ordered the sides to participate in court-supervised mediation, while saying Monday she still is considering whether to grant the players' request for a preliminary injunction to lift the lockout. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said formal mediation will begin Thursday before Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan at his office in a Minneapolis courthouse. He will meet with representatives of the players Tuesday, then representatives of the NFL on Wednesday.
The sides tried mediation before, negotiating for 16 days in Washington with Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service director George Cohen. But those talks broke off March 11, allowing the old collective bargaining agreement to expire.
The NFL Players Association dissolved that day, saying it no longer would represent players in bargaining under labor law. That allowed players - including MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady and Peyton Manning - to file a class-action antitrust suit against the league in federal court. The owners then locked out the players, creating the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987.
Nelson ordered Monday that both sides keep the mediation confidential.

http://sports.excite.com/news/04112011/v6463.html

CloakNNNdagger
04-13-2011, 04:07 PM
NFL’s rookie wage proposal includes eliminating holdouts (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/13/nfls-rookie-wage-proposal-includes-eliminating-holdouts/)

The Associated Press got a hold of the NFL’s proposed rookie wage scale on Wednesday.

Some of the financial stuff is interesting — the league wants to divert $300 million-per-year from first-round picks to veterans — but the fine print is fascinating.

According to Barry Wilner, the league wants to eliminate holdouts by “reducing the maximum allowable salary if a rookie isn’t signed when training camp begins.”

Basically, you start losing serious money the moment you start to miss camp. The league wants to take this holdout idea even further.

“The NFL also suggested eliminating holdouts for all veterans by prohibiting renegotiations of contracts if a player holds out in the preseason,” Wilner writers.

Good luck with that.

Eliminating holdouts in rookie contracts would be a big pill for the NFLPA* to swallow. It’s hard to imagine the union giving up the leverage of a veteran holdout, when it’s often the only leverage veterans have.

Double Barrel
04-13-2011, 04:46 PM
Not sure of the ramifications, but I kinda' like the idea of eliminating rookie holdouts on the surface of it. :hmmm:

It has annoyed me for years that rookies, with nothing proven and projections only based on potential, can hold out for millions.

Not quite sure how I feel about not allowing vets to hold out with the lack of guaranteed contracts...

Thorn
04-13-2011, 05:08 PM
Eliminating rookie hold outs, I like. They can put that one in. I don't like eliminating the vetran's hold outs though.

keyser
04-13-2011, 05:38 PM
I might be missing something, but what good would a rookie holdout be if there was a rookie wage scale? I thought the idea of the rookie wage scale was that rookie wages and contract length would be fixed based on draft position (maybe with a modifier for position played). So, what could a rookie accomplish by holding out, unless he was planning to sit out all year and re-enter the draft?

disaacks3
04-13-2011, 06:07 PM
Not sure of the ramifications, but I kinda' like the idea of eliminating rookie holdouts on the surface of it. :hmmm:

It has annoyed me for years that rookies, with nothing proven and projections only based on potential, can hold out for millions.

Not quite sure how I feel about not allowing vets to hold out with the lack of guaranteed contracts... You and me both.

I might be missing something, but what good would a rookie holdout be if there was a rookie wage scale? I thought the idea of the rookie wage scale was that rookie wages and contract length would be fixed based on draft position (maybe with a modifier for position played). So, what could a rookie accomplish by holding out, unless he was planning to sit out all year and re-enter the draft? It'd depend of the verbage of the wage scale. Whether it incuded signing bonuses, incentives, pay range (hold out for 2.5 instead of 2 mil), etc.

gary
04-13-2011, 06:31 PM
Rookie yes but vets no because players like AJ should have something to wager with the team IMO.

TD
04-13-2011, 07:15 PM
Guarantee the contracts and eliminate all holdouts. Everybody wins.

HoustonFrog
04-14-2011, 09:55 AM
DeMarcus Ware giving up his lockout money

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=6349092

IRVING, Texas -- Beginning Friday, players will receive money from the NFL Players Association's lockout fund, but Dallas Cowboys All-Pro linebacker DeMarcus Ware has decided to take a pass.

In the middle of a $79 million extension that guarantees him $40 million, Ware will not take any money during the lockout so it can be spread among players who are more in need.

"I think it builds a unity," said Ware, who is one of Dallas' player representatives, "and lets guys know there are players out there with you, who will give up their $60,000, that this is a brotherhood, this is a fraternity."

Ware said other players across the league have made the same decision he is making.

CloakNNNdagger
04-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Is this a joke or something........or just plain desparation?


