PDA

View Full Version : All Encompassing Lockout Thread


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

CloakNNNdagger
05-13-2011, 08:52 AM
Just an interesting FYI.

The 1982 NFL strike began on September 21, 1982 and lasted 57 days until November 16, 1982. The 2011 lockout is now 58 days. It can be said that the 1982 season was directly affected, but it would be folly to think that this lockout will not have significant negative effect on the 2011 season........taking for granted that there will be a season.

GP
05-13-2011, 11:01 AM
Right now I have seen nothing to say either side is right or wrong. To me it just looks like a negotiation with some maneuvering.

Two experts disagree with you. They say the landscape favors the players.

They say the players have easily won 2 out of 3 "major" arguments. Granted, the two experts said that the 3rd argument (the one the owners have an edge on) COULD prove to be the death blow to the players' case, but that the overall "landscape" of this case seems to easily favor the players based on many factors that are legal in nature.

Link to the interview: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15057594/experts-say-players-case-is-stronger-but-nfl-could-win-appeal

Because the NFLPA decertified, and because they have not been supported by (nor have they supported) a union since decertification, this is all an anti-trust case and not anything to do with "labor laws" that the owners are trying to frame with their arguments.

Furthermore, in the interview I linked, the two experts said that the 8th Circuit only has to decide whether Judge Nelson's ruling had a legitimate basis to stand as she had ruled it. Refer back to the previous paragraph of my post, which states that this is not a labor law case but is an anti-trust case. upon those merits, the owners lose and the players win.

Whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a "sham" or not, and the owners are crowing that it WAS a sham (just as they did in the previous lockout situation) has no merit, either, according to the two experts interviewed by CBS sports commentator Clark Judge. They said that this recent decertification is much more genuine than the previous decert in the last lockout situation. Furthermore, there is nothing "wormy" about the decert by the players. It's smart AND legally OK to do it.

The players are proving that the owners colluded to squeeze them into a bad situation--That this was a premeditated course the owners set everyone upon as much as two years ago (IIRC from the article I linked here).

Conclusion/recap:

As long as Judge Nelson didn't royally botch some important facet of her ruling, which I am hoping she didn't since it was like a 90-something page document AND she spent almost a month crafting it to withstand the 8th Circuit's scrutiny, then this is a slam-dunk case in favor of the players. The 8th Circuit, as I understand the two experts to be saying in the interview I linked in this post, cannot really entertain new, undiscovered evidence etc., they can only rule whether Judge Nelson was right or wrong according to the interpretation of the law. The 8th circuit, unless I have misinterpreted the linked story, is ruling on Judge Nelson's ruling.

Unless there's something buried that Judge Nelson ignored (either on purpose or just by pure accident) we have enough to say who should win and who should be the loser. So your assertion that we don't have enough to form an educated opinion is a little off, IMO.

Outside of the possibility that Judge Nelson botched a major item, her ruling should stand. If it doesn't, then I say the "activist" judge (in this case) would be the 8th Circuit. They would be the ones who are trying to be an activist court and circumvent Judge Nelson. The previous ruling should be so waterproof (no matter which way Nelson ruled on it) that an appeals court can't expose its flaws and overturn Nelson's ruling.

So if we're playing the odds, the players ought to win this 8th Circuit ruling, as well.

infantrycak
05-13-2011, 01:14 PM
Two experts disagree with you. They say the landscape favors the players.

I took your right or wrong question as a non-legal one since you admitted you knew jack about the underlying law and really didn't care.

And psssst - you can find people to interview who will say anything. There are 330 million of them around.

Mr teX
05-13-2011, 01:26 PM
Two experts disagree with you. They say the landscape favors the players.

They say the players have easily won 2 out of 3 "major" arguments. Granted, the two experts said that the 3rd argument (the one the owners have an edge on) COULD prove to be the death blow to the players' case, but that the overall "landscape" of this case seems to easily favor the players based on many factors that are legal in nature.

Link to the interview: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15057594/experts-say-players-case-is-stronger-but-nfl-could-win-appeal

Because the NFLPA decertified, and because they have not been supported by (nor have they supported) a union since decertification, this is all an anti-trust case and not anything to do with "labor laws" that the owners are trying to frame with their arguments.

Furthermore, in the interview I linked, the two experts said that the 8th Circuit only has to decide whether Judge Nelson's ruling had a legitimate basis to stand as she had ruled it. Refer back to the previous paragraph of my post, which states that this is not a labor law case but is an anti-trust case. upon those merits, the owners lose and the players win.

Whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a "sham" or not, and the owners are crowing that it WAS a sham (just as they did in the previous lockout situation) has no merit, either, according to the two experts interviewed by CBS sports commentator Clark Judge. They said that this recent decertification is much more genuine than the previous decert in the last lockout situation. Furthermore, there is nothing "wormy" about the decert by the players. It's smart AND legally OK to do it.

The players are proving that the owners colluded to squeeze them into a bad situation--That this was a premeditated course the owners set everyone upon as much as two years ago (IIRC from the article I linked here).

Conclusion/recap:

As long as Judge Nelson didn't royally botch some important facet of her ruling, which I am hoping she didn't since it was like a 90-something page document AND she spent almost a month crafting it to withstand the 8th Circuit's scrutiny, then this is a slam-dunk case in favor of the players. The 8th Circuit, as I understand the two experts to be saying in the interview I linked in this post, cannot really entertain new, undiscovered evidence etc., they can only rule whether Judge Nelson was right or wrong according to the interpretation of the law. The 8th circuit, unless I have misinterpreted the linked story, is ruling on Judge Nelson's ruling.

Unless there's something buried that Judge Nelson ignored (either on purpose or just by pure accident) we have enough to say who should win and who should be the loser. So your assertion that we don't have enough to form an educated opinion is a little off, IMO.

Outside of the possibility that Judge Nelson botched a major item, her ruling should stand. If it doesn't, then I say the "activist" judge (in this case) would be the 8th Circuit. They would be the ones who are trying to be an activist court and circumvent Judge Nelson. The previous ruling should be so waterproof (no matter which way Nelson ruled on it) that an appeals court can't expose its flaws and overturn Nelson's ruling.

So if we're playing the odds, the players ought to win this 8th Circuit ruling, as well.

Just b/c the "experts" say that, doesn't mean that the players are in the right..it also doesn't mean that they're going to win. At the end of the day, all the owners need to do is win this last battle to keep the lockout going & they'll likely win...mainly b/c they can financially withstand the lockout....the players on the other hand, not so much.

I could care less who wins. Both are in the wrong & they're fighting over gobs of money that i'll never see in my lifetime.

DonnyMost
05-13-2011, 01:27 PM
Just b/c the "experts" say that, doesn't mean that the players are in the right..it also doesn't mean that they're going to win. At the end of the day, all the owners need to do is win this last battle to keep the lockout going & they'll likely win...mainly b/c they can financially withstand the lockout....the players on the other hand, not so much.

I could care less who wins. Both are in the wrong & they're fighting over gobs of money that i'll never see in my lifetime.

How are the players "in the wrong"?

Mr teX
05-13-2011, 01:55 PM
How are the players "in the wrong"?

I just think the players have their heads in the sand is all. The owners say "the costs are rising" & the players say "we don't believe you, open up your books." the owners do it & the players still complain like there aren't signs all over the place that show what the owners say is true.

Part of the owners contention of wanting to increase their bit of the pie is b/c the costs of fielding NFL teams are rising...the players have a big part in that with how these rookie players are coming into the league with these gargantuan sums of guaranteed money.......that's rising every single year. They are also constantly pushing the envelope in FA....New stadiums popping up everywhere aren't only to keep fans comfortable, they're also to keep players comfy too...who can forget Brian Billick refusing to have his team play on that dump in Philly (The Vet i believe) with all kinds of divets over the field?


Then you add in this concussion crap & something needing to be done to help these retired, broken down players out...The players sure as hell aren't going to be footing those bills to institute these changes, it'll be the owners.

The owners have a right to make a profit & it seems the players are trying to minimize that, yet are demanding more & more every year.

I just don't like how the players have tried to project this "we're innocent, we just want to play" garbage, all the while trying to manuver behind the scenes to get more money with these bogus law suits.

DonnyMost
05-13-2011, 02:18 PM
I just think the players have their heads in the sand is all. The owners say "the costs are rising" & the players say "we don't believe you, open up your books." the owners do it & the players still complain like there aren't signs all over the place that show what the owners say is true.

The owners didn't open their books. They showed financial data from the only team in the NFL that is publicly owned and operated (which has to publicly disclose their records anyway), the Green Bay Packers. So basically, the one team that isn't really all that concerned with turning a gigantic profit and is set in a very small market, etc. A very unrepresentative sample of the 32 NFL teams.


Part of the owners contention of wanting to increase their bit of the pie is b/c the costs of fielding NFL teams are rising.

No, they aren't. The revenue is rising. Costs (except for self-inflicted debt), not so much.

the players have a big part in that with how these rookie players are coming into the league with these gargantuan sums of guaranteed money.......that's rising every single year. They are also constantly pushing the envelope in FA....New stadiums popping up everywhere aren't only to keep fans comfortable, they're also to keep players comfy too...who can forget Brian Billick refusing to have his team play on that dump in Philly (The Vet i believe) with all kinds of divets over the field?

1) The rookie pay scale was advocated by the NFLPA. Many veterans felt short changed by having rookies given such a large amount of the salary pie. The owners like this idea, but not because they don't like paying rookies, they like it because they feel it is an opportunity to reduce their payroll without having to redistribute that money to veteran players. And also, the owners themselves are the ones who agree to those ridiculous contracts, it is a problem of their own making. No one is forcing them to spend that money.

2) New stadiums are mostly tax payer subsidized. And in some cases, they're not even necessary, and just used as a bargaining tool (Bud Adams, anyone?). The players/coaches are really the last ones to care about stadiums, you're pointing to an example of a stadium that was 37 years old to make your point. 37! And even in that case, Billick was complaining about the playing surface, not the stadium. Just as with contracts, this is a problem of the owners' own making. No one is forcing them to build new stadiums.



Then you add in this concussion crap & something needing to be done to help these retired, broken down players out...The players sure as hell aren't going to be footing those bills to institute these changes, it'll be the owners.


Actually, the players *do* pay for it. They will likely have a health insurance program they will buy into during their time in the league that will pay for medical problems related to their job duties. This is something the owners got away with forever, and now it is catching up to them.

The owners have a right to make a profit & it seems the players are trying to minimize that, yet are demanding more & more every year.

Once again, you can demand more money all you want, but at the end of the day, the owner signs the check. It's not the players' fault that the owners can't help from spending themselves into oblivion. (Which they're not, btw)


I just don't like how the players have tried to project this "we're innocent, we just want to play" garbage, all the while trying to manuver behind the scenes to get more money with these bogus law suits.

Spoken like someone truly ignorant of labor and anti-trust laws. "Behind the scenes"? Oh, you mean like, the most public labor dispute of the last century? The NFLPA has nothing to hide, did it ever occur to you that these "bogus law suits" are only being pursued because without them, we would 100% definitely NOT be having football this year? You do realize whose interests are better served by this labor stoppage, right? It sounds like you have almost no grasp on this issue.

Mr teX
05-13-2011, 02:44 PM
The owners didn't open their books. They showed 5 years of financial data from the only team in the NFL that is publicly owned and operated, the Green Bay Packers. So basically, the one team that isn't really all that concerned with turning a gigantic profit.




No, they aren't. The revenue is rising. Cost (except for self-inflicted debt, a la stadium building), not so much.



1) The rookie pay scale was advocated by the NFLPA. Many veterans felt short changed by having rookies given such a large amount of the salary pie. The owners like this idea, but not because they don't like paying rookies, they like it because they feel it is an opportunity to reduce their payroll without having to redistribute that money to veteran players. And also, the owners themselves are the ones who agree to those ridiculous contracts, it is a problem of their own making. No one is forcing them to spend that money.

2) New stadiums are mostly tax payer subsidized. And in some cases, they're not even necessary, and just used as a bargaining tool (Bud Adams, anyone?). The players/coaches are really the last ones to care about stadiums, you're pointing to an example of a stadium that was 46 years old to make your point. 46! And even in that case, Billick was complaining about the playing surface, not the stadium. Just as with contracts, this is a problem of the owners' own making. No one is forcing them to build new stadiums.




Actually, the players *do* pay for it. They will likely have a health insurance program they will buy into during their time in the league that will pay for medical problems related to their job duties. This is something the owners got away with forever, and now it is catching up to them.



Once again, you can demand more money all you want, but at the end of the day, the owner signs the check. It's not the players' fault that the owners can't help from spending themselves into oblivion. (Which they're not, btw)




Spoken like someone truly ignorant of labor and anti-trust laws. "Behind the scenes"? Oh, you mean like, the most public labor dispute of the last century? The NFLPA has nothing to hide, did it ever occur to you that these "bogus law suits" are only being pursued because without them, we would 100% definitely NOT be having football this year? You do realize whose interests are better served by this labor stoppage, right? It sounds like you have almost no grasp on this issue.

The owners might be firing the gun, but the players are at base minmimum helping them load it...The name of the game is to be competitive & to be competitive you've got to have top talent & you've got to get that talent in a variety of ways & if you won't pay for it another team will; players know this. Besides, players all over the league hold mini-lockouts every year by holding out of camp so as to wrangle more money out of teams...like i said, they're not innocent in this whole ordeal like they are attempting to portray themselves to be.

You sound like a player....perhaps one of our local houston texan players lol? Either way, it's not a bad thing & thank you for setting me straight on most of what i said...... but what you have to realize is that everything you said, the average fan could care less about. We just want football & Both parties are responsible for interrupting that. To us it just looks like millionaires fighting with billionaires.

& spare me the "not everyone playing makes millions" argument b/c those players who aren't making millions still bring home a nice piece of change that the average american would love to have right about now. So forgive me if i don't side with a group of guys who at base minimum are still likely bringing home 6 figures.

DonnyMost
05-13-2011, 03:14 PM
The owners might be firing the gun, but the players are at base minmimum helping them load it...The name of the game is to be competitive & to be competitive you've got to have top talent & you've got to get that talent in a variety of ways & if you won't pay for it another team will; players know this. Besides, players all over the league hold mini-lockouts every year by holding out of camp so as to wrangle more money out of teams...like i said, they're not innocent in this whole ordeal like they are attempting to portray themselves to be.

I can't blame the players for trying to get everything they can, while they can. If the owners are dumb enough to pay for it, then why is that the players' fault? Clearly if they're willing to spend the money, then they must obviously not be in that much of financial dire straits. Asking the players to save the owners from themselves is silly.



You sound like a player....perhaps one of our local houston texan players lol? Either way, it's not a bad thing & thank you for setting me straight on most of what i said...... but what you have to realize is that everything you said, the average fan could care less about. We just want football & Both parties are responsible for interrupting that. To us it just looks like millionaires fighting with billionaires.

I know the average fan doesn't care. That much is obvious. Most fans actually think just like you do. They assume this whole messed was caused by the players, because so rarely do we see a lockout situation where the owners literally shut down their industry in an attempt to starve workers into accepting a less lucrative agreement. People understand the concept of a strike, it's fairly straight forward, but a lockout like this is far more complex.


& spare me the "not everyone playing makes millions" argument b/c those players who aren't making millions still bring home a nice piece of change that the average american would love to have right about now. So forgive me if i don't side with a group of guys who at base minimum are still likely bringing home 6 figures.

That seems like a silly reason to take sides. If you're going to be play the "I don't feel sorry for millionaires" card, it should be aimed directly at the owners, whom will still make money, despite a lockout, and are whining at the top of their lungs, despite bringing this entire mess on themselves.

Like it or not, most NFL players don't make megamillions. The salary distribution is so awfully skewed. You've got hundreds of guys making the league minimum, a whole bunch making roughly twice or three times that, and then very few at the top of the pyramid making tens of millions. Add in the fact that the average NFL career is something like 2 and a half years, and you've got a bunch of very tenuous thousandaires. Yeah, we'd all like to have that money, but don't fool yourself into thinking the NFL is all champagne and caviar all the time. These guys have a very small window to make as much money as they can in a very cutthroat and dangerous business. Take Arian Foster, for example, the league's most prolific runningback. Making the minimum and driving around in a Dodge Charger. Any moment, his career could be over and he's basically back to sacking groceries, and his prime earning power is being wasted during this work stoppage, which is something he'll never get back.

Are they super sympathetic figures? Not really, are they more sympathetic figures than the owners, you bet. Consider this, then. You work at a local widget factory. Things are going pretty well. One day, you show up and your boss tells you that you're not allowed to work another day unless you agree to a pay cut, despite Widgets Inc doing record business. You say screw that, and try to go work at the Widget factory in the next town over, but you're barred from there also, because the Widget makers got together and decided to bring the entire Widget industry to a halt. You're out of work with no where to ply your trade, and the clock is ticking on your widget making skills, which will surely erode soon (real soon, in fact).

Even if you're making 6 figures working at the Widget factory, that is kind of a crappy situation.

ArlingtonTexan
05-16-2011, 06:33 PM
Stay upheld...so the lockout standing...for the lawyer/reader types he is the ruling

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf

hot pickle
05-16-2011, 06:38 PM
I want football dammit!!!!!!

TEXANRED
05-16-2011, 06:42 PM
Stay upheld...so the lockout standings...for the lawyer/reader types he is the ruling

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf

Figures

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2011, 06:54 PM
Isn't this the same day that Mediation is to restart?

disaacks3
05-16-2011, 07:02 PM
The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. See id. at *24. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act. The plain language of the Act states that a case involves or grows out of a labor dispute when it is “between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Act does not specify that the employees must be members of a union for the case to involve or grow out of a labor dispute.

^^^^^THIS is the important part. The Appellate court is basically saying the previous judge is off her rocker and that Boies' argument DOES hold water and is likely to be overturned by the entire panel.

b0ng
05-16-2011, 07:03 PM
Isn't this the same day that Mediation is to restart?

Yep

Unsurprising "breakthrough" in negotiations. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/report-breakthrough-in-talks/)

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2011, 07:03 PM
According to NFL.com, the league’s request for a stay of injunction of Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling was granted by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, keeping a lockout of the players in place.

After a couple weeks without a ruling, many people were on the fence about whether to expect a ruling on the stay at all with oral arguments in front of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals set for June 3 in St. Louis. The Eight Circuit issued a temporary stay of injunction on April 28, hours before the start of the 2011 NFL Draft. With this ruling, there will be no football activities taking place until a ruling comes down from the court after arguments are given, barring an agreement by the two sides on a new collective bargaining agreement.

NFL Network’s Albert Breer reported shortly after the news broke that former NFL great Carl Eller told him that the players side expects a proposal from the league owners either tonight or tomorrow before scheduled mediation breaks. While many believe that the mediation session scheduled May 16-17 will not help matters any, this at least provides a glimmer of hope.

So the next big date on the calendar will be June 3 when arguments are heard by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling is expected 30-45 days after the court hears these arguments. Until then, no OTA’s, free agency, or trades will happen. Here’s to hoping both sides can do the unthinkable and reach an agreement before then, but don’t hold your breath.

link (http://nflmocks.com/2011/05/16/nfls-request-for-stay-of-injunction-granted-lockout-remains-in-place/)

MistaRed
05-16-2011, 07:04 PM
Isn't this the same day that Mediation is to restart?

Mediation resumed yesterday.

edit: I forgot today was monday, nvm smh

Double Barrel
05-16-2011, 07:09 PM
I think the owners are willing to sacrifice this season in order to force the players to accept the owner-friendly deal. I honestly don't see this situation resolved soon enough to allow for training camp and pre-season at this point.

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2011, 07:57 PM
DB, your scenario is not that wild.

PFT:

League calls for a deal to be done now

With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit giving the NFL a significant victory in Monday’s ruling granting a stay of the order lifting the lockout — and dropping very clear hints that the league will prevail on the appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling — the league has issued a response that calls for the two sides to get back to the bargaining table and get a deal done.

“It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans,” the NFL said in a statement forwarded to PFT. “This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal labor law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation.”

The players were much more muted in their response to the ruling, as expected. “The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football,” the NFLPA* said in a statement posted at NFLLockout.com. “The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season. The court will hear the full appeal on June 3.”

But with the court poised to reverse Judge Nelson’ ruling on or after June 3, the league has the leverage. The question is whether the league will try to crush the players with it, or whether the league will do a deal that the players will regard as fair.

Sal Paolantonio of ESPN reports that a new proposal has been made by the league, and that the players are considering the proposal and will respond. The process could go back and forth on Tuesday, and there’s no reason why the parties can’t keep talking without the mediator’s involvement after Tuesday, if momentum is building to get a deal done.

The best outcome, in our opinion, remains a long-term CBA that both the league and the players regard as fair. Though many people just want this mess to end, it needs to end the right way in order to keep it from happening again a few years down the road.

Then again, the league could decide that the best way to keep this from happening a few years down the road comes from pushing the litigation to a conclusion, so that the non-asterisked NFLPA won’t be able at some future juncture to decertify and sue if faced with a lockout. Hopefully, any settlement will include an agreement to seal that door in the future.

TEXANRED
05-16-2011, 09:25 PM
So the next big date is June 3rd, 30-45 days after that puts us in the middle of July. Then what? Isn't the June 3rd date ruling just to tell us whether or not the lock out can continue?

If the lockout ends then that only gives teams, what, 6 weeks to put a team together and get all the rookies signed as well as the free agents?

The 2011 season is a wash whether it's played or not at this point.

Lets see us some UFL action!

b0ng
05-16-2011, 10:29 PM
So the next big date is June 3rd, 30-45 days after that puts us in the middle of July. Then what? Isn't the June 3rd date ruling just to tell us whether or not the lock out can continue?

If the lockout ends then that only gives teams, what, 6 weeks to put a team together and get all the rookies signed as well as the free agents?

The 2011 season is a wash whether it's played or not at this point.

Lets see us some UFL action!

It's even better than that. Most likely the judges aren't going to lift the lockout (if you go by their reasoning today anyway), and therefore you are going to have a locked out NFL until the players capitulate and sign a deal that is unfriendly towards them. However, it is believed that the players knew that this would drag into the season and are prepared to torpedo the 2011 season, and possibly even the 2012 season if this keeps going and neither side wants to budge.

Hell, it might actually be even longer than that if both sides want to be shitty and non-compromising. If the players do sign an unfriendly deal so that football can be played in 2011 expect a strike in about 3 to 5 years.

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2011, 10:59 PM
I'm trying to imagine what a 2012 season would be like if the entire 2011 season is canned. Even if things are settled by the beginning of 2012, I expect that season to produce noticeably subpar performance. The vets will have not been playing for a year, yet added a year to their age. The 2011 rookies will have not been playing for a year AND will have had no NFL experience. Add new coaches and schemes for teams that have had no time to establish track records. You won't know what you need to look for in the 2012 Draft or free agents..................

..................."what a wonderful world this will be"......................:spin:

TEXANRED
05-16-2011, 11:47 PM
I'm trying to imagine what a 2012 season would be like if the entire 2011 season is canned. Even if things are settled by the beginning of 2012, I expect that season to produce noticeably subpar performance. The vets will have not been playing for a year, yet added a year to their age. The 2011 rookies will have not been playing for a year AND will have had no NFL experience. Add new coaches and schemes for teams that have had no time to establish track records. You won't know what you need to look for in the 2012 Draft or free agents..................

..................."what a wonderful world this will be"......................:spin:
Well at least we won't finish last in 2011.

gtexan02
05-16-2011, 11:59 PM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1UcE75OynOBk-btQRC6Jww7xMIp-IYkuWg9yiEUY-_fToZ90O8g

GP
05-17-2011, 10:14 AM
I can't blame the players for trying to get everything they can, while they can. If the owners are dumb enough to pay for it, then why is that the players' fault? Clearly if they're willing to spend the money, then they must obviously not be in that much of financial dire straits. Asking the players to save the owners from themselves is silly.

I know the average fan doesn't care. That much is obvious. Most fans actually think just like you do. They assume this whole messed was caused by the players, because so rarely do we see a lockout situation where the owners literally shut down their industry in an attempt to starve workers into accepting a less lucrative agreement. People understand the concept of a strike, it's fairly straight forward, but a lockout like this is far more complex.

That seems like a silly reason to take sides. If you're going to be play the "I don't feel sorry for millionaires" card, it should be aimed directly at the owners, whom will still make money, despite a lockout, and are whining at the top of their lungs, despite bringing this entire mess on themselves.

Like it or not, most NFL players don't make megamillions. The salary distribution is so awfully skewed. You've got hundreds of guys making the league minimum, a whole bunch making roughly twice or three times that, and then very few at the top of the pyramid making tens of millions. Add in the fact that the average NFL career is something like 2 and a half years, and you've got a bunch of very tenuous thousandaires. Yeah, we'd all like to have that money, but don't fool yourself into thinking the NFL is all champagne and caviar all the time. These guys have a very small window to make as much money as they can in a very cutthroat and dangerous business. Take Arian Foster, for example, the league's most prolific runningback. Making the minimum and driving around in a Dodge Charger. Any moment, his career could be over and he's basically back to sacking groceries, and his prime earning power is being wasted during this work stoppage, which is something he'll never get back.

Are they super sympathetic figures? Not really, are they more sympathetic figures than the owners, you bet. Consider this, then. You work at a local widget factory. Things are going pretty well. One day, you show up and your boss tells you that you're not allowed to work another day unless you agree to a pay cut, despite Widgets Inc doing record business. You say screw that, and try to go work at the Widget factory in the next town over, but you're barred from there also, because the Widget makers got together and decided to bring the entire Widget industry to a halt. You're out of work with no where to ply your trade, and the clock is ticking on your widget making skills, which will surely erode soon (real soon, in fact).

Even if you're making 6 figures working at the Widget factory, that is kind of a crappy situation.

Amazingly awesome post, man.

Rep your way if it lets me.

I wish the players would all bolt and just join the UFL. Abandon the NFL, take your talents to the UFL, and drag about 400 other players with you. Increase the teams to accomodate the roster limits which have swollen with the addition of several hundred NFL players, and rent out college stadiums in those cities to play your games at every Sunday.

I'm serious, too. Drain the NFL of its talent and make them play an NFL season with scrubs. It'll take a good 5+ years for the NFL to even replace the lost talent...and that's being generous when we consider that many college players might just go to the UFL.

You know, wherever the players go...the fans will follow. I don't watch Sunday NFL football to see the owners. I watch it to see the players play. I guess that's what irks me about this ordeal: The guys throwing themselves out there and risking their long-term health are being screwed over by the owners and treated like horse meat. If I was a premiere player in the NFL, like Drew Brees, I'd start telling everybody to join up and go to the UFL. I'd be on the phone day and night trying to secure "gentlemen's agreement" sponsorship dollars from major businesses who might not have had a chance to do that in the NFL due to how things work there (Not having enough clout or money to overthrow the big players in the sponsorship realm).

It's possible. A lot of you will say that the NFL has too much rich history, but the fact is that our generation of fans is living in a time when there is really no such thing as "loyalty" anymore. Wherever the best gig is at, we're there. I'd just like to see the players band together and say to the NFL: "You can have your league. Let other fools sign your deals and play your reindeer games. We're bouncing to the UFL and they welcome us with open arms. Buh-bye!"

THEN let's see which side is ready to do business. Faced with losing a good 75% of their player base, I bet the NFL would be a little more generous. The players need to play hardball, enough with the patty-cake patty-cake stuff. Move your loyalty to the UFL. Or at least use it as a bargaining chip. I wouldn't even return to mediation, or I'd at least pretend to not care even if I was ordered to mediation. I'd start a grass roots campaign immediately and would only talk about the UFL and how we're going to go play in the UFL. And watch the NFL crap a brick over it.

GP
05-17-2011, 10:23 AM
Stay upheld...so the lockout standing...for the lawyer/reader types he is the ruling

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf

It's all just a foregone conclusion now.

With the statements released, they've easily tipped their hand that the NFL Owners have a better case than the players.

All the players can do now is either lie to themselves and continue with litigation, knowing full well that the judges are favoring the owners AND will say Judge Nelson misinterpreted the law...which I don't think she did, btw, but who cares what I think, right?, or they can try to get the best the deal possible and move forward with tails tucked between their legs.

Personally, I'd like to see the players just go join the UFL and leave the NFL a wasteland. But let's face it, the players want the most money they can get and they won't ditch the NFL just to roll the dice with the UFL. It'd be really cool to see the majority of players uproot and join the UFL and try to make it a viable alternative to the NFL--I mean, to really really really put their hearts and souls into it, for love of the game, and to squash the NFL and hopefully force the NFL Owners to re-think how things are handled.

This petty lawsuit won't help either side. But a true migration, and genuine support for an alternative league, IMO, would show that the players want money but they also want to play football for the love of the game. Realistically, though, I know this won't happen. It's just good to concoct a Disney movie feel-good script, I suppose. LOL.

badboy
05-17-2011, 10:36 AM
Amazingly awesome post, man.

Rep your way if it lets me.

I wish the players would all bolt and just join the UFL. Abandon the NFL, take your talents to the UFL, and drag about 400 other players with you. Increase the teams to accomodate the roster limits which have swollen with the addition of several hundred NFL players, and rent out college stadiums in those cities to play your games at every Sunday.

I'm serious, too. Drain the NFL of its talent and make them play an NFL season with scrubs. It'll take a good 5+ years for the NFL to even replace the lost talent...and that's being generous when we consider that many college players might just go to the UFL.

You know, wherever the players go...the fans will follow. I don't watch Sunday NFL football to see the owners. I watch it to see the players play. I guess that's what irks me about this ordeal: The guys throwing themselves out there and risking their long-term health are being screwed over by the owners and treated like horse meat. If I was a premiere player in the NFL, like Drew Brees, I'd start telling everybody to join up and go to the UFL. I'd be on the phone day and night trying to secure "gentlemen's agreement" sponsorship dollars from major businesses who might not have had a chance to do that in the NFL due to how things work there (Not having enough clout or money to overthrow the big players in the sponsorship realm).

It's possible. A lot of you will say that the NFL has too much rich history, but the fact is that our generation of fans is living in a time when there is really no such thing as "loyalty" anymore. Wherever the best gig is at, we're there. I'd just like to see the players band together and say to the NFL: "You can have your league. Let other fools sign your deals and play your reindeer games. We're bouncing to the UFL and they welcome us with open arms. Buh-bye!"

THEN let's see which side is ready to do business. Faced with losing a good 75% of their player base, I bet the NFL would be a little more generous. The players need to play hardball, enough with the patty-cake patty-cake stuff. Move your loyalty to the UFL. Or at least use it as a bargaining chip. I wouldn't even return to mediation, or I'd at least pretend to not care even if I was ordered to mediation. I'd start a grass roots campaign immediately and would only talk about the UFL and how we're going to go play in the UFL. And watch the NFL crap a brick over it.To add to your scenario what if team players remained the same and owners were found to "buy" each team? New leagues owners got into financial difficulty by trying to outbid each other for individuals. The players would have to play for much less but should draw pretty well if they were allowed 50% of gate, concessions and parking.

A Tillman Fertito (example only) could buy the Texans & play in the renovated Rice stadium. The biggest financial loss would be television revenue and I would think in Houston Fox and ABC would make good offers.

I would think there would be enough coaches floating around to signup and there would be some pretty good UDFA players to sign. The only major problem would be convincing new "owners" to step up if the players were just going back to NFL in 1-2 years. WHo would invest under that scenario?

NFL owners know new product comes out annually from colleges. The current players lose time off their bodies and financially. Advantage owners.

Texecutioner
05-17-2011, 10:47 AM
It's all just a foregone conclusion now.

With the statements released, they've easily tipped their hand that the NFL Owners have a better case than the players.

All the players can do now is either lie to themselves and continue with litigation, knowing full well that the judges are favoring the owners AND will say Judge Nelson misinterpreted the law...which I don't think she did, btw, but who cares what I think, right?, or they can try to get the best the deal possible and move forward with tails tucked between their legs.

Personally, I'd like to see the players just go join the UFL and leave the NFL a wasteland. But let's face it, the players want the most money they can get and they won't ditch the NFL just to roll the dice with the UFL. It'd be really cool to see the majority of players uproot and join the UFL and try to make it a viable alternative to the NFL--I mean, to really really really put their hearts and souls into it, for love of the game, and to squash the NFL and hopefully force the NFL Owners to re-think how things are handled.

This petty lawsuit won't help either side. But a true migration, and genuine support for an alternative league, IMO, would show that the players want money but they also want to play football for the love of the game. Realistically, though, I know this won't happen. It's just good to concoct a Disney movie feel-good script, I suppose. LOL.

The players would be out of their minds if they did that, because they'd be getting paid way less and they'd be in a worse situation than what they're currently getting in the NFL. The UFL teams don't have that kind of money or the types of benefits the NFL has for them as athletes. If they made a move over to the UFL, they'd be scratching their heads after while wondering why the hell they ever did that, because they'd have cut their nose of to spite their face by getting into a war with the owners in the NFL only to bounce off to another league where they'd be getting paid less money than what they had before and they'd have less opportunities for endorsements and everything else, because the UFL wouldn't have all of the tv deals in place with the networks like the NFL does. There is no other league where the players can currently go where they can get a better deal than what they're currently getting. All they can really do is fight the owners legally and make that threat if they want, but the NFL owners know that the players have no other alternatives to play anywhere else where there is a better situation.

Señor Stan
05-17-2011, 10:51 AM
I wish the players would all bolt and just join the UFL. Abandon the NFL, take your talents to the UFL, and drag about 400 other players with you. Increase the teams to accomodate the roster limits which have swollen with the addition of several hundred NFL players, and rent out college stadiums in those cities to play your games at every Sunday.

I'm serious, too. Drain the NFL of its talent and make them play an NFL season with scrubs. It'll take a good 5+ years for the NFL to even replace the lost talent...and that's being generous when we consider that many college players might just go to the UFL.


That's the rub in this for the owners...if the player form their own league, the NFL cannot replace the lost talent. They can't use scab players or any players at all. It's not a strike, its a lockout. As long as the lockout is in place there will be no NFL football period.

That being said, there is zero chance the players start their own league.

Texecutioner
05-17-2011, 11:29 AM
That being said, there is zero chance the players start their own league.

Even if the NFL players all wanted to do that, it would never happen. It wouldn't be feasible for them to in any way.

keyser
05-17-2011, 12:06 PM
There's (what I think is) a really good summary up at SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/05/16/nfl.lockout/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin). It gives a pretty comprehensive overview of the situation, including the various options and future possibilities. The author seems to think the 8th Circuit is more likely to rule in favor of the owners, and thus the lockout will go on.

The most interesting part, to me, was in the response to the "Will the players stay unified during the lockout?" question:

The NFLPA cannot prevent any players from negotiating with teams or the league; recertification would be required to do so. The NFL could take advantage of that situation by reaching a deal with one group of players and those players then convincing others to recertify, but perhaps with different NFLPA leadership in place.

eriadoc
05-17-2011, 12:19 PM
I want football dammit!!!!!!

That's exactly what the owners are counting on.