Goodell Holds Calls With Season-Ticket Holders During Lockout (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-04-14/nfl-s-goodell-holds-calls-with-season-ticket-holders-during-player-lockout.html)

By Aaron Kuriloff - Apr 14, 2011 Roger Goodell will speak with New York Giants season-ticket holders on a conference call next week, one of several conversations with fans the National Football League commissioner is holding at the request of teams as a lockout of players continues.

Giants broadcaster Bob Papa will host a 30-minute call on April 20 with Goodell and the team’s seat-license and ticket holders beginning at 1 p.m. New York time, Giants spokesman Pat Hanlon said in an e-mail.

Goodell spoke with Miami Dolphins ticketholders last night, and is moving on to the Cleveland Browns and San Diego Chargers this week, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in an e-mail. Goodell will do the same at the request of the Giants and San Francisco 49ers next week, with individual teams responsible scheduling the sessions, Aiello said.

Hanlon and Aiello didn’t provide further details. The Cleveland Plain Dealer quoted Aiello as saying Goodell can speak about issues related to the collective bargaining agreement but is barred from discussing what’s taking place in mediation sessions between the league and players.

NFL owners and players began those sessions before a federal magistrate judge in Minneapolis today aimed at reaching a deal on how to divide $9 billion in revenue, the most of any sports league. The NFL shut down last month after the union abandoned collective bargaining and sued the league in federal court for violating antitrust law and wage fixing.

axman40
04-15-2011, 08:35 AM
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The NFL and its locked-out players started talking again, and they talked all day.

The only sign of progress or productivity, though, was the nine hours or so both sides spent in the federal courthouse on Thursday. Sworn to secrecy about specifics of the court-ordered mediation, neither the league nor the players provided much insight about where they're at in their dispute over the division of this $9 billion business.

They'll meet again on Friday.

Commissioner Roger Goodell, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Pittsburgh Steelers owner Art Rooney and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft were among those on hand for the closed-door session with U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

Read more: http://sports.excite.com/news/04142011/v4962.html
:tiphat:

GP
04-15-2011, 10:41 AM
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The NFL and its locked-out players started talking again, and they played on their smart phones all day.

The only sign of progress or productivity, though, was the nine hours or so both sides spent trying to get the top score in Doodle Jump in the federal courthouse on Thursday. Sworn to secrecy about specifics of the court-ordered mediation, neither the league nor the players provided much insight about who got the best score in Bejeweled 2.

Fixed it for ya'....

CloakNNNdagger
04-17-2011, 11:22 PM
Mediation not expected to hit paydirt (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/17/mediation-not-expected-to-hit-paydirt/)

When Judge Susan Nelson ordered a second wave of mediation last week, most in the media were pessimistic. Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com and I chose to be optimistic.

And now Freeman has crapped all over that glimmer of hope.

Freeman reports, based on “brief telephone and text message interviews with people familiar with the talks” (at least Albert Breer will have company in jail), that neither side is serious about negotiating because each side believes it will win the first major legal skirmish regarding the question of whether the lockout will involuntarily be lifted.

The players presumably think they’ll win before Judge Nelson, and the owners presumably like their chances before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where 13 of the 16 judges were appointed by Republican administrations, which in a loose red state/blue state sense will make them more inclined to side with the league over the players on the threshold legals issues relating to whether the courts can enjoin a lockout and whether the NFLPA* effectively decertified.

Regardless of who wins, we all lose. Here’s why.

To achieve long-term labor peace, the two sides need to feel equally good — or equally bad — about their partnership. With each side intent on swinging for the fences, someone will end up having to do a bad deal. Which means that it’ll be a short-term deal. Which means that we’ll be right back in this situation again in three or four years, if not sooner.

That’s why now is the perfect time for each side to recognize that they can lose, that in many ways they already have, and thus they they should do a fair deal now instead of a crappy deal later.

Complicating matters, as one source with general knowledge of the dynamics but no actual knowledge of the talks told PFT (that’s how you stay out of jail, fellas), is that NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith has painted himself into a corner by taking two extreme positions: (1) demanding 10 years of audited financial statements; and (2) calling the March 11 offer from the owners as the worst deal in the history of sports.

In order to steer this thing in the right direction, Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan needs to acknowledge this reality, and then to come up with a strategy for helping Smith ease away from those positions without looking lame in the eyes of his constituents.

More importantly, Magistrate Judge Boylan and Judge Nelson need to realize that the two sides aren’t truly taking the mediation seriously, and they need to order that all parties attend and participate — each of the 10 named plaintiffs and each of the 32 owners. They may not like it. But the judges shouldn’t care, and neither should the fans.

The players and the owners currently are playing Russian roulette with the interests of the game, all in the name of getting more for themselves. The fans who have yet to lose interest should be very pissed about that.