Texecutioner
05-17-2011, 12:33 PM
The most interesting part, to me, was in the response to the "Will the players stay unified during the lockout?" question:

My guess is no, the longer this thing drags out. There are just to many players in the NFL that all have different needs. No way they'll miss two seasons. Maybe one possibly, and if that were to happen I think players come to their senses and realize that there is nothing out there better for them than what they currently have in the NFL and to many NFL players foolishly spend their money to where they'll have to get back to playing at some point. I think those factors will cause many of the players to take different positions as to what should happen after while. Guys like Manning, Brady, Haynesworth who have all gotten ridiculous contracts throughout their career can afford to wait a while. Guys like Arian Foster cannot and it's much smarter to get back out there on the field.

b0ng
05-17-2011, 12:49 PM
My guess is no, the longer this thing drags out. There are just to many players in the NFL that all have different needs. No way they'll miss two seasons. Maybe one possibly, and if that were to happen I think players come to their senses and realize that there is nothing out there better for them than what they currently have in the NFL and to many NFL players foolishly spend their money to where they'll have to get back to playing at some point. I think those factors will cause many of the players to take different positions as to what should happen after while. Guys like Manning, Brady, Haynesworth who have all gotten ridiculous contracts throughout their career can afford to wait a while. Guys like Arian Foster cannot and it's much smarter to get back out there on the field.

That scenario just ends in a strike about 4 or 5 years down the road if the players are basically strong-armed into a signing a deal that they think is unfair.

Texecutioner
05-17-2011, 12:59 PM
That scenario just ends in a strike about 4 or 5 years down the road if the players are basically strong-armed into a signing a deal that they think is unfair.

Well that may end up being the case, but that still gets them back to playing temporarily for the next few years. They can prepare to battle later on all over again if they want, but there are a lot of players that won't be able to miss more than one season without the NFL money that they've been accustomed to. Eventually many players will fold and just want to get back to playing. The owners are the ones that can hold this thing out for years and years if they wanted to and still be just fine. They already have Billions of dollars and know how to spend it wisely unlike the majority of NFL football players who spend their money unwisely.

gary
05-17-2011, 02:01 PM
I am sure the owners have invested their money in businesses and also have foundations to earn money off of too.

b0ng
05-17-2011, 03:59 PM
Well that may end up being the case, but that still gets them back to playing temporarily for the next few years. They can prepare to battle later on all over again if they want, but there are a lot of players that won't be able to miss more than one season without the NFL money that they've been accustomed to. Eventually many players will fold and just want to get back to playing. The owners are the ones that can hold this thing out for years and years if they wanted to and still be just fine. They already have Billions of dollars and know how to spend it wisely unlike the majority of NFL football players who spend their money unwisely.

Yes, Dan Snyder and Al Davis are both guys who I think of when I think of fiscal responsibility. Nobody in this situation right now is "better at spending money" than somebody else. They are all ****ing retarded and can't figure out how to split $9B successfully.

It doesn't really matter though, the next decision to come down that might actually begin the both sides having true earnest negotiations would be in mid July or so when the 8th circuit makes it's decision on the appeal to end the lockout. I don't see any negotiations happening until then, and honestly we can all agree that it looks like the lockout is not going to end via federal courts.

Basically, unless there is a super majority of owners who want to have a 2011 season, this season is toast. The owners want the players to take a much smaller slice of the larger pie. I believe the owners also want a system where the players' % growth in wages is smaller than the % growth of revenue overall. This wasn't clear to me until the last week of CBA negotiations in early March. That's a huge shift from other CBAs over the last 20 years.

hot pickle
05-17-2011, 04:08 PM
Yes, Dan Snyder and Al Davis are both guys who I think of when I think of fiscal responsibility. Nobody in this situation right now is "better at spending money" than somebody else. They are all ****ing retarded and can't figure out how to split $9B successfully.

It doesn't really matter though, the next decision to come down that might actually begin the both sides having true earnest negotiations would be in mid July or so when the 8th circuit makes it's decision on the appeal to end the lockout. I don't see any negotiations happening until then, and honestly we can all agree that it looks like the lockout is not going to end via federal courts.

Basically, unless there is a super majority of owners who want to have a 2011 season, this season is toast. The owners want the players to take a much smaller slice of the larger pie. I believe the owners also want a system where the players' % growth in wages is smaller than the % growth of revenue overall. This wasn't clear to me until the last week of CBA negotiations in early March. That's a huge shift from other CBAs over the last 20 years.

i should be in there with them during there meetings! 4.5 to the players and 4.5 to the owners!!!! done deal! lets play football!

b0ng
05-17-2011, 05:01 PM
i should be in there with them during there meetings! 4.5 to the players and 4.5 to the owners!!!! done deal! lets play football!

No see the owners are somehow losing money while simultaneously running some of the most successful sports franchises in the world. The owners need $2B off the top and then the higher end of a 52/48 split in order to not lose money hand over fist.

hot pickle
05-17-2011, 05:40 PM
ohhh so thats why beer is so expensive at football games! so the owners can afford a bus ticket home!!!!!!!

Marcus
05-18-2011, 09:23 AM
ohhh so thats why beer is so expensive at football games! so the owners can afford a bus ticket home!!!!!!!

What are YOU crying about?

Doesn't Canada have a football league?

b0ng
05-18-2011, 10:20 AM
What are YOU crying about?

Doesn't Canada have a football league?

He probably saw a Bills game and wants his money back.

Blake
05-18-2011, 02:08 PM
The owners are one step closer to throttling the players and forcing them to accept a deal that is obviously not balanced.

Way to go courts.

IDEXAN
05-18-2011, 02:27 PM
Here's my question: why do they even require these judges to have legal backgrounds/educationss anyway ? I mean after all of this BS about legal theorys this and legal precedents that and all, the 2 Repubs up in St Louie vote for the owners (who are mostly repubs) and the one Dem votes for the Players (who are mostly dems). They are just voting, I mean ruling on the basis of their political conviction looks to me ?

infantrycak
05-18-2011, 02:40 PM
Here's my question: why do they even require these judges to have legal backgrounds/educationss anyway ? I mean after all of this BS about legal theorys this and legal precedents that and all, the 2 Repubs up in St Louie vote for the owners (who are mostly repubs) and the one Dem votes for the Players (who are mostly dems). They are just voting, I mean ruling on the basis of their political conviction looks to me ?

Why would removing any legal knowledge in any way fix any political bias in the appointment system? And really it is just assumed political bias.

Double Barrel
05-18-2011, 03:15 PM
The owners are one step closer to throttling the players and forcing them to accept a deal that is obviously not balanced.

Way to go courts.

yep. I expect a strike within a few years if this happens, too.

Blake
05-18-2011, 03:26 PM
Here's my question: why do they even require these judges to have legal backgrounds/educationss anyway ? I mean after all of this BS about legal theorys this and legal precedents that and all, the 2 Repubs up in St Louie vote for the owners (who are mostly repubs) and the one Dem votes for the Players (who are mostly dems). They are just voting, I mean ruling on the basis of their political conviction looks to me ?

You can have all the education you want. When it comes down to it are you going to vote for:

Person A: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Person B: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

TEXANRED
05-18-2011, 03:53 PM
You can have all the education you want. When it comes down to it are you going to vote for:

Person A: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Person B: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'll take person B for $500 Alex.

infantrycak
05-18-2011, 04:29 PM
Folks - judges rule against corporations for little guys all the time.

TEXANRED
05-18-2011, 04:35 PM
Folks - judges rule against corporations for little guys all the time.

oooooohhhhh I am sorry that is not the right answer. We were looking for "Who is not the little guy."

J/K :fingergun:

disaacks3
05-18-2011, 04:37 PM
Here's some general questions:

If the Appellate court decides that it DOESN'T have the right to interfere in a labor negotiation (via Norris LaGuardia). What happens then?

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

b0ng
05-18-2011, 04:42 PM
Here's some general questions:

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

The ones I have a decent guess on:

1. NLGB is being used specifically for the injunction on the lockout. Shouldn't effect the class action suit.

2. There is no criteria. The legal precedent for this was a previous class action anti-trust suit against the NFL in the early 80's and the judges told the NFLPA that they must be de-certified as a union in order to sue their employers.

3. It will be years before Brady vs the NFL is settled. The NFL loses multiple seasons if they wait for that to play all the way out.

TEXANRED
05-18-2011, 04:45 PM
Here's some general questions:

If the Appellate court decides that it DOESN'T have the right to interfere in a labor negotiation (via Norris LaGuardia). What happens then?

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

Labor negotiations and Anti-Trust are two different things.

I would suspect that if the players get ruled against on the labor dispute then I would expect nothing to happen until the anti-trust case is resolved.

And I don't think there are a whole lot of people who understand how huge this anti-trust case is. The anti-trust laws effect every aspect of business in the United States so this ruling is going to come very slowly and worded in such a way no one wins.

It could be 2 years before football returns. Well the NFL anyways.

IDEXAN
05-18-2011, 05:11 PM
Why would removing any legal knowledge in any way fix any political bias in the appointment system? And really it is just assumed political bias.
It wouldn't, it's just that a requirement of a legal or any particlar kind of background is unneccessary since it appears the judges are just voting along partisan lines anyway.

infantrycak
05-18-2011, 05:17 PM
Here's some general questions:

If the Appellate court decides that it DOESN'T have the right to interfere in a labor negotiation (via Norris LaGuardia). What happens then?

Believe the sham issue would be examined first by the NLRB.

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

Probably no affect on the television money suit. On the Anti-trust suit the owners could make an argument of a stay on a determination in that suit pending the sham determination. The NLRB and Anti-trust are separate but related. The Anti-trust suit is bit odd to me since the players association has freely negotiated multiple contracts with this entity for a long time.

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

While there may not be direct NFL precedent there is precedent from other litigation on decertification. But basically it is a preponderance of the evidence standard for whether it was just done as a bargaining tool with lo real intent to not have a union in the future or whether they legitimately want to play non-union football in the future. There sure are a lot of player statements that they wanted to continue to play under a new CBA.

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

Not real sure on this one but think it is theoretically possible for both. I don't entirely what is going on in the Doty case. So far the reporting is his only ruling is an injunction that the TV money not be paid. Then there are requests by the players for damages but Doty will have to have a trial on the merits in order to award money (unless the request was through summary judgement) and I don't recall seeing a report of either being scheduled. either way it will go to the 8th circuit also.

CloakNNNdagger
05-18-2011, 10:05 PM
Probably, the best up to date summary of the NFL vs players fight status (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15073648/experts-concur-balance-of-power-shifts-back-to-nfl).

This situation reminds me of a line in "Dirty Harry." (NFL to NFL players::) )

Well, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, Punk?

disaacks3
05-19-2011, 11:20 AM
Probably, the best up to date summary of the NFL vs players fight status (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15073648/experts-concur-balance-of-power-shifts-back-to-nfl).

This situation reminds me of a line in "Dirty Harry." (NFL to NFL players::) )

This part answers pretty much what I was asking:
"The big question," said University of Toledo College of Law professor Geoffrey Rapp, "is how far they want to take this dispute. Based on how the panel of judges indicated they will likely read the jurisdictional issues, the players are unlikely to get an injunction to stop the lockout.
"But my own reading of the law is that while the jurisdictional argument is plausible in connection with the lockout itself, it will have little bearing on the eventual resolution of the antitrust issues relating to free agency, the draft and the salary cap.

CloakNNNdagger
05-20-2011, 10:20 AM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0519/espn_cartoon_sy_576.jpg

[NOTE THE SCORE!]

This article gives a nice understandable summary of all the separate litigations going on at the same time.:

Dispatches from the NFL lockout fronts (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110520)

DonnyMost
05-20-2011, 10:23 AM
This part answers pretty much what I was asking:

That's exactly how I feel.

Whether the injunction is granted or not prior to the ruling will have little bearing on how the case is actually decided.

I wouldn't worry too much about it in the meantime.

GP
05-20-2011, 12:10 PM
That's exactly how I feel.

Whether the injunction is granted or not prior to the ruling will have little bearing on how the case is actually decided.

I wouldn't worry too much about it in the meantime.

This is getting confusing to me.

There are two separate things: Anti-trust suit and the suit about labor law/CBA.

Am I not understanding these two things correctly? I was under the impression that the anti-trust case (regarding the owners using TV money to withstand a lockout) looks like the players have a legitimate case. But the other case, the one that could lift the lockout and make the NFL bus wheels start turning again, is not looking good for the players.

To me, the fact that 2 out of 3 judges ruled to leave the stay of Judge Nelson's decision in full effect is all the indication I need to know that the lockout will remain in place.

The reports are that even the judges have made comments that say "You know what? It doesn't look too good for the players. You have an uphill road to climb here." Did I misinterpret that, as well?

A liberal-leaning judge ruled for the labor side. She took a few weeks to craft her labor-leaning story, hoping it could withstand a conservative-minded appellate court.

A bunch of conservative-leaning judges are going to rule for the owner side. These guys will take a few weeks to craft THEIR conservative-leaning story so they can properly tell the liberal-leaning judge how she was wrong.

All in all, people wasting time to write stories and explain their political views through the prism of "law."

This is like watching a movie and knowing halfway into the film how it's going to end. I honestly think the owners are showing they don't care about the game of football. They don't care about how all parties to this issue have been building NFL football into arguably the strongest brand of professional sports with the nearest challenger 10 miles in the rear-view mirror. They just care about squeezing as much as they can out of it, and now we're seeing that we're just a "mark" to be hustled.

THIS is why some fans of sports orgs that strike or lockout, etc., turn from it and never go back to watching the sport again. You get a sense that you're watching less of a "sport" and really just a TV show that could be cancelled at any moment if the powers-that-be decide to end it.

I don't watch MLB. I don't even watch NBA. Heck, I have watched 20 total minutes of playoff basketball this year. Didn't watch a single game or a single minute of March Madness tournament.

NFL and MMA are it for me. I miss the NFL, but over time--if this lingers for a whole season--the law of probabilities state that we find ways to fill voids. Once I fill the void of NFL football, maybe with college football???, I will have a hard time transitioning back to NFL. I admit it. Maybe that doesn't make as genuine of an NFL fan as others might claim to be, but it's just that we all move on if things aren't there. That's my opinion, at least.

CloakNNNdagger
05-20-2011, 08:17 PM
Things could get more convoluted for the players.

PFT:
Lockout insurance ruling may not provide lockout insurance for players (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/20/lockout-insurance-ruling-likely-wont-provide-lockout-insurance-for-players/)

If the Eighth Circuit, as is now expected, rules that the lockout will continue beyond the middle of June, the only other short-term source of litigation leverage for the players comes from the damages award from Judge David Doty in the so-called lockout insurance case.

To summarize, Doty found on March 1 that the NFL had breached the CBA (and, in turn, the settlement agreement in the Reggie White antitrust case) by obtaining in the latest TV deals a promise that money will be paid to the owners during a lockout, instead of maxing out the total money to be shared by the teams and the players. We’ve agreed with the concept of the players’ argument since the case was first filed (actually, the moment of realization came while watching the second act of Jersey Boys, seriously), and we’ve been very intrigued by the manner in which Doty will require the NFL to make things right.

Though it wouldn’t be fair to give the players 59.6 percent of the $4 billion to be paid during a full-season lockout in 2011, since most of that money represents only a loan, the players fairly should recover 59.6 percent of the money that the NFL left on the table for 2009 and 2010. The challenge will be to determine the right number.

The players’ effort to obtain punitive damages via a trebling (fancy lawyer term for tripling) of the damages seems to be a bit on the aggressive side, since the violation essentially flowed from a breach of contract. That said, we wouldn’t be shocked by the imposition of a penalty, given that the action also could be characterized as a tort-style breach of fiduciary (fancy term for non-douchery) duty.

Either way, to the extent that the players assume that a large award will be entered by Judge Doty and that the money will help the players get through a full-season lockout without having to take out $500,000 loans at 23-percent interest, they need to realize that they quite possibly won’t see the money until after the 2011 season ends.

And that they may not see it at all.

The decision will be subject to appeal by the Eighth Circuit, and the judges assigned to the case could disagree with Judge Doty on the issue of damages, or even on the issue of liability. The Special Master, for example, viewed the case much differently that Doty did, and the appeal of Judge Nelson’s order lifting the lockout already has demonstrated the reality that what is clearly right to one federal judge may be clearly wrong to another.

Also, the Eighth Circuit’s decision to expedite the appeal of the lockout-lifting order doesn’t mean that it will expedite the appeal of the lockout insurance ruling. Typically, awards of money damages are considered in the normal course of court business, with interest accruing while the plaintiff waits for justice to be dispensed.

Thus, even though the chances of getting this entire mess resolved could be enhanced by an order forcing the league to finance the lockout for the players, there’s a good chance the players won’t see a penny of the money until after the 2011 season has come and gone, even if Judge Doty’s ruling is upheld on appeal.

badboy
05-20-2011, 10:01 PM
This is getting confusing to me.

There are two separate things: Anti-trust suit and the suit about labor law/CBA.

Am I not understanding these two things correctly? I was under the impression that the anti-trust case (regarding the owners using TV money to withstand a lockout) looks like the players have a legitimate case. But the other case, the one that could lift the lockout and make the NFL bus wheels start turning again, is not looking good for the players.

To me, the fact that 2 out of 3 judges ruled to leave the stay of Judge Nelson's decision in full effect is all the indication I need to know that the lockout will remain in place.

The reports are that even the judges have made comments that say "You know what? It doesn't look too good for the players. You have an uphill road to climb here." Did I misinterpret that, as well?

A liberal-leaning judge ruled for the labor side. She took a few weeks to craft her labor-leaning story, hoping it could withstand a conservative-minded appellate court.

A bunch of conservative-leaning judges are going to rule for the owner side. These guys will take a few weeks to craft THEIR conservative-leaning story so they can properly tell the liberal-leaning judge how she was wrong.

All in all, people wasting time to write stories and explain their political views through the prism of "law."

This is like watching a movie and knowing halfway into the film how it's going to end. I honestly think the owners are showing they don't care about the game of football. They don't care about how all parties to this issue have been building NFL football into arguably the strongest brand of professional sports with the nearest challenger 10 miles in the rear-view mirror. They just care about squeezing as much as they can out of it, and now we're seeing that we're just a "mark" to be hustled.

THIS is why some fans of sports orgs that strike or lockout, etc., turn from it and never go back to watching the sport again. You get a sense that you're watching less of a "sport" and really just a TV show that could be cancelled at any moment if the powers-that-be decide to end it.

I don't watch MLB. I don't even watch NBA. Heck, I have watched 20 total minutes of playoff basketball this year. Didn't watch a single game or a single minute of March Madness tournament.
NFL and MMA are it for me. I miss the NFL, but over time--if this lingers for a whole season--the law of probabilities state that we find ways to fill voids. Once I fill the void of NFL football, maybe with college football???, I will have a hard time transitioning back to NFL. I admit it. Maybe that doesn't make as genuine of an NFL fan as others might claim to be, but it's just that we all move on if things aren't there. That's my opinion, at least.Bolded fits me exactly. I used tolistento Astros and Rockets on the RADIO when not on TV. I have been off baseball for some time and could not get very excited when Astros made it to World Series. They had killed my loyalty. I'me gettingsame way about Rockets. Ilike the young guys but it is an average team. The NBA draft this season is hilarious. ALmost none of these college players are NBA material.

GP
05-20-2011, 11:54 PM
Bolded fits me exactly. I used tolistento Astros and Rockets on the RADIO when not on TV. I have been off baseball for some time and could not get very excited when Astros made it to World Series. They had killed my loyalty. I'me gettingsame way about Rockets. Ilike the young guys but it is an average team. The NBA draft this season is hilarious. ALmost none of these college players are NBA material.

The only pro sports league that is worth a damn is trying to ruin itself.

This is right up there with Adam & Eve eating the apple.

Way to effin' go. Now I have to watch Red Raider football...oh wait, that got eff'd up too. I suppose I can watch figure skating with my wife now. %$#@! :foottap:

CloakNNNdagger
05-21-2011, 08:49 AM
Players in all sports are recognizing the importance of this appeal to their future dealings.

The unions for hockey, baseball, and basketball are siding with the players in the NFL lockout court battle, saying the league's lockout should be lifted.

The players associations for Major League Baseball, the NHL, and the NBA filed a brief Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, saying the case presents "vitally important issues" for the unions and their members.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/122379324.html#ixzz1MzTRwDjE

CloakNNNdagger
05-21-2011, 11:36 AM
Another group jumps in...........one supposedly that represents us the fans.
PFT:
A separate “friend of the court” brief was filed on Friday by a group known as the Sports Fans Coalition. Frankly, we’re leery of any group that purports to represent sports fans generally, since different sports fans may have different views and opinions about the issues. To attempt to speak for all sports fans seems to be more than a little presumptuous. In this case, some sports fans would prefer a long-term CBA and the labor peace that goes along with it instead of, as the Sports Fan Coalition prefers, an order lifting the lockout and prolonging the labor dispute indefinitely.

CloakNNNdagger
05-21-2011, 11:45 AM
In Medicine, it's the Hippocratic Oath that teaches us "First do no harm."

With today's NFL and NFLPA joint statement, they have essentially pledged to stick a world of hurt on the fans. VIDEO (http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video/nflpa-and-owners-reach-agreement-that-would-only-h,19676/)

TEXANRED
05-21-2011, 11:59 AM
This is getting confusing to me.

There are two separate things: Anti-trust suit and the suit about labor law/CBA.

Am I not understanding these two things correctly? I was under the impression that the anti-trust case (regarding the owners using TV money to withstand a lockout) looks like the players have a legitimate case. But the other case, the one that could lift the lockout and make the NFL bus wheels start turning again, is not looking good for the players.



The labor laws pertain to how the employers deal with their employees. The Anti-Trust laws regard how business' do business and trade.

Probably the most difficult aspect of the anti-trust laws, the same as the Labor laws (see the Williams' not getting suspended due to Minnesota labor laws) is that it also gives the states individual rights, so what is good in one state might not apply to another state. And because the NFL operates in multiple states its going to become difficult no matter the ruling.

Now normally if a company is operating and registered in one state that company follows the laws of that state even if that company branches out. In the American Needle -vs- The NFL the court ruled:

"The NFL failed to secure the bolstered protection from federal antitrust laws that it had been seeking, as the Supreme Court ruled Monday that the league can be regarded as 32 franchises rather than one business entity on an issue such as selling merchandise.

http://www.news-record.com/blog/53964/entry/90924

The Anti-Trust laws are complicated and have several different acts and exemptions: The first law passed was the Sherman Act of 1890, The Clayton Act of 1914, and The Robinson-Patman act of 1936 are to me, the three big ones. There have been a bunch of amendments, acts, and exemptions added but the core of the anti-trust are these three.

CloakNNNdagger
05-21-2011, 11:31 PM
Eighth Circuit’s “serious doubts” fuel apparently powerful argument by players (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/21/eighth-circuits-serious-doubts-fuels-apparently-powerful-argument-by-players/)
After spending two hours at the Nike outlet store near Washington, Pa. waiting for Florio Jr. to pick out new shoes and T-shirts and shorts, I decided to do something far less tedious when I got home.

I read the 89-page brief filed by the players who have sued the NFL for various antitrust violations, with the initial goal of overturning the lockout. The document bears the names of 13 lawyers, some of whom possibly charge in excess of $1,000 per hour for their time. Thus, in addition to the fact that revenue has dried up, the lawyers on both sides of this fight undoubtedly are racking up some gigantic bills.

Confronted with a three-judge panel including two judges who have expressed “serious doubts” regarding the ability of Judge Nelson to lift the lockout, the players wasted no time. In the introduction to the brief, the players describe the ruling to which the Eighth Circuit has hinted as a “perverse outcome” that “can be predicated only on a seriously erroneous construction of labor law, abetted by a misapprehension of the facts of this dispute.”

In other words, the players are arguing in a very tactful way that the judges would have to be corrupt and/or stupid to eventually find that Judge Nelson lacked the power to lift the lockout.

The brief next calls the NFL a “cartel,” a term that in many respects is accurate but that has a distinctly negative connotation. It was, frankly, a stroke of genius for the lawyers to capture the league’s essence in such a simple yet powerful word. Unfortunately, the lawyers used the term only three times in the entire brief.

Eventually, the lawyers take on — with a vengeance — the argument that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents district courts from issuing injunctions against lockouts. Though Monday’s ruling from the Eighth Circuit contained language hinting strongly at an eventual finding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents federal courts from lifting the lockout, the comments apparently have served as a proverbial cattle prod to the lawyers, prompting them to articulate their reasoning in a manner that seems incredibly persuasive, possibly even more persuasive than it would have been without the express warning from the Eighth Circuit.

Then again, NFL lawyer David Boies also seemed incredibly persuasive before Judge Nelson. And then she ruled against him.

As to the other arguments, the players’ lawyers have fashioned equally compelling contentions. Of course, the NFL presumably will submit an equally compelling reply.

In the end, the outcome will be determined by the arguments that at least two of the three judges find to be more compelling. Though the judges who agreed to stay the order lifting the lockout until resolution of the appeal have expressed “serious doubts” regarding the question of whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act permits the lifting of a lockout, keep in mind the possibility that one or both of the judges were hoping to apply some extra pressure to the players in the hopes of sparking real progress at a mediation session that was occurring on the same day that the ruling was issued.

Thus, there’s a chance that one of the two judges who expressed “serious doubts” will resolve these doubts in favor of agreeing with the players. That in itself could be the difference between the lifting of the lockout, along with a virtual guarantee that football will happen in 2011 — and the preservation of the lockout, along with a strong possibility that no football will be played this year.

The answer will most likely come at some point in the month of June. Given the players’ brief and in light of the possibility that the judges were merely hoping to give the players an incentive to try to work something out, we won’t be surprised if the lockout is lifted — and we won’t be surprised if it isn’t.

Allstar
05-23-2011, 06:25 AM
I wonder how the draft order would work out if there is no season. I'd be pissed if it was the exact same. Probably more pissed if it was random.

Texans_Chick
05-23-2011, 06:43 PM
My blog post explains where we are now and how the 8th Cir ruling against the players is actually a mixed blessing for them.

Behold! The best chance for a complete NFL season… (http://blog.chron.com/texanschick/2011/05/behold-the-best-chance-for-a-complete-nfl-season/)

CloakNNNdagger
05-23-2011, 09:17 PM
My blog post explains where we are now and how the 8th Cir ruling against the players is actually a mixed blessing for them.

Behold! The best chance for a complete NFL season… (http://blog.chron.com/texanschick/2011/05/behold-the-best-chance-for-a-complete-nfl-season/)

It appears that this would be basis upon the "revote" by the 3 justices for a "reversal."

CloakNNNdagger
05-23-2011, 09:22 PM
I can see where some moves that each of the parties have made will come back to kick them in the butt...........some short term others long term.

From the New York Times:

Uncertainty is the Theme as N.F.L. Owners Convene (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/sports/football/uncertainty-is-the-theme-as-nfl-owners-convene.html)By JUDY BATTISTA
Published: May 23, 2011

In a normal year, the spring meeting of N.F.L. team owners includes the selection of a Super Bowl city.

But in a sign of the uncertainty surrounding the N.F.L. this spring, the vote on the site for 2015 has been postponed until the fall. When the owners gather Tuesday and Wednesday for their meeting, their conversation will center on if — and when — the 2011 season will be played.

The owners won a significant victory last week when the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the league a delay of the injunction that would have lifted the lockout. But while the ruling on the delay used language that indicated the court was likely to side with the owners on the appeal of the injunction, the owners will be briefed on the options under consideration — what rules for free agency and the salary cap could be put in place, for example — if they lose the appeal and the lockout is lifted. That decision is not likely to come before late June or early July.

Until then, the N.F.L. seems to be at a standstill. While the court sent a strong signal about the players’ chances on the injunction, few people expect much movement in negotiations until after the injunction decision is made, although Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who is acting as a mediator, will try to make progress before then. When mediation stopped last week, Boylan instructed both sides to submit confidential proposals by the end of this week, even though mediation will not resume until June 7.

During the most recent round of talks, the two sides were moving further apart, said one person briefed on the negotiations. Owners offered less than they did in their March 11 proposal, the last offer on the table before the union dissolved itself and players were locked out, and players asked for more than they asked for before they decertified. Boylan told them that the new proposals he sought should narrow that gap, although Boylan does not have the power to compel either side to comply. Among the priorities for owners remains a deal that will not be overseen by the federal courts.

Jeff Pash, the N.F.L.’s lead negotiator, said: “The process of litigation has tended to freeze people and made it difficult for discussions to be productive. Judge Boylan has tried. That’s been helpful in providing a forum to spend time with the players association. But it’s artificial. It’s all within the context of ongoing court cases.”

In the wake of the stay decision, players quickly turned their attention to their next legal possibilities — the antitrust suit and the damages expected from the television contracts case — as ways to generate pressure . In a filing with the Minneapolis District Court, the players asked for discovery, which would probably include the players’ request for detailed team financial documents, in the antitrust case to begin immediately. On Monday, the court gave the N.F.L. until June 6 to respond to the antitrust filing. The league had wanted to wait until July 6, arguing that the decision on the appeal was likely to shape future decisions about how to proceed with the case.

CloakNNNdagger
05-24-2011, 07:26 AM
If the lockout is not court lifted, it appears that the players will be forced to make a response to the owners' last offer......if they want a 2011 season.

“True up” still represents biggest issue between NFL and players (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/23/true-up-still-represents-biggest-issue-between-nfl-and-players/)

As the lockout continues with no end in sight — unless the Eighth Circuit lifts it — it’s important to keep in mind the fact that, as Peter King of SI.com pointed out in today’s Monday Morning Quarterback, the two sides aren’t really all that far apart.

The crux of the dispute relates to money, especially since the non-economic terms offered by the NFL on March 11 contain many very player-favorable provisions, including a drop in offseason workouts so significant to prompt at least one high-level team source to express relief that the players didn’t accept the offer. As to the fight over money, the formula had shifted from a procedure that takes a lump sum off the top for the owners and divides the rest. Instead, the parties were focusing on a “pegged cap” concept, with a fixed figure for salary and benefits determined in each year of the deal.

Though the gap was $10 million per team in 2011, the league agreed to the players’ request of $161 million per team in the fourth year of the deal. The most significant difference came from the question of whether and to what extent the players would receive a portion of the revenues earned over and above the projections on which the cap numbers are based. The parties had been negotiating a system for sharing the money, but the NFL’s offer omitted that term.

The impact of that maneuver depends on perspective. From the players’ point of view, the move was interpreted as a message that there would be no sharing in the excess; that if the players were to receive guaranteed salary cap numbers without regard to actual revenue generation, they were not entitle to a piece of the upside. From the league’s point of view, the players needed only to make a response to the March 11 offer, including a suggested formula for sharing the excess.

We’re not sure what is or isn’t true about the “true up,” but we are sure that the only way to find out whether the league is telling the truth is to respond to the March 11 offer.

Progress cannot and will not be made until the players respond to the league’s most recent offer. We assume that the players haven’t responded because they have instead chosen to see whether the Eighth Circuit lifts the lockout.

If the lockout isn’t lifted, the players’ first order of business should be to respond to the March 11 offer. Until that happens, there’s simply no hope for football to be played in August, September, or beyond.

Lucky
05-24-2011, 11:22 PM
If the lockout is not court lifted, it appears that the players will be forced to make a response to the owners' last offer......if they want a 2011 season.
The players should make a response. That's how agreements are reached. Trying to bring each other to their knees via the court system (and the lockout) isn't working. My dream scenario is for the lockout to be lifted, but the 2010 CBA rules to remain intact. That would force both sides to either live with rules they don't like or make concessions. Either way, we would have football.

gary
05-24-2011, 11:32 PM
The players should make a response. That's how agreements are reached. Trying to bring each other to their knees via the court system (and the lockout) isn't working. My dream scenario is for the lockout to be lifted, but the 2010 CBA rules to remain intact. That would force both sides to either live with rules they don't like or make concessions. Either way, we would have football.Sometimes in life you have to give an inch to get inch per say but in this case both sides seem to want that whole yard which is why this is already in a court room.

TEXANRED
05-24-2011, 11:53 PM
Ultimately the owners win this battle.

Make $0 in 2011 or collect a check is what it boils down to and the owners know it.

It was a good attempt on the players part but if the court rules against the players they don't have much choice. The popular vote will be to end the lockout among the players.

OzzO
05-25-2011, 08:42 AM
They better get it together quick, before their golden goose is cooked. I think more fans may start resembling this Brown's fan.

Barry McBride - OBR Founder (http://cle.scout.com/2/1074189.html)

...I may not be the hardest of hard-core football fans, but I'm up there, and I don't like what I see. I'm sure that common sense, or economic necessity, will prevail and we'll see football again this year. And the media will act like nothing ever happened, and many fans will return. But I can't in good conscience give you money that could be better used by my family for other things. I love your product, and the community which supports it, but not what your business has become....

CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 01:29 PM
They better get it together quick, before their golden goose is cooked. I think more fans may start resembling this Brown's fan.

Barry McBride - OBR Founder (http://cle.scout.com/2/1074189.html)

I know more than just a couple of fans that could have substituted this story for theirs. A sad but increasing reality.

For those of you who have not clicked on the link, I would encourage you to do so and read this fan's entire post.

OzzO
05-25-2011, 01:42 PM
/\ add another to your list then, as I voluntarily relinquished my season tickets for the first time this upcoming season. (No PSL attached, but still... had the same seats or upgraded since year one)

disaacks3
05-25-2011, 01:54 PM
Ultimately the owners win this battle.

Make $0 in 2011 or collect a check is what it boils down to and the owners know it.

It was a good attempt on the players part but if the court rules against the players they don't have much choice. The popular vote will be to end the lockout among the players. While true, the owners could find themselves levied with > 1 billion in fines and no income coming in to offset it either. The lawyer fees are sure to be astronomical as well.

I know more than just a couple of fans that could have substituted this story for theirs. A sad but increasing reality.

For those of you who have not clicked on the link, I would encourage you to do so and read this fan's entire post. It's a fantastic level-headed read. A good synopsis of the situation is had in this paragraph. We are now in the third month of an NFL lockout, where team owners are trying to extract concessions from players, after regretting their previous labor deal and, perhaps, self-inflicted wounds created by all those concrete monuments to themselves. They will never admit this, of course, happy to cry poor while keeping their financial ledgers closed up tight, free from prying eyes.

badboy
05-25-2011, 02:24 PM
The only pro sports league that is worth a damn is trying to ruin itself.

This is right up there with Adam & Eve eating the apple.

Way to effin' go. Now I have to watch Red Raider football...oh wait, that got eff'd up too. I suppose I can watch figure skating with my wife now. %$#@! :foottap:

Great analogy, everybody had plenty but just got greedy. I will watch more college football as I think we will see a turnaround with Texans & ireally enjoy evaluating players for the draft.

badboy
05-25-2011, 02:27 PM
In Medicine, it's the Hippocratic Oath that teaches us "First do no harm."

With today's NFL and NFLPA joint statement, they have essentially pledged to stick a world of hurt on the fans. VIDEO (http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video/nflpa-and-owners-reach-agreement-that-would-only-h,19676/)

Are you sure? I thought that was the mandate of the Starship Enterprise? I don't remember Dr McCoy mentioning it.

CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 02:48 PM
Roger Goodell: Lockout has had an impact on our fans already (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/25/roger-goodell-lockout-has-had-an-impact-on-our-fans-already/)

When fans booed NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell at the draft, he heard them loud and clear.