And we’ve got a feeling that plenty of those fans will make their feelings known on April 28, 29, and 30, whenever anyone — Commissioner or incoming players — steps onto the stage at Radio City Music Hall.

steelbtexan
04-17-2011, 11:49 PM
Doesn't suprise me.

Goddell is a piece of crap who was hire to do a job.

Smith is looking at these negociations as a stepping stone to political gains.

Looks like the players baby's mommas are gonna be missing a few child support payments. Wonder how the courts are going to be treating these celebrity dead beat dads. LOL

axman40
04-19-2011, 06:24 PM
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The NFL and its players resumed court-ordered mediation Tuesday with a federal judge's decision expected soon on a request to immediately halt a lockout now in its second month.

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones joined the NFL's contingent in Minneapolis as talks resumed following a three-day break. Jones walked in with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and others, including Denver owner Pat Bowlen and Green Bay Packers CEO Mark Murphy. All declined comment.

DeMaurice Smith, the head of the players' trade association, did not attend due to a family emergency. Linebacker Mike Vrabel and Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller were among the players on hand.

The talks are the latest step in the contentious fight over a new collective bargaining agreement. Sixteen days of mediated talks in Washington fell short, resulting in a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by the players against the NFL and the league's first work stoppage since 1987.


Read more: http://sports.excite.com/news/04192011/v5885.html
:tiphat:

GP
04-20-2011, 09:41 AM
Essentially, no matter who gets the decision (by the judge) it's going to be appealed in St. Louis.

Which means this could drag on well into the summer or early fall.

Looks worse every time I read a story on it. Neither side is budging; each side is hoping for a legal victory. Which means even if a 2011 season is salvaged...we're going to be right back in this same spot 3 or 4 years from now. Or next year. Whatever.

idi0ts.

CloakNNNdagger
04-20-2011, 01:22 PM
The players look like they could slowly be imploding with their decision to decertify.


Rift Threatens NFL Union As 70 Players Hire Their Own Lawyers To Intervene In Lockout Talks (http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-players-seeking-a-seat-at-the-table-2011-4#ixzz1K5K4rQnA)


Dan Kaplan of Sports Business Journal reports that a "breakaway group" of about 70 NFL players is looking to hire their own lawyers and intervene in the NFL lockout negotiations.

The players are apparently upset that negotiations ended back in March (bringing about the lockout) and they feel their wishes aren't being adequately represented.

This is exactly what the NFL owners want. The union must remain united — especially once games start getting canceled and paychecks dry up — in order to win this fight.

The owners are counting on dissension in the ranks to end the stalemate in their favor. If players are fighting after just one month (and just before Judge Susan Nelson is preparing to rule on an injunction) that's a terrific omen for the league.

And the irony is that this would never happen, if the NFLPA had not de-certified. Their strategy of taking it to courts could turn out to be their downfall.

TexanAddict
04-20-2011, 02:32 PM
I hope every time anyone steps to the podium at the draft they are drowned out by the the fans in attendance shouting "Make A DEAL!!!" or some chant to that effect to get the point across that fans are pissed off and fed up.

HOU-TEX
04-20-2011, 02:38 PM
I hope every time anyone steps to the podium at the draft they are drowned out by the the fans in attendance shouting "Make A DEAL!!!" or some chant to that effect to get the point across that fans are pissed off and fed up.

Being mostly NY fans, I can practically guarantee there will be all kinds of verbal hazing. Heck, I remember last year when the little old man walked up to announce "Mr. Irrelevant" and other details. I felt sorry for the guy hearing the crowd reaction. A lot of it wasn't even directed at him, but the poor guy was just getting verbally pummeled.

HOU-TEX
04-20-2011, 04:00 PM
Per Albert Breer's tweet

Mediation adjourned until, tentatively, May 16. More coming on NFL Network.

What the heck happened?!

Anyone watching NFLN? Was there a ruling?

CloakNNNdagger
04-20-2011, 04:35 PM
Per Albert Breer's tweet



What the heck happened?!

Anyone watching NFLN? Was there a ruling?

NFL mediation talks break until May 16; sides await judge's ruling (http://http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/04/nfl-mediation-talks-break-until-may-16-sides-await-judges-ruling/1)
By Sean Leahy, USA TODAY
Comment

Recommend Mediation talks between NFL players and the league ended on Wednesday, with the sides scheduling their next session on May 16.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith were among those in attendance. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, left, and Packers CEO Mark Murphy enter court on Wednesday.

The break of almost four weeks before the next round of mediation makes it likely that U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson will rule on the players' request for an injunction to end the lockout before the sides reach a settlement.

Nelson held a hearing on April 6, and promised to rule in about two weeks.