Goodell said Wednesday at the conclusion of the NFL spring meeting that he realizes fans are unhappy about the lockout and already losing interest in America’s most popular sport.

“I think it’s clearly had an impact on our fans already. You see that in the various metrics we have, whether it’s ratings or traffic on NFL.com — we see that,” Goodell said. “I think you all are aware that our ratings were down in the draft, for example.”

Even if there weren’t a lockout, Goodell said, the struggling American economy would make it tough for fans to justify spending money on football tickets. But he said he thinks the lockout is making it easier for fans to choose not to buy tickets.

“I don’t think you can ever underestimate that fans are going through difficult challenges just in the general economy here,” he said. “That’s something they have to consider when they’re putting down money for a season ticket or a club seat or anything else.”

Although Goodell expressed sympathy for fans who are hurting in the economy, he sounded less sympathetic toward team employees who have had their pay cut during the lockout.

“They all understand the circumstances we’re going through,” Goodell said of team employees. “This is a collective sacrifice. We go through a difficult time, we go through it together. We’re all going to feel that impact.”

The Raiders had a particularly unusual way of dealing with the lockout, telling all club employees — including the coaching staff — that while there’s no football going on, they’re responsible for helping to sell tickets. Goodell said he likes that approach.

“I thought it was innovative. I thought it was very creative,” Goodell said. “My hat’s off to the Raiders. I thought it was very creative.”

Goodell acknowledged that if the lockout doesn’t end relatively soon, the league is going to have to start canceling preseason games.

“We don’t have a date, but obviously that time is coming,” Goodell said. “We canceled our rookie symposium, so we’re getting close enough where those will have to be considerations. Obviously we would prefer to get a negotiated agreement so we don’t have to make those decisions.”

Still, as he stood in Indianapolis, the site of next year’s Super Bowl, Goodell said the locals should feel confident that the game will, in fact, be played.

“It’s our intention to be here and play a full season,” Goodell said. “We look forward to concluding the 2011 season here in Indianapolis.”


After reading your comments, Roger, I suggest you might consider taking the route of taping your mouth shut during the remainder of the lockout. :tiphat:

gary
05-25-2011, 02:56 PM
If there were more fans like the one above then maybe both sides would see that we are not just going to be there when they all arrive back to business. They leave all of us in the dust in order to achieve there more than likely very one sided goal. A goal that is very different than one another and all the while they piss on the hand the feeds them and pays them that is we the fans. There was a time when no one made hardly enough to only play football and that's it. Players once took the field with broken and beat down body parts because their job and it's salary was not as certain as it is today. By no means am I suggesting that we should just out of spite go back to that same level of football but just maybe the players and owners don't understand how much better off they all have than the man next door to me who has held season tickets for forty years. Or even those players my father grew up watching who made a lot less money and did not have the same gear that is played with in the present day NFL. Everyone knows by now that the NBA will soon be headed in the same direction as the NFL stands right now. I just have to wonder if any sport really should be considered a favorite pass time anymore I am sure they all truly once were. Although today I from time to time wonder if it is worth the wild of you and me to be as emotionally invested in sports as we seem to be only at the end of the day we don't have any say so and just feel like we are poo pooed on and left out in the cold. Well, because we are and it is true when you really sit down and put some thought into it. After spending your time and money on your favorite team all you are left with is one lonesome thought being processed through your brain which is when will there be football again and no one has any answers right now. /End rant.

DonnyMost
05-25-2011, 03:00 PM
If only the XFL had survived long enough to make it to this point...

Maybe the threat of competition in their market would force both sides, in particular the owners, to work a deal.

CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 03:41 PM
NFL sees signs fans are turned off
By BARRY WILNER AP Pro Football Writer © 2011 The Associated Press


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/football/7581005.html#ixzz1NOWzwKFx

I found this "digression" somewhat interesting and humorous.


A portion of these meetings was spent on adopting rules amendments for player safety. The league also announced a policy of "club accountability" for teams whose players repeatedly are fined for flagrant hits.

Punishments for the teams will be financial, but also could include further discipline by Goodell, including stripping of draft picks, for repeat offenders — something Goodell said he has "not contemplated yet."

That announcement brought a strong reaction from two Pittsburgh Steelers linebackers: LaMarr Woodley and the oft-fined James Harrison.

"Thoughts on "the steelers rule"??? lol im sorry that im not sorry we hit 2 hard," Woodley tweeted.

Harrison's tweet was: "I'm absolutely sure now after this last rule change that the people making the rules at the NFL are idiots."

CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 03:49 PM
From the LA TIMES:

Time for the players to adopt new game plan (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sns-tsn-abn-garbarini-column-20110525,0,6754950.story)

Here are the conclusions. Read the link to follow the reasoning for the conclusions.

A public that had generally been in the players' corner at the outset already appears to have grown tired of Smith's unconventional tactics. In a recent poll taken by the popular website Pro Football Talk, more than 45 percent of fans favored the owners' side in the labor dispute, compared to only 23.4 percent for the players (over 31 percent of voters didn't have a preference).

To put it in football terms, the players will soon be entering the fourth quarter of a game with a deficit that even Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees would have a tough time overcoming, and at some point the union's going to have to face the cold reality that the playing field probably isn't going to stay the same as it was prior to the expiration of the last CBA. While Smith's persistence and unwavering attitude has been somewhat commendable, he still runs the dangerous risk of inciting two very angry mobs -- that of fans and his own constituents -- and faces the unwelcome prospect of a credibility level synonymous with Harold Camping (you know, the rapture guy) the longer the lockout lingers.

Even a false prophet can see that coming.

gary
05-25-2011, 03:54 PM
NFL sees signs fans are turned off
By BARRY WILNER AP Pro Football Writer © 2011 The Associated Press


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/football/7581005.html#ixzz1NOWzwKFx

I found this "digression" somewhat interesting and humorous.Good read and count me in as one of those fans.

Double Barrel
05-25-2011, 05:42 PM
NFL sees signs fans are turned off
By BARRY WILNER AP Pro Football Writer © 2011 The Associated Press


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/football/7581005.html#ixzz1NOWzwKFx

I found this "digression" somewhat interesting and humorous.

Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:

"We're approaching 2011," Goodell added, "as we would any other season."

:strangle:

CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 07:03 PM
Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:

"We're approaching 2011," Goodell added, "as we would any other season."


:strangle:


"Tool" is certainly a kind description. Yea, "they" aren't on the field.........or in the "pay" seats.

CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 10:10 PM
The legal just got messier.

Citing job security, coaches side with players in labor dispute
By Albert Breer NFL Network
NFL Network Reporter

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief with the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, supporting the players' cause as the league appeals an injunction granted to lift the lockout.

The NFLCA's contention, as stated in the brief, is that the NFL "is attempting an end-run around a unanimous Supreme Court," saying that the court clearly stated the league is subject to the Sherman Act in the American Needle case last year and held it responsible for subsequent antitrust violations.

"To me, this is a real simple deal: Coaches are opposed to the lockout because it's negatively affecting coaches," said Larry Kennan, director of the NFL Coaches Association. "If it were a strike, we would be against the strike, like we were in '87. This just happens to be the owners, and we're opposed to them, because they're locking out. But if it was a strike, we'd be against the players."

The brief does not have the names of any current coaches attached to it.

"It's not something you need names to do," Kennan said. "We are by definition a friend of the court, we're telling the court we're doing this because we'd like the strike to end. It was never a requirement to put names on it."

Kennan confirmed that the association filed an AMICUS on American Needle. He also said that his belief is 10 to 12 teams have cut salary/benefits of coaches already.

The trade association representing the coaches went on to say that its members are suffering irreparable harm as part the lockout, now in its third month.

The brief reads: "Coaches who cannot produce immediate results suffer irreparable harm. They must uproot their families to seek employment elsewhere, and they have difficulty overcoming the perception of failure. The hours and effort demanded of assistant coaches are justified only by the prospect of lucrative and stable employment that follows proven success. Failure at an early stage of one's career, however, can falter career aspirations for many subsequent years."

In particular, the brief cited the NFL's eight new head coaches -- two of whom were promoted from positions as interim coaches -- as being in a particularly precarious situation.

Of those eight, only John Fox has previously been an NFL head coach, something that was also raised in the brief.

"To me, it's simple: The league mandated new coaches get an extra minicamp, because they realize they need extra time to get everything taught," Kennan said. "This is not the NFL of 20 years ago, where coaches have five years to get the program up and running. They have two or three years max, and then they're fired."

Kennan acknowledges there will be some "mixed emotions" among coaches regarding the association's decision.

"Some coaches will get nervous about it, most of them will probably be on teams not having salaries and benefits cut," Kennan said. "And those who are having those things cut will probably be more for us than against us. The reason we formed the coaches association is so we could speak with one voice, and guys didn't have to do that themselves."

The brief reads: "The lockout, if left in force, will prevent the coaches from meaningfully preparing and readying themselves for the season. While all coaches will be exposed to greater risk of failure, the eight teams with new coaching staffs are at particular risk. Since unforgiving expectations for immediate results will persist regardless of any lack of opportunity to prepare, these eight coaching staffs are losing irreplaceable time to prepare for a job that demands success.

"Thus, a lockout that prevents coaches from preparing their players for the season will inflict irreparable harm on all coaches; coaches on the eight new staffs -- especially the new assistant coaches on those staffs -- will suffer even greater harm that will be even more impossible to repair."

The coaches' brief also included charts showing an uptick in coaches fired after two and three years in an effort to show how important a single year with players can be.

From a legal standpoint, the NFLCA used the irreparable harm argument, as well as its stance on the Sherman Act and also the Norris-LaGuardia Act, to seek protection for its members as "nonunion employees."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello released a statement making it clear the league wasn't caught off guard by the Coaches Association's stance.

"The Coaches Association offices with the Players Association in Washington. So this comes as no surprise."

Kennan made it clear coaches just want to get back on the field.

"We want to get back to coaching; If there's a normalcy to coaching, we'd like that to return."

steelbtexan
05-25-2011, 11:13 PM
Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:



:strangle:

Yep

look at what has happened on his watch. He is ruining the game by changing the rules. His arrogance has greatly contributed to the current labor situation. He went around talking to the players about the pending lockout last TC. He couldn't even answer the players questions about what the owners wanted to avoid the lockout.

He's the most ineffective Comissioner in NFL history. But he still has managed to keep a significant amount of power. Instead of worrying about coming up with a solution to the lockout, he's more concerned about players hitting each other too hard. LOL This shows the fans where his heart is, and it sure isn't about what the majority of the fans want to see on a Sunday afternoon.

DonnyMost
05-26-2011, 09:15 AM
Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:



:strangle:

The NFL commissioner has always basically been a tool for the owners to use in regards to labor relations and PR.

But yeah, he needs to shut up.

drs23
05-26-2011, 10:08 AM
It appears that this would be basis upon the "revote" by the 3 justices for a "reversal."

Doc Jean, once again, thanks for posting a great read. I don't think this statement could be presented any better by any one. MSR

Double Barrel
05-26-2011, 11:54 AM
The legal just got messier.

Thanks for another great article! Very interesting development, too. I never saw this one coming, and it appears neither did the NFL and owners.

This part made me laugh, though, for oh-so-obvious reasons around these parts:

"To me, it's simple: The league mandated new coaches get an extra minicamp, because they realize they need extra time to get everything taught," Kennan said. "This is not the NFL of 20 years ago, where coaches have five years to get the program up and running. They have two or three years max, and then they're fired."

"Modern NFL to Bob McNair, come in Bob McNair"

<silence>

HoustonFrog
05-26-2011, 05:19 PM
Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:



:strangle:

Agree. I thought the guy was kind of cool at first with how he handled things but now you can see he just is in the pocket of owners and is clueless as to the repercussions of what is going on. I wish he would do one of those phone calls to a team's fans and they would go "Eff off, you are causing alot of this."

IDEXAN
05-26-2011, 05:46 PM
If my understanding is accurate which is that all legal appeals ultimately go thru the 8th Circuit Court which we've learned is very pro business/Repub/owners, why do the owners have a problem ?
Why would they not basically be in a good position from their perspective
anyway ? I mean I don't think anybody thought this would be resolved this quick did they ?

ArlingtonTexan
05-27-2011, 10:07 AM
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791867.0.pdf

owner's reply to player (may 21) brief

HoustonFrog
05-27-2011, 12:28 PM
Love this. I have said this all along...that the owners are full of it. I liked Brees before and I like him even more now. The guy is educated about what is out there and what the owners were doing long before this. I've heard some say this is classless but I think it is great

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/05/26/lockout/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin









Saints quarterback Drew Brees ponders the timeline and presents a different starting point for the league's first work stoppage in 24 years. It is Aug. 20, 2008, the day longtime union leader Gene Upshaw died of pancreatic cancer. Few people knew about Upshaw's illness, and his passing created a temporary void within the Players Association.





"Ever since Gene Upshaw passed away -- I'm just going to lay it all out there -- the owners saw blood in the water," Brees said Wednesday after a players-organized workout at Tulane University. "They felt like, 'This is our opportunity to take a significant piece of the [financial] pie back at all costs, a piece that we will never have to give back again. This is our chance, while they don't have leadership, while they're scrambling to find a new executive director. This is our time.'









"I can point to about five different things to prove to you that they were ready to lock us out. They opted out of the last year of the [CBA] deal; they hired Bob Batterman [who oversaw a lockout of NHL players]. They tried to take the American Needle case to the Supreme Court to basically give them an antitrust exemption or single-entity status, but were defeated 9-0; they established new TV deals to pay them in the event of a lockout, but we were able to put a freeze on that money because they did not negotiate in good faith and broke the law. And they had an internal NFL document that was leaked -- a decision tree -- that said smack dab in the middle of it 'financial needs in a lockout.' That was in 2008, OK? So you're telling me that they had no plans to lock us out and really wanted to get a deal done? I don't think so."













"Their philosophy was, We're going to give you a very subpar deal, a slap-in-the-face deal, and hope that you'll accept it because hopefully we've intimidated you enough into thinking that this is a take-it-or-leave-it deal, and you're just going to succumb to the pressure," he said. "Well, guess what. We're a lot more informed and educated than in the past, and we're much better businessmen than you think and we're going to stand up for what is right and what is fair. Fifty-fifty is fair. It's been fair for the last 20 years and I think the game has done pretty well over the last 20 years. I think franchise values have gone up at a pretty good rate over the last 20 years. So you can't sit here and tell me that the system is broken."

Double Barrel
05-27-2011, 01:21 PM
Love this. I have said this all along...that the owners are full of it. I liked Brees before and I like him even more now. The guy is educated about what is out there and what the owners were doing long before this. I've heard some say this is classless but I think it is great

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/05/26/lockout/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin


After reading that very informative article, I don't know how any fan can be on the owners' side in this lock out. It is clear that the owners have been planning this for years, and they never had any intentions of getting a deal done. Owners are clearly willing to sacrifice football at the alter of their greed. Friggin' bourgeoisie jerkoffs.

Señor Stan
05-27-2011, 01:38 PM
Jerry Richardson said it best

“We signed a [expletive] deal last time and we’re going to stick together and take back our league and [expletive] do something about it.”

Screw the owners. The article is spot on. They have had this planned for years.

b0ng
05-27-2011, 05:49 PM
The legal just got messier.

Unfortunately the 8th circuit can (and will) completely ignore probably any amicus briefs posted on either side. It was nice to read the NFL's arguments get shredded from all sides (NHL, NBA players, NFL coaches, fans).

CloakNNNdagger
05-27-2011, 07:27 PM
Love this. I have said this all along...that the owners are full of it. I liked Brees before and I like him even more now. The guy is educated about what is out there and what the owners were doing long before this. I've heard some say this is classless but I think it is great

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/05/26/lockout/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin


Their philosophy was, We're going to give you a very subpar deal, a slap-in-the-face deal, and hope that you'll accept it because hopefully we've intimidated you enough into thinking that this is a take-it-or-leave-it deal, and you're just going to succumb to the pressure," he said. "Well, guess what. We're a lot more informed and educated than in the past, and we're much better businessmen than you think and we're going to stand up for what is right and what is fair.

Sounds like what attitude that the owners are taking with season ticket holders here and elsewhere. See:http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1704792&postcount=25

DonnyMost
05-28-2011, 09:14 AM
the Dolphins' owner, Stephen Ross, needs a boot in his ass.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/110527&sportCat=nfl

CloakNNNdagger
05-28-2011, 05:54 PM
A 3 page article of "What if?" in the New York Times.

NFL Labor: Player strength is in their unity, but solidarity likely to be tested as lockout drags on (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/05/28/2011-05-28_nfl_labor_player_strength_is_in_their_unity_but _solidarity_likely_to_be_tested_a.html?r=sports)

CloakNNNdagger
05-31-2011, 09:14 PM
Lots of different perspectives from and towards these million dollar "slaves."


As NFL Lockout Continues, Players' Thoughts Turn to Contracts, Injuries and 'Modern-Day Slavery' (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/05/31/frustrations-nfls-lock-prompted-controversial-remarks/#ixzz1NyySaccq)

HOU-TEX
06-02-2011, 11:09 AM
On a positive note: The NFL and NFLPA Reps held a secret meeting in Chicago yesterday. NO LAWYERS were present. That in itself sounds like they might want to get something done. Unless I'm really off-base.

Those attending the meeting per Schefter Twitter

NFLPA reps at secret Chicago meeting: De Smith, Kevin Mawae, Mike Vrabel, Jeff Saturday and more. But other than Smith, NO lawyers

NFL reps at secret Chicago meeting: Roger Goodell, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson, Robert Kraft, John Mara, Art Rooney.

HOU-TEX
06-02-2011, 03:45 PM
Maybe ICak or somebody can tell us if this is a good thing or not?