NFL general counsel Jeff Pash told the NFL Network that the delay before the next mediation session is driven in part by the schedule of Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

Nelson ordered the sides into mediation before Boylan last week.

Her pending ruling on the players' injunction request is almost certain to be appealed by the losing side.

The NFL released its 2011 regular-season schedule on Tuesday, and Goodell said he expects the season to start on time.

CloakNNNdagger
04-20-2011, 04:41 PM
Goodell is stating that he expects the season to begin on time.................and that replacement players are not a consideration.

HOU-TEX
04-20-2011, 05:07 PM
This is getting more ridiculous every day. Nearly a month between talks? Why was this judge looking over mediation if he they knew there was going to be a conflict in schedule? Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

CloakNNNdagger
04-20-2011, 08:18 PM
This is getting more ridiculous every day. Nearly a month between talks? Why was this judge looking over mediation if he they knew there was going to be a conflict in schedule? Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

I'm taking a guess, but the injuction ruling was supposed to be made around the 20th of this month...........and it probably appeared that both sides were disingenuous in their meetings and were going to push it to the top of the courts since they were both convinced that they would win.............idiots!

CloakNNNdagger
04-21-2011, 10:18 AM
Looks like that was exactly the reasoning for the timing of the mediation break.

Report: Ruling from Judge Nelson expected on Monday (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/21/report-antitrust-ruling-expected-on-monday/)

With mediation over for nearly a month, the next labor domino to fall should be a ruling from Judge Susan Nelson on the pending motion to lift the lockout.

Gary Myers of the New York Daily News reports we won’t have to wait much longer. Myers hears that a ruling is expected Monday, just three days before the first round of the NFL Draft.

“The players are the heavy favorites to win this round,” Myers writes.

A ruling in favor of the players wouldn’t simply re-open the NFL for business again. A stay on the ruling is expected pending appeal, which will take another indefinite amount of time to settle.

We’re reminded here of what Florio has said more than a few times during this process. No one really knows what’s going to happen next; it’s all just guesswork.

Still, we are pretty sure that fans will have to continue to deal with this ridiculous legal wrangling over a work stoppage without real justification for a while longer.

b0ng
04-21-2011, 02:55 PM
Yep. Both sides are waiting for litigation to come through so that they can hammer out a deal that one side is going to be thoroughly pissed to sign and will do this same song and dance in about 3 years or so (if that). I think we are not going to see any significant movement in talks until we see if Doty's ruling on the TV money is succesfully appealed and if the injunction on the lockout happens.

Either way though I'll be really surprised if a deal lasts more than 5 years if it is signed under litigious circumstances.

axman40
04-21-2011, 03:51 PM
MINNEAPOLIS -- After four long and intense mediation sessions between the NFL and its locked-out players, the judge decided to give both parties an extended break.

By the time they reconvene in mid-May, the landscape of their discussions could be completely different.

SNIP

In the interim, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson is expected to decide well before then on the players' request to immediately lift the now 40-day-old lockout.

SNIP

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said the league is planning to start the season on time despite the lengthy process of navigating the legal system.

FULL STORY: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6395141
:tiphat:

CloakNNNdagger
04-21-2011, 09:22 PM
The NFL is trying to do everything they can to insure the squeeze on the players AND not lose any significant monies.

NFL schedule leaves room to make up for losing first three weeks (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/21/nfl-schedule-leaves-room-to-make-up-for-losing-first-three-weeks/)

The NFL’s recently released schedule for the 2011 regular season contains an interesting feature that suggests the league has a backup plan in place to allow for a full season even if the lockout causes up to three weeks of missed games: Every team plays an opponent in Week Three that has the same bye week later in the season.

As Adam Schefter of ESPN pointed out, all Week Three opponents having the same bye week, and there’s also a week off between the conference championships and the Super Bowl, and the NFL has booked hotels in Indianapolis for two weeks in February. That means that the NFL could lose the first three weeks of the season and still have time to make up those games.

As a practical matter, if the lockout extends into September, the season could be played in full as long as it could start by Week Four. If that happened, the league would presumably start the season on October 2 with the Week Four schedule as currently constituted, then play each team’s schedule as usual, with every Week Three game during each team’s bye week. Weeks One and Two would then be played after Week Seventeen.

The wild card playoff games would then be played January 21-22 (the weekend currently slated to have the conference championships), the divisional round games would be played January 28-29 (currently slated to be the bye week before the Super Bowl), the conference championship games would be played on February 5 (currently slated to be Super Bowl Sunday), and the Super Bowl would be pushed back a week to February 12.

We’re hoping the labor situation gets resolved much, much sooner than that. But even if the lockout is still going in September, there’s hope for a 16-game regular season that wouldn’t start until October.