Per Albert Breer Twitter:

Just got to my hotel room ... Read the court filing on next week's mediation being cancelled. Wording is interesting, to say the least.

It reads ... "Whereas, The Court has been engaged in confidential settlement discussions involving the above captioned matter ..."

(cont): "... it deems it appropriate to cancel the mediation session previously scheduled in Minneapolis for June 7 and June 8."

keyser
06-02-2011, 04:04 PM
I got my hopes up hearing this, but from the ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6618259) is this quote:
One source said any potential deal still was a ways away; however, the hope would be that the two sides could reach an agreement sooner rather than later, potentially even later this month.


That seems to indicate this was just another not-too-productive meeting, rather than any real breakthrough.

steelbtexan
06-02-2011, 04:13 PM
On a positive note: The NFL and NFLPA Reps held a secret meeting in Chicago yesterday. NO LAWYERS were present. That in itself sounds like they might want to get something done. Unless I'm really off-base.

Those attending the meeting per Schefter Twitter

Pardon me sn't De Smith a lawyer?

Didn't he work for Eric Holder at the DOJ ?

The owners are wrong in this deal. But there's something sleazy about Smith. IMHO

CloakNNNdagger
06-02-2011, 04:34 PM
Next week’s mediation session has been canceled (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/02/next-weeks-mediation-session-has-been-canceled/)
Posted by Mike Florio on June 2, 2011, 3:40 PM EDT


After the NFL and the NFLPA* spent two days engaged in not-so-secret settlement talks in Chicago, the federal court in Minnesota has canceled formal mediation scheduled to reconvene on June 7.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the cancellation has indeed occurred, with the federal court explaining that “it is engaged in confidential settlement talks with the parties.”

This could mean that communications will continue, either in person or via other means, into next week and beyond.

It makes sense for the mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, to push the parties to try to settle the case now, before the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling on whether the lockout will be lifted. After a final ruling is issued, one side will have a lot more leverage. For now, the uncertainty can be used by both sides to strike a win-win deal.

That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.

rmartin65
06-02-2011, 04:37 PM
I am getting ready for a lost season. I had been saving money for NFL Sunday ticket, but unless the deal gets struck in the next week, I am paying for the NHL package instead. The NFL, and everyone involved in this lockout deserve to lose money. This is beyond asinine, and the people in charge need to know that WE know.

The NFL will not get any more of my money for a long, long time if the lockout is not lifted soon.

CloakNNNdagger
06-02-2011, 04:43 PM
From USA TODAY:

The basics: Attorneys representing the NFL and the class of NFL players will have 30 minutes each to present oral arguments before Judges Duane Benton, Kermit Bye and Steven Colloton, who will issue a verdict based on a majority vote. In ordering a stay that has kept the lockout in effect, Bye dissented. It is unclear when the judges will rule. Some legal experts reason that given the high-profile ramifications of the case, a verdict could be handed down in a week or 10 days. But it's also possible the verdict won't come until July.

At issue: The NFL is seeking legal footing to continue the lockout, and to a larger degree have the antitrust merits of the case dismissed. Players seek to end the lockout and maintain options to pursue their case on antitrust grounds.

Potential impact: Both sides have maintained that their aim is to strike a deal that settles the labor dispute, yet leverage for negotiations swings in the balance of the court decision. It's also possible that the appeal can be appealed -- and heard before the entire panel of 11 judges for the Eighth Circuit. It is more likely that a ruling will spur movement in negotiations as legal questions are answered.

CloakNNNdagger
06-02-2011, 04:56 PM
I guess Stretch is telling us that the NFL and the players are cheating, because we all know if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying.:cool:

@BradBiggs
Brad Biggs


Jerry Jones: “We’re trying. I think the fact that we’re meeting is good.”
2 hours ago via web

Allstar
06-02-2011, 06:04 PM
The hearing is this friday, correct?

CloakNNNdagger
06-02-2011, 06:49 PM
The hearing is this friday, correct?

Yes, but there decision may come as early as 7-10 days or as late as sometime in July.

CloakNNNdagger
06-02-2011, 07:05 PM
Pardon me sn't De Smith a lawyer?

Didn't he work for Eric Holder at the DOJ ?

The owners are wrong in this deal. But there's something sleazy about Smith. IMHO

To followup on Steelbtexan's statement. Virtually every source on this latest story refers to "NO LAWYERS" being present.

From latest PFT piece:

League, NFLPA* issue joint statement on not-so-secret talks
Posted by Mike Florio on June 2, 2011, 2:41 PM EDT

What initially appeared to be a clandestine meeting of a subset of owners but then became a secret NFL-NFLPA* negotiating session eventually has become an off-site mediation gathering prompted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

The league and the union-turned-trade-association issued a joint statement on Thursday regarding the situation: “The parties met pursuant to court mediation. Owners and players were engaged in confidential discussions before Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan. The court has ordered continued confidentiality of the mediation sessions.”

Thus, given that Magistrate Judge Boylan instigated the talks, the only truly good news to come out of the two-day get-together comes from the fact that the lawyers were left out of the process.Whether the lawyers return when mediation resumes remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether any real progress has been made. Hopefully, the lawyers have been excluded from the process until the time comes to put the “wherefores” and “heretofores” into a written settlement agreement.

Still, the fact that the parties didn’t agree to these talks on their own makes us much less optimistic about the possibility that the concrete blocks of an eventual house of labor peace have been dropped into place.




From Wikipedia: DeMaurice F. Smith

Prior to his [NFPA] election, he was a trial lawyer and litigation partner in the Washington, DC offices of law firms Patton Boggs, LLP and Latham & Watkins LLP. In private practice, he represented Fortune 500 companies in criminal and complex civil cases, compliance matters, and internal investigations. He has argued numerous cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Smith previously served as Counsel to then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder in the U.S. Department of Justice before entering private practice. His duties revolved around national security issues, congressional relations, and DOJ budget and finance allocation.

He served in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for ten years where he held senior positions in the Violent Crime and Transnational and Major Crime Sections. He prosecuted more than 80 jury trials and handled some of the most significant homicide, narcotics and white collar investigations in the history of that office.

Smith is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, has served on the Board of Governors of the D.C. Bar Association, and is the former president of the Assistant United States Attorney’s Association. He is also a member of the Board of Advisors for the Office for Access and Advancement for Public Black Universities of the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. He is a recipient of the United States Attorney Generals Award, the John Evans Trial Advocacy Award from the United States Attorney’s Association, and the 2010 Cedarville College Alumnus of the Year Award. He was also honored as a recipient of the Keeper of the Dream Award by the National Action Network and named one of the Top Ten Most Influential Persons by the Sports Business Journal. He was inducted into the Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges’ Hall of Excellence in 2010, and was the 2011 Commencement Speaker at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

Naaaaah, Smith's not an involved LAWYER................:thinking:

CloakNNNdagger
06-02-2011, 09:43 PM
The myth of "NO LAWYERS INVOLVED" continues to be propagated.........even by Florio, an attorney himself.

Keeping the lawyers out will be the key to progress (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/02/keeping-the-lawyers-out-will-be-the-key-to-progress/)

drs23
06-02-2011, 10:04 PM
The myth of "NO LAYERS INVOLVED" continues to be propagated.........even by Florio, an attorney himself.

Keeping the lawyers out will be the key to progress (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/02/keeping-the-lawyers-out-will-be-the-key-to-progress/)

If that's true and factual then great news. Are we READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL? I really hope so.

b0ng
06-02-2011, 11:40 PM
I'd say it's the most encouraging news we've had in the last few days than we've had in 2 years.

TEXANRED
06-03-2011, 07:58 AM
The myth of "NO LAWYERS INVOLVED" continues to be propagated.........even by Florio, an attorney himself.

Keeping the lawyers out will be the key to progress (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/02/keeping-the-lawyers-out-will-be-the-key-to-progress/)

I had a buddy of mine who said that his divorce took forever to finalize until he told his lawyers there was no more money to be had. After that the lawyers couldn't find any reason to hold up the divorce proceedings and it became final.

Funny how that works.

Tailgate
06-03-2011, 10:05 AM
After being sent out of the room for two days of not-so-secret mediation talks in Chicago, the lawyers are back, with a billable-hour vengeance.

Today, in St. Louis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will take up the question of whether Judge Susan Nelson’s order lifting the lockout will be upheld or overturned. Specifically, the three-judge panel will hear oral arguments from the lawyers. And even though the entire process has been expedited, don’t except a Judge Wapner-style “I’ll be back in five minutes” decision. Chances are it’ll be at least a week and as long as a month before the judges issue their ruling.

With two of the three judges leaning in the NFL’s favor and one judge apparently poised to rule for the players, there’s a belief that the final outcome will result in the lockout remaining in place. But the questions posed by the two judges (Colloton and Benton) who are perceived to be willing to let the lockout stand could shed light on whether one of them is having serious doubts about his “serious doubts.” If so, that could give the owners even more reason to try to work out a new labor deal before the Eighth Circuit rules.

Regardless of the outcome (assuming a settlement isn’t reached), the loser will appeal to the full Eighth Circuit court for a rehearing “en banc.” (“Why would they do it in a bank instead of in a courtroom?”) Then, the loser will undoubtedly file a petition with the Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court agrees to consider only a fraction of the petitions it receives.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/nfl-legal-fight-centers-on-st-louis-today/

b0ng
06-03-2011, 12:29 PM
Mike Florio is a ****ing terrible writer in general with almost everything I've read by him. He really gives very little information in the articles he publishes.

gary
06-03-2011, 12:42 PM
This is a mess the court might not even rule on this until next month and then still side with the owners.

ArlingtonTexan
06-03-2011, 01:12 PM
This is a mess the court might not even rule on this until next month and then still side with the owners.

The oral arguments started and ended today. The judge is stating that more than likely neither side will really like the ruling. More details will continuw to leak out over the day.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/oral-arguments-end-judge-encourages-sides-to-negotiate/

Thorn
06-03-2011, 01:21 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/oral-arguments-end-judge-encourages-sides-to-negotiate/


From the comments section, I like this one.


My guess they rule “both sides have been determined to be idiotic, therefore the court will not rule on this matter. Negotiate your own damn cba and quit wasting time and tax dollars.” Bet neither side likes that.

Double Barrel
06-03-2011, 01:23 PM
I have no optimism that a deal is getting done right now. It will take the real threat of a lost season and lost income for the players to finally cave to the owner's greed...errrr....demands.

gary
06-03-2011, 01:30 PM
What would be a ruling that neither side would like?

b0ng
06-03-2011, 02:00 PM
What would be a ruling that neither side would like?

They throw everybody in jail for being assholes?

gary
06-03-2011, 02:08 PM
They throw everybody in jail for being assholes?I guess but really any ruling which upholds the lockout the owners would like.

DonnyMost
06-03-2011, 02:45 PM
I have no optimism that a deal is getting done right now. It will take the real threat of a lost season and lost income for the players to finally cave to the owner's greed...errrr....demands.

Basically, this is going to boil down to an old fashioned war of attrition.

Owners will win unless the court decides what they're doing is illegal (which it probably is, depending on which judge you ask)

Double Barrel
06-03-2011, 04:41 PM
Basically, this is going to boil down to an old fashioned war of attrition.

Owners will win unless the court decides what they're doing is illegal (which it probably is, depending on which judge you ask)

yep, I agree completely. The owners are much better prepared for a war of attrition, and that alone tells me that it's just a matter of time before the players finally cave.

Hopefully they realize this well before September 11!

ArlingtonTexan
06-03-2011, 06:45 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/06/03/nfl-hearing/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a0

What was learned from today's court case according sports illustrated.

GP
06-03-2011, 06:57 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/06/03/nfl-hearing/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a0

What was learned from today's court case according sports illustrated.

Thanks, AT.

I skimmed the bolded headlines of that article, and I appreciate you posting it here.

CloakNNNdagger
06-03-2011, 10:01 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/nfl-legal-fight-centers-on-st-louis-today/

Regardless of the outcome (assuming a settlement isn’t reached), the loser will appeal to the full Eighth Circuit court for a rehearing “en banc.” (“Why would they do it in a bank instead of in a courtroom?”) Then, the loser will undoubtedly file a petition with the Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court agrees to consider only a fraction of the petitions it receives.

...........and from what I remember, fans may be waiting forever, since the Supreme Court is not mandated to respond to appeals at all.........nor tell you if they intend to or not.:cool:

CloakNNNdagger
06-03-2011, 10:12 PM
Report: Owners made concessions during recent talks (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/report-owners-made-concessions-during-recent-talks/)


Though the reality of oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has interrupted the fantasy of a labor deal being secretly negotiated amid boxes of deep dish pizza (eaten, of course, with plastic utensils), our buddy Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com reports that the owners made concessions during the two days of not-so-secret meetings in Chicago.

Freeman writes that “[n]o one will say exactly what the concessions are but significant ones have been made and the players believe they are genuine.” Freeman speculates that the owners are “continuing to come down significantly” from the demand that the owners receive another $1 billion off the top (in addition to the original $1 billion) before application of the 59.6-percent formula. “The players always believed this was an outrageous demand and the players were right,” Freeman says.

Though it’s possible that the talks have reverted to the 2006 formula, which is based on money off the top with the players getting nearly 60 percent of the remainder, the March 11 offer from the NFL reflected the new formula the two sides had been discussing — a “pegged cap” based on specific team-by-team salary cap numbers each and every season, with the players also wanting to share in any money over and above the projections on which the predetermined cap numbers were based.

The concept of the “true up” has been the sticking point, with the players interpreting the absence of a true up provision in the March 11 offer as an indication that the league won’t share any of the excess, and with the league assuming that a response from the players (which to date hasn’t come) would include a proposal regarding the true up.

Regardless of the specific formula used, the heart of the dispute centers on the players’ belief that they should forever receive 50 cents of every dollar of revenue generated, regardless of the total dollars of revenue generated. The owners believe that, as the total dollars pass $10 billion per year and commence the inevitable climb toward $20 billion, the players should take a smaller piece of this perpetually growing pie.

Perhaps the owners are now willing to keep that number closer to 50 percent than 40 percent. One way or the other, Freeman’s report suggests that something has happened to get the players’ attention. With money being the primary issue in dispute, it’s safe to say that something had something to do with the manner in which the money will be shared.

gary
06-03-2011, 10:51 PM
Except for greed I don't see why they can't just split the money half and half.

CloakNNNdagger
06-04-2011, 07:27 AM
Deciphering Judge Bye’s warning to the NFL, players (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/deciphering-judge-byes-warning-to-the-nfl-players/)

So what did Judge Kermit Bye mean when he told the lawyers for the NFL and the players at the end of Friday’s hearing that they should try to settle the case and that, if a ruling is issued, “it’s probably something both sides are not going to like”? I had nearly three hours at another youth baseball game (Team PFT won by a football score of 14-3) to ponder Judge Bye’s words, and I’m now prepared to engage in some official speculation.

It could simply be an idle remark aimed at getting the NFL to think that there’s a way Judge Bye, who by all appearances favors the players’ position, could persuade Judge Benton and/or Judge Colloton to agree to a Solomon-style splitting of the baby. If Judge Benton and Judge Colloton plan to rule that the lockout should remain in place, nothing Judge Bye says matters.

In the event that the judges have been talking about the case and thinking of solutions that could leave each side feeling like it lost, one possibility would be to rule that the lockout can be lifted, but that Judge Nelson should have conducted a full-blown hearing on the question of whether the players are suffering irreparable harm (i.e., damages that can’t be later compensated with a monetary verdict). This would ping-pong the case back to Minnesota, with plenty of time and money devoted to proving (or, from the NFL’s perspective, disproving) that the players’ injuries can’t be cured with cash. In turn, a thick layer of uncertainty would be added to the process, which would make a settlement even more wise.

Another possibility, as Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal pointed out earlier tonight on Twitter, the Eighth Circuit could rule that the lockout can stay in place for only six months. Such an outcome would flow from the provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that permits an antitrust lawsuit to be filed six months after the labor deal expires. Several questions during Friday’s hearing addressed that point, and it’s possible that Judge Colloton and/or Judge Benton could conclude that a post-CBA lockout can last, but for the agreed-to period of six months.

Either way, Judge Bye’s words give the NFL good reason not to presume that the lockout will be allowed to continue, if the case isn’t settled before the Eighth Circuit decides that the calendar says “due course.” Since no one knows when “due course” will arrive, it makes sense for the parties to continue to negotiate continuously, aggressively, and in good faith.

CloakNNNdagger
06-04-2011, 08:51 PM
The oral arguments started and ended today. The judge is stating that more than likely neither side will really like the ruling. More details will continuw to leak out over the day.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/oral-arguments-end-judge-encourages-sides-to-negotiate/

AT,

It seems that all the media are interpretting the judge's statement as meaning that if left up to the circuit court, "neither side will really like the ruling."

I could be wrong. But the more I think about it and carefully reread the judge's statement verbatim, I believe that he could have very well meant that one party or the other will come out of it as quite unhappy with the ruling............in other words they are playing a game of Russian roulette each side banking that that they will prevail........not thinking that they can lose and the consequences that accompany it.


“We will take this case and render a decision in due course,” Bye said before making a pointed push for the sides to work out the problem. “We won’t, I might also say, be all that hurt that you’re leaving us out if you should go out and settle the case. But that’s up to you. But we will keep with our business and if that ends up with a decision, it’s probably something both sides are not going to like but at least it will be a decision.”


With a formal circuit court decision, one side is going to like it and the other won't...........i.e., both sides are not going to like the decision.:thinking:

Allstar
06-05-2011, 02:06 AM
AT,

It seems that all the media are interpretting the judge's statement as meaning that if left up to the circuit court, "neither side will really like the ruling."

I could be wrong. But the more I think about it and carefully reread the judge's statement verbatim, I believe that he could have very well meant that one party or the other will come out of it as quite unhappy with the ruling............in other words they are playing a game of Russian roulette each side banking that that they will prevail........not thinking that they can lose and the consequences that accompany it.





With a formal circuit court decision, one side is going to like it and the other won't...........i.e., both sides are not going to like the decision.:thinking:

That's a good point.

Showtime100
06-05-2011, 02:46 AM
I've had enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4e3-YK3rVA

Damn it. Enough.

I can't think of a better analogy. :cowboy1:

CloakNNNdagger
06-05-2011, 09:05 AM
I've had enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4e3-YK3rVA

Damn it. Enough.

I can't think of a better analogy. :cowboy1:

Rep coming your way.

CloakNNNdagger
06-07-2011, 07:04 AM
NFL files motion to dismiss Brady case (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/06/nfl-files-motion-to-dismiss-brady-case/)
The NFL wanted another month to respond to the complaint filed by Tom Brady and nine other players on March 11, the day the NFLPA decertified and launched a legal strategy aimed at lifting the lockout and/or giving the players leverage via the antitrust laws. In the end, the NFL was required to respond today.

The NFL exercised its option to file a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety, a move that isn’t surprising under the circumstances. We’re in the process of tracking down the full-blown legal brief, but we anticipate based on the two-page motion that the NFL will reiterate some of its key arguments against the lifting of the lockout: (1) the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents an order ending any lockout or strike arising from a labor dispute; (2) the non-statutory antitrust exemption continues to apply for at least a year after expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (3) the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham; and (4) the NLRB has primary jurisdiction on the question of whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the motion has been set for a hearing in September. Look for the players to file a motion for summary judgment with a request that it be heard at the same time, with the September hearing then morphing into an effort by both sides to win the case on the merits.Let’s hope that hearing never happens.

disaacks3
06-07-2011, 02:51 PM
the NFL will reiterate some of its key arguments against the lifting of the lockout: (1) the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents an order ending any lockout or strike arising from a labor dispute; (2) the non-statutory antitrust exemption continues to apply for at least a year after expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (3) the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham; and (4) the NLRB has primary jurisdiction on the question of whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham.

1) Fine, the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the Feds getting involved (unless they're Federalized employees - see Railroad Act). I disagree, but I can see their point. This bears ZERO relation to any anti-trust issues. Those are fully in the realm of the Federal courts.

2) I'm still trying to figure out where they're pulling this idea from. Either you're secure from these claims under a CBA, or you're not. (Somebody find me plain language 1-yr exemption somewhere will ya'?)

3) OK, this one just plain pisses me off. The NFL, in no uncertain terms AGREED IN WRITING (as part of the former CBA) that they would NOT claim that any future de-certification was "a sham". Talk out of both sides of your mouth much fellas?

4) They might get this agreed to, but...the NFL should have no legal standing (by contractual agreement) to make the claim themselves.

HOU-TEX
06-07-2011, 05:59 PM
Per Albert Breer's Twitter

Filed to NFL Network: Players, owners resumed talks today at an undisclosed location. Story coming on NFL.com.

Corrosion
06-07-2011, 08:35 PM
1) Fine, the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the Feds getting involved (unless they're Federalized employees - see Railroad Act). I disagree, but I can see their point. This bears ZERO relation to any anti-trust issues. Those are fully in the realm of the Federal courts.

2) I'm still trying to figure out where they're pulling this idea from. Either you're secure from these claims under a CBA, or you're not. (Somebody find me plain language 1-yr exemption somewhere will ya'?)

3) OK, this one just plain pisses me off. The NFL, in no uncertain terms AGREED IN WRITING (as part of the former CBA) that they would NOT claim that any future de-certification was "a sham". Talk out of both sides of your mouth much fellas?

4) They might get this agreed to, but...the NFL should have no legal standing (by contractual agreement) to make the claim themselves.

Decertification was a sham when you get right down to it. The players want the best of both worlds and as soon as this mess is over they will again consider themselves a union. It might be legal but .... its a crock of shit. Either you are a union or you arent. They shouldnt be allowed to simply decertify to get what they want then recertify once the objective is complete. Im kinda shocked the courts allow this to be honest.


Either way , we are talking about a $9billion FAN DRIVEN industry and right now its the fans who are getting the shaft. These millionaires and billionaires need to get their shit together and remember who butters their bread .... I almost hope it ruins them all or at least cuts revenues in half for the next decade.

No football sucks. The Astro's sucking two teams I detest in the NBA finals and no football makes matters worse. :texanbill:

disaacks3
06-07-2011, 09:27 PM
Decertification was a sham when you get right down to it. The players want the best of both worlds and as soon as this mess is over they will again consider themselves a union. It might be legal but .... its a crock of shit. Either you are a union or you arent. They shouldnt be allowed to simply decertify to get what they want then recertify once the objective is complete. Im kinda shocked the courts allow this to be honest.


Either way , we are talking about a $9billion FAN DRIVEN industry and right now its the fans who are getting the shaft. These millionaires and billionaires need to get their shit together and remember who butters their bread .... I almost hope it ruins them all or at least cuts revenues in half for the next decade.

No football sucks. The Astro's sucking two teams I detest in the NBA finals and no football makes matters worse. :texanbill:

I think you're looking at it backwards. Anti-trust is how it works in every other kind of business from Microsoft to McDonalds. It's the OWNERS who were granted an Anti-trust exemption ONLY due to a CBA being in place. Those owners, who themselves opted-out of their agreement, are the ones wanting it BOTH ways. The players would NEVER have agreed to the old CBA without that clause. The owners are the ones who agreed to it (to avoid anti-trust issues).

IMHO - They need to either play by the rules they agreed to, or get treated like every other business.

Lucky
06-07-2011, 09:29 PM
The players want the best of both worlds and as soon as this mess is over they will again consider themselves a union. It might be legal but .... its a crock of shit.
The owners need the players unionized much more than the players need to be unionized. Both sides know this, and that's why decertification is an outstanding ploy by the players.

Why doesn't the NFL allow all players to enter the league as free agents and allow the teams to pay what they want on an open market? That sounds fair to everyone, right? The reason is that they cannon trust themselves, allowing that some teams will overspend and others will overspend. The CBA keeps the ownerships in check and produces an even playing field. And keeps the player costs known. It's the league that needs this CBA.

JimBaker488
06-07-2011, 11:04 PM
Doesn't the cap which which puts the same ceiling on what every team can spend for players make the players union a redundancy in terms of teams overspending for their players ?

GP
06-07-2011, 11:29 PM
Per Albert Breer's Twitter

Here's some twitter feeds on espn.go.com that are somewhat encouraging:

link to page (http://espn.go.com/nfl/) (look at the lefthand side of the page where the twitter feed resides)


@mortreport RT @gbl1986: @mortreport it's nice that NFL talks are heating up but well we have season?

Mort replied: "Sure. Full season. Staying consistent on that"

-----------------------------

@mortreport RT @Presto9804: @mortreport When do you think the lockout will end? #NFL

Mort replied: "[l'm also going to stay consistent on my prediction that it ends] no later than June 30-July 4. Maybe sooner"

FYI: I added the text in the [ ] brackets for clarification because he had put "Also consistent" which I felt was confusing by itself.

-----------------------------

@mortreport RT @leegoettl: @mortreport everything you're writing is coming off a bit sarcastic. Intended?

Mort replied: "No. They are not that far apart on issues"

Corrosion
06-08-2011, 12:06 AM
The owners need the players unionized much more than the players need to be unionized. Both sides know this, and that's why decertification is an outstanding ploy by the players.

Why doesn't the NFL allow all players to enter the league as free agents and allow the teams to pay what they want on an open market? That sounds fair to everyone, right? The reason is that they cannon trust themselves, allowing that some teams will overspend and others will overspend. The CBA keeps the ownerships in check and produces an even playing field. And keeps the player costs known. It's the league that needs this CBA.

Sure , but the owners could sanction themselves and keep the league on even footing without the players being unionized - they could set cap restrictions with or without.
Some wouldnt want this as they have more to spend but the majority would want revenue sharing and the cap to remain in place. They know all too well what would happen without those restrictions , salaries would skyrocket and they would likely price themselves out of the market of even more fans with increased prices. Thats not a good business model - they may want to win but few want that at all costs.

HoustonFrog
06-08-2011, 12:57 PM
Just heard this from another site

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211834

Boomer Easison, ex NFL Quarterback who co-hosts a morning sports program on WFAN radio program out of New York, stated this morning that he is very confident that a deal is close because he has talked too a couple of sources with INTIMATE knowledge in the meetings that he trusts that a deal between the owners and players is 80-85% complete with regards to the major issues and that there will be an 18 game season but not right away. He said a deal will be done soon....

gary
06-08-2011, 01:24 PM
Just heard this from another site

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211834Fingers crossed.

rmartin65
06-08-2011, 01:59 PM
I would rather lose the season than see a future 18 game season. The season already is a game of attrition, and it will only get worse with a longer season.

gary
06-08-2011, 02:02 PM
I would rather lose the season than see a future 18 game season. The season already is a game of attrition, and it will only get worse with a longer season.I think the players just want to earn money once again.

badboy
06-08-2011, 02:18 PM
Just heard this from another site

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211834On a similar note the Palestinians and Israelis have hinted that they have agreed on 85% of their negotiations and Jimmy Carter said it's close, very close. He had little to say about his nomination for the Nobel Peace prize. In other world events....

TEXANRED
06-08-2011, 05:42 PM
Fingers crossed.

What are you doing on the Cowboys website?:vincepalm:

GP
06-08-2011, 06:23 PM
RT @littlebri88 what is your view of NFL now? more optimistic? about 2 hours ago

@adbrandt REPLIED: Yes, more realization of economic harm ahead for both sides.

------------------------

@adbrandt TWEETED: Not-so-secret-non-mediated-no-lawyer-confidential meetings continue between NFL Owners and Players. Translation: hope for a CBA floats. about 2 hours ago

RT @alanfredffb ASKS adbrandt: Does "no lawyers" mean that DeMaurice Smith is not there? about 2 hours ago

@adbrandt REPLIED: No, he's there. Lone lawyer.

------------------------

@mortreport TWEETED: Eventually attorneys will get involved if/when there is an agreement. Drafting any agreement could be time-consuming so sooner the better. about 3 hours ago

------------------------

@mortreport TWEETED: And the good news remains that discussions will continue and no attorneys present (except for De Smith). about 3 hours ago

------------------------

@mortreport RT @gregaiello: NFL-NFLPA Statement (continued): "Those discussions will continue.” End of statement.

HoustonFrog
06-10-2011, 09:13 AM
http://twitter.com/#!/LanceZierlein

LanceZierlein Lance Zierlein
The #NFL #Lockout could be over sooner than you think. Two sources optomistic about starting the season on time: http://bit.ly/k4lweH

http://blog.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2011/06/according-to-a-couple-of-sources-nfl-lockout-could-be-over-sooner-than-you-think/

According to a couple of sources, NFL lockout could be over sooner than you think
After reading a report from an online newspaper that an agreement had been reached and that the NFL lockout was likely over, I decided to call a couple of league sources (both on the players’ side) to find out whether or not they knew if there was any truth to this report. The first source said that the report was impossible because the players hadn’t been asked to vote on any new proposal. However, there was also some very good news.

After lengthy discussions with both sources, they both conveyed to me a great deal of hope that a deal would be done by July and possibly as early as late June. Why the sudden optimism? According to one of the sources, “both sides are focusing on the percentage of total revenue coming in (would include the first $1 billion the owners are currently taking off the top) and if that deal gets done, the other issues will probably fall into place fairly quickly according to what I’m hearing.”

gtexan02
06-10-2011, 09:17 AM
I would rather lose the season than see a future 18 game season. The season already is a game of attrition, and it will only get worse with a longer season.

You'd rather have no football than an 18 game season!?

Thorn
06-10-2011, 09:23 AM
You'd rather have no football than an 18 game season!?

I think we're going to see the 18 game season eventually. I don't like it, but as long as they add in another bye week (perhaps even three bye weeks a season) and expand the roster it would help some to mitigate the injury issue that will rise from the expanded season.

Just count me in with the crowd that is against the 18 game season.

rmartin65
06-10-2011, 09:34 AM
You'd rather have no football than an 18 game season!?

If losing this season would prevent a future of 18 game seasons, then yes. I am vehemently opposed to 18 game seasons.

The 3 main reasons:

1) They are too long- injuries will become far more prevalent

2) It will not reduce cost to fans- they will just add game rates to the 2 extra games

3) Historical stats become meaningless- by adding 2 games a season, you are adding a season for every 8 years a player plays, even more when compared to older generations.

disaacks3
06-10-2011, 09:57 AM
If losing this season would prevent a future of 18 game seasons, then yes. I am vehemently opposed to 18 game seasons.

The 3 main reasons:

1) They are too long- injuries will become far more prevalent

2) It will not reduce cost to fans- they will just add game rates to the 2 extra games

3) Historical stats become meaningless- by adding 2 games a season, you are adding a season for every 8 years a player plays, even more when compared to older generations.

1) I agree, that's why they'll need expanded rosters.

2) They weren't changing the overall number of games (20), just dropping two pre-season games.

3) Very true, then again, the same thing happened when they increased from 14 games.

FirstTexansFan
06-10-2011, 10:00 AM
I could care less how many games they extend the season... heck, lets make it a year round season, football 52 times a year :kitten:

gtexan02
06-10-2011, 10:03 AM
Heres how I feel:

1) They are too long- injuries will become far more prevalent

Teams that make it to the playoffs regularly play an extra 1-4 games over teams that don't make the playoffs. Unless you have stats that show otherwise, I have yet to see any definitive evidence that teams that regularly make the playoffs have any negative uptick in injuries compared to teams that regularly miss the playoffs.

Players regularly get hurt in preseason games, and its my understanding that we will be losing some of those in order to add the extra 2 games, so it should be a net wash.


2) It will not reduce cost to fans- they will just add game rates to the 2 extra games

Fans have to pay full season prices to watch preseason garbage games. I'd much rather pay for a regular season game than a preseason game. 8 games a year is nothing compared to any other sport. 9 games is not going to break many fans budgets.


3) Historical stats become meaningless- by adding 2 games a season, you are adding a season for every 8 years a player plays, even more when compared to older generations.


In 1935 there were 12 games.
In 1943 there were 10.
From 1961 to 1977 there were 14.
It wasn't until '78 that we had a 16 game season.


The game evolves and the number of games changes. Its never been a problem with historical stats before, it shouldn't matter now either.

rmartin65
06-10-2011, 10:04 AM
1) I agree, that's why they'll need expanded rosters.

2) They weren't changing the overall number of games (20), just dropping two pre-season games.

3) Very true, then again, the same thing happened when they increased from 14 games.

But do we really want to see shoddier football? If the stars get injured, it will be scrubs playing.

Do you normally pay full price for pre-season games? Legitimate question.

True, but that does not mean I like this one.

disaacks3
06-10-2011, 11:31 AM
But do we really want to see shoddier football? If the stars get injured, it will be scrubs playing.

Do you normally pay full price for pre-season games? Legitimate question.

True, but that does not mean I like this one.

We get injuries every year, there's always some scrub playing, whether it's a QB or an OL.

Yes, Pre-Season games are FULL price. I pay for 10 games every year, it's just that 2 of them don't count right now.

Double Barrel
06-10-2011, 11:43 AM
18 game season + franchise expansion (both a matter of time) = watered down product

Then, add the increasing "safety rules" that are becoming more and more prevalent, and this ain't your dad's NFL!

Predicting trends, I can see myself eventually disinterested in the sport. Which is sad, but it's just not going to be the same football that I fell in love with as a kid.

But it is what it is. For every dude getting older like me, they have several younger fans to replace me. The league will continue whether I watch it or not.

gtexan02
06-10-2011, 11:48 AM
18 game season + franchise expansion (both a matter of time) = watered down product

Then, add the increasing "safety rules" that are becoming more and more prevalent, and this ain't your dad's NFL!

Predicting trends, I can see myself eventually disinterested in the sport. Which is sad, but it's just not going to be the same football that I fell in love with as a kid.

But it is what it is. For every dude getting older like me, they have several younger fans to replace me. The league will continue whether I watch it or not.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, do you really believe that the league is a less competitive watered down version of what it was 30-40 years ago?

There is more parity now, the players are bigger, faster, stronger, etc.

I personally feel that the league is a constantly evolving force, which will change to meet whatever demands are put on it. 18 game season? Players with less injury problems and better endurance will start to replace higher risk players. Sure, you might lose guys like Bob Sanders, but is this a bad thing? On the one hand you never get to experience his amazing play in short bursts. But on the other hand teams won't take the chance on a guy who only gives you 5-6 games a year. So you'll get someone who is less talented but more consistent coming in.

Double Barrel
06-10-2011, 12:51 PM
Playing Devil's Advocate here, do you really believe that the league is a less competitive watered down version of what it was 30-40 years ago?

I would not say less competitive, because that's a perception thing.

But, it is certainly watered down. QB rules alone have heavily favored offenses. Is the guy a football player or not? It seems more and more like QBs are given a bubble around them, and while some rules are understandable (i.e. hits below the knee), others are just making defenders play less aggressive than they were in the 1970's and '80's.

I just disclaimer right now that I'm a BIG fan of great defenses, so this is my perspective.

Here's a good article from five years ago, and the rules are just getting more and more about protecting the marque players....errrr...QBs:

NFL rules about hitting the QB handcuffing defenders (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-12-07-quarterback-rules_x.htm)

•Questionable calls. Flags have been thrown in cases when defenders seemed unable to stop momentum.

•Passive grasps. Some defenders in position to tackle quarterbacks let them slip away because they feared a penalty.

----------------------

"It's almost like a punter, where you just try to avoid the guy," Smith said.

Roughing-the-passer is a judgment call. Mike Pereira, NFL director of officials, is clear on how crews should lean: "When in doubt, do make the call."

Do we really want defenders treating QBs like freakin' punters?? That's certainly not our dad's NFL, no doubt about it.

And another more recent article:

Peyton Manning: Consecutive QB Start Streak Record Will Soon Be Unimpressive (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/512572-peyton-manning-consecutive-qb-start-streak-record-will-soon-be-unimpressive)

Peyton Manning made his 200th career and consecutive start yesterday, but unfortunately for him it came with a loss. And as we all know, his start streak is the second-longest in NFL history. But if, and when, he breaks Brett Favre's record, it won't be as impressive.

With the current "safety" rules in place in the NFL that are strictly enforced for the quarterback, it seems as if Peyton Manning will never get hurt. This all came to my attention after watching the Colts-Eagles game yesterday afternoon when on a fourth- and-18 late in the fourth quarter, Trent Cole was penalized for grazing Manning's helmet.

Now I do think some of the safety rules are valid, such as clearly hitting a defenseless player. But it is obvious from the above articles and others that officials are to call the benefit of the doubt for QBs, thus watering down defenses.

There is more parity now, the players are bigger, faster, stronger, etc.

Some folks see parity as equalling mediocrity.

I used to be a fan of parity. But honestly, after a decade as a Texans fan, we haven't seen any benefits of so-called parity. I'm not so sold on it these days.

Either way, it's good for business, as clearly revealed by increased ratings.

Is there more parity? This is from the 2009 season:

In N.F.L., Parity Is Taking a Turn for the Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/sports/football/15jets.html)

In a league celebrated for its competitive balance, in which coaches say that games come down to “inches” and are won or lost on a “handful” of plays, the bottom of the standings has ballooned with more teams that appear worse than usual.

----------------------

In the N.F.L., this is not supposed to happen. With revenue sharing, the salary cap, draft rules that reward the highest draft selections to the teams with the worst records and schedules based, in part, on the previous season’s results, the standings are supposed to be swollen in the middle, filled with competitive teams fighting for playoff spots.

Parity, they call this concept that is highlighted toward the end of every season. So where is it?

As far as your other point, that "players are bigger, faster, stronger", this actually supports the notion that they are at a higher risk of injury as a result of being bigger, faster, stronger.

Concussions are more prevalent today, both because they are better diagnosed, but also because players are hitting and getting hit harder than ever due to the increase in size, weight, and strength.

And let's not forget that while you can increase your muscles, you cannot increase the strength of your joints. The torque put on knees is much greater today than before due to the increase in mass and strength (plus speed). Logically, this tends to lead to more injuries, which waters down the product because the top talent is more spread about among teams (which will only continue to trend if they expand the league).

NFL injuries cause concern as league evolves (http://speakeasymag.com/sports/the-black-plague-of-the-nfl/)

“I think the game is unsafer. Just look at the physicalness of football now. Athletes are bigger and stronger and faster, and mass media has the effect of glamorizing big hits, and it increases risks of concussions,” said Dr. Adam Shunk, a neuropsychologist at St. Vincent Sports Performance Center in Indianapolis, in an Associated Press article. Training equipment maximizes a player’s ability to build muscle and gain more athletic ability.

Now it would seem a contradiction to point out the increased safety rules for QBs while also revealing the increase in injury statistics, but the key point here is that the league is heavily favoring one position over the others. QBs are highly protected because they help sell tickets. And it is this heavy marketing angle that starts to differentiate between today's game and the football that we grew up on.

I personally feel that the league is a constantly evolving force, which will change to meet whatever demands are put on it. 18 game season? Players with less injury problems and better endurance will start to replace higher risk players. Sure, you might lose guys like Bob Sanders, but is this a bad thing? On the one hand you never get to experience his amazing play in short bursts. But on the other hand teams won't take the chance on a guy who only gives you 5-6 games a year. So you'll get someone who is less talented but more consistent coming in.

I understand where you are coming from, but there is a breaking point somewhere. There cannot be an infinity placed on the game, where extending the season and diluting the talent has no implications on the product.

Now, instead of multiple dynasties of the past, we have wars of attrition, where injury reports are much more of an impact on the game because bench talent is nowhere near the level that it was 30 years ago.

Teams like the Patriots and Colts excel because they have elite QBs - who are already highly protected by the league - exploiting the weakness of teams often decimated by injuries or teams just not good because there are simply not enough good secondary players to go around. Add to that the hogtied rules of defenders as it relates to interference, holding, and zone hits, and defenses are clearly being weakened in order to continue the trend of increasing scores which is directly correlated to ratings numbers.

I'm not criticizing the NFL here, at least that's not my objective. It's a good product, but it's not our dad's NFL anymore. And I can see a point 10-20 years from now when some fundamental aspects have shifted so much that it's not even my NFL anymore.

That's not a "good" or "bad" thing, but like you said, it's an evolution that I can either accept or reject. JMO

HoustonFrog
06-10-2011, 01:09 PM
18 game season + franchise expansion (both a matter of time) = watered down product

Then, add the increasing "safety rules" that are becoming more and more prevalent, and this ain't your dad's NFL!

Predicting trends, I can see myself eventually disinterested in the sport. Which is sad, but it's just not going to be the same football that I fell in love with as a kid.

But it is what it is. For every dude getting older like me, they have several younger fans to replace me. The league will continue whether I watch it or not.

Agree. I'll always be interested...Cowboys, Texans, fantasy, etc but overall I think it is watered down. The guys might be bigger and faster but there seems to be alot more scrubs in the groups when in the old days it was best of the best it seemed to me. I hate the 18 game schedule because it makes games watered down...we already have guys barely creeping through a 16 gamer. But the commish will push it despite being a hypocrite abotu safety. I was hoping players would stand up to the 18 game thing but who knows.

Well said.

eriadoc
06-10-2011, 01:12 PM
I would not say less competitive, because that's a perception thing.

But, it is certainly watered down.

Man, I wish I could rep this post.

Teams in the '70s could actually BUILD their team. The ones that were good at it (Steelers, Raiders, Cowboys, among others) were dominant. Today, you have teams jumping up from last to first and then back to last. I don't consider that "better". Maybe it's more fun for fans on that roller coaster ride, but I rather enjoyed watching the Oilers build a team, rather than just putting together a puzzle. And defense mattered back then. Now, if you hold a team to 30 points, you played good defense. That's crap, and it's a direct result of rules changes over the years.

Meh, NFL is better now in some ways, particularly marketing and exposure. But the actual product was better before, on balance. JMO.

GP
06-10-2011, 01:21 PM
I was against the 18-game season.

But having a taste of this mini-term lockout has made me think that the players are going to have to concede some things. An extra two games should not be a walk-away catalyst in the talks, IMO.

At this point, I just want my football. I've been conditioned for the past 30 years of my life for this rhythm:

1. Super Bowl ends, a little bit of off-season coaching changes and the dorky Pro Bowl that I say I will never watch again yet end up watching. Again.

2. The long drought of nothing but NASCAR and golf and (gulp) N-B-A.

3. THE DRAFT!!! Cue the Howard Dean scream...

4. The buildup to rookie signings, discussing the schedule of games, and free agent talks.

5. CAMPS!!!! Daily reports, debating with other fans about how our players look out there and who is doing good and who is not. Quotes from coaches in the media. From players. From analysts. Etc.

6. Pre-Season! The first inkling of football season hits you when the Hall of Fame Game is played. You care nothing about Saints-Lions in the reg season, but you are damn sure watching them play in the Hall of Fame Game. You know you do. So don't lie.

7. Reg Season. Bring this shit on. BRING IT!!! Sundays are for football. Nothing else to say. Weekdays are for living for Sundays.

So, if that 30-year pattern is broken for me...well, the universe will unravel.

An agreement helps me continue the rhythm even if there's been a hiccup for the past 90 or so days.

Besides, THIS is the year Kubiak has to get us to the playoffs...or else. Right? LOL.

FirstTexansFan
06-10-2011, 01:45 PM
Besides, THIS is the year Kubiak has to get us to the playoffs...or else. Right?

Now that's funny right there.. :)

gary
06-11-2011, 05:20 PM
Well respected sources of information on the NFL Lockout have reported palpable optimism as of late and Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal reported this morning that things are going so well that a deal could be reached in two weeks. Here's what he said:
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/6/11/2219000/nfl-lockout-update-possible-deal-in-two-weeks

GP
06-11-2011, 06:54 PM
Well respected sources of information on the NFL Lockout have reported palpable optimism as of late and Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal reported this morning that things are going so well that a deal could be reached in two weeks. Here's what he said:
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/6/11/2219000/nfl-lockout-update-possible-deal-in-two-weeks

Rep your way. Thanks for posting that, gary!

gary
06-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Rep your way. Thanks for posting that, gary!Thank you. All signs are pointing towards an end to the lockout sooner rather than later.

GP
06-13-2011, 05:16 PM
Here is a nicely constructed analysis by Andrew Brandt, a guy whose tweets I have been posting in this thread (I think he has great inside connections on this topic).

Hope Floats? Mtgs. Continue, Doty Waits, Player Contact (Article: Hope Floats? Meetings Continue, Doty Waits, Player Contact, Mark Cuban)

Below is just a small portion of the article, a lot more can be found at the linked article's location.

The motion to dismiss

The Owners’ answer to the initial complaint of Brady v. NFL was due last week. Instead, they filed a motion to dismiss, saying the Players have no claim and judicial resources should not be wasted.

I would put this motion in the “it doesn’t hurt to ask” category. It also delays the process -- the hearing on the motion is not until August 29th -- and time is not on the Players’ side. Speaking of timing,

The Doty ruling

Still pending is an expected windfall for Players when Judge David Doty rules on the Owners' negotiations with television networks regarding lockout funding. Doty is expected to hand the Players a large damage award that could be a financial safe haven if paychecks are missed.

Doty may be holding his ruling to see what comes of the current negotiations, as it could derail the momentum of the talks. Even with a large award, the Players’ problem is timing. Doty’s ruling will be appealed to the Eighth Circuit; with tight schedules and summer vacations ahead, it may not be heard until fall. Doty represents yet another judge indicating he would rather have the parties make a deal instead of inserting his view into it.

Raheem’s “whoops” comment

On a recent radio interview, Buccanneers coach Raheem Morris let it slip out that he sees and talks to his players during this no-contact period. Morris was probably quickly got a couple phone calls from management and/or league officials.

The no-contact rule is frustrating to coaches (although many players don’t mind being off limits in the offseason). To think that there is not contact going on between coaches and players is naïve. My sense is that the NFL knows that it is occurring, but we are dealing with a slippery slope.

The no-contact rule prohibits NFL “business”: negotiations, coaching, etc. The NFL cannot prevent “social” contacts. As league executive once told me when I was with the Packers about contact with a suspended player: “We can’t tell you who your friends are.” The same is true here.

Many coaches and players are friends as well as colleagues. They talk to each other about their families, the weather, sports, etc. Do conversations sometimes leak into “football” discussions? I’ll let you answer that.

HOU-TEX
06-14-2011, 12:40 PM
After being on vacation the past week it was nice to see some progress on this BS made when I got back on the web. At this time everything's sounding very optimistic from both sides. After being absent from the latest meetings, the lawyers are back in the mix and Schefter believes it's a good sign. Per his Twitter:

After taking off past two rounds of talks in Chicago and on Long Island, lawyers back involved in these meetings. This time it's good.

AnthonyE
06-14-2011, 02:05 PM
Progress in NFL talks puts deal within reach (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/progress-in-nfl-talks-puts-deal-within-reach/2011/06/14/AGHFRaUH_story.html)

A deal that week, just before the July 4 holiday, appears increasingly realistic, said people on both sides of the dispute.

The NFL and locked out players have made enough progress in their recent negotiations that a deal between the two sides is within reach during the next two or three weeks, people on both sides of the dispute said Tuesday.

Per the Washington Post.

AnthonyE
06-14-2011, 02:14 PM
Also, NFL tells teams to prepare for lengthy meeting next week in chicago. (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-tells-teams-to-prepare-for-lengthy-meeting-next-week-in-Chicago-061411?gt1=39002)

The NFL has advised its teams to prepare for the possibility of a prolonged league meeting next Tuesday in Chicago. The session could lay the groundwork for approval of a new collective-bargaining agreement that would end the work stoppage now entering its fourth month.


Is that a light at the end of this 4 month long tunnel?

CloakNNNdagger
06-14-2011, 02:53 PM
Also, NFL tells teams to prepare for lengthy meeting next week in chicago. (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-tells-teams-to-prepare-for-lengthy-meeting-next-week-in-Chicago-061411?gt1=39002)



Is that a light at the end of this 4 month long tunnel?

The meeting was originally slated to last 2-3 days. But since the NFL has informed the participants that strippers and "ladies of the night" were to be flown in to serve the "refreshments, arrangements to extend the meeting to 2-3 weeks were unanimously decided upon by all parties involved.

gary
06-14-2011, 03:00 PM
Great news and it is about time.

HOU-TEX
06-14-2011, 03:10 PM
Great news and it is about time.

It is good news, but the way these dufus' have been handling things, the situation could take a 180 degree turn in the matter of minutes.

TexCanada
06-14-2011, 03:36 PM
It is good news, but the way these dufus' have been handling things, the situation could take a 180 degree turn in the matter of minutes.

Its very true, but its nice to see some positive signs here and there.

GP
06-14-2011, 06:32 PM
It is good news, but the way these dufus' have been handling things, the situation could take a 180 degree turn in the matter of minutes.

Actually, I think we're nearing the "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" stage.

The lawyers are involved now, and it's for making sure the language and the structure of the deal will be indicative of the agreements they are likely reaching right now.

I wonder if the extended meeting means they are wanting to wrap this thing up and have it done, which means everybody needs to be ready to enter the final phases and stay longer to get it finalized.

By the way, the word "finalized" was coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower back during WWII when he was the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied Expeditionary Force. It wasn't a word until Ike made it a word. Cool, huh?

AnthonyE
06-14-2011, 06:45 PM
Actually, I think we're nearing the "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" stage.

The lawyers are involved now, and it's for making sure the language and the structure of the deal will be indicative of the agreements they are likely reaching right now.

I wonder if the extended meeting means they are wanting to wrap this thing up and have it done, which means everybody needs to be ready to enter the final phases and stay longer to get it finalized.

By the way, the word "finalized" was coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower back during WWII when he was the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied Expeditionary Force. It wasn't a word until Ike made it a word. Cool, huh?

Oh, man. That's rad. I love trivia like that. Thanks for sharing. :)

Labor Negotiations 80-85 Percent Complete (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15231374/nfl-source-labor-negotiations-8085-percent-complete/rss)

One source with intimate knowledge of the discussions tells me negotiations are 80-85 percent complete. They've made such fast progress, I'm told, it's catching many of the principals by surprise. Some are now canceling vacations, believing an agreement will be reached within a matter of days.

Woah.

gary
06-14-2011, 06:51 PM
Where is my Larry The Cable Guy get er done sign?

ChampionTexan
06-14-2011, 07:29 PM
By the way, the word "finalized" was coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower back during WWII when he was the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied Expeditionary Force. It wasn't a word until Ike made it a word. Cool, huh?

When was the term "BS" coined?

Finalize has been frequently castigated as an unnecessary neologism or as United States government gobbledygook. It appears to have first gained currency in Australia (where it has been acceptable all along) in the early 1920s. The United States Navy picked it up in the late 20s, and from there it came into widespread use.

FINALIZE (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/finalize)

c10x
06-14-2011, 08:54 PM
I sure hope this stuff gets done soon. Off season without football isn't cool.

badboy
06-14-2011, 09:01 PM
I bet the "workers" in the stadiums, concessions, ticket takers, etc are as happy as we are.

badboy
06-14-2011, 09:07 PM
John Clayton just said on ESPN that the difference is $200million per year & deal should be done soon with "back to normal" by July 4th weekend or the next, if the "lawyers don't screw it up."

GP
06-14-2011, 09:20 PM
When was the term "BS" coined?



FINALIZE (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/finalize)

Everything I have ever heard has pointed to Ike being the one who established it into common use.

But be an ass about it if you please. Congrats, one-upper.

GP
06-14-2011, 09:30 PM
I don't think the lawyers can screw this up. It has too much momentum.

The scolding from the 8th circuit judges seems to have lit a fire under both parties.

I'm thinking that maybe the players have pushed DeMaurice Smith into conceding the tough-guy act (which is why you see him having the so-called "jovial dinner" with Roger Goodell recently--A peace offering, of sorts).

Smith came into his position saying he wasn't going to be best friends with the commissioner. I think he held his line right up until about a week or so ago, and my hunch is that a few key players have expressed to him that now is the time to back off and to settle with the owners.

And, possibly the tough guy act has partially allowed the players to even get to this point where the owners, too, are ready to put away the spears and settle the dispute like gentlemen. Maybe both sides are worn down and know they need to rescue themselves from a bad situation growing worse as the summer drags along.

June has typically been spent in rather mild-mannered OTAs, as well as signing rookies from the draft. July is the real crunch time: Training Camps. I was not looking forward to the idea of possibly no camps and maybe even no preseason, as well. Now, it seems our team will be able to soak up Wade Phillips defensive philosophies like they need to.

Mort at espn.go.com has been saying all along it gets done prior to July 4th. We've spent so long without any legit football news that it's going to be a fast-moving landslide when business resumes in the next few weeks.

gary
06-14-2011, 09:42 PM
It is kind of funny how the court got involved and now a deal is closer than ever.

beerlover
06-14-2011, 10:14 PM
I don't think the lawyers can screw this up. It has too much momentum.

The scolding from the 8th circuit judges seems to have lit a fire under both parties.

I'm thinking that maybe the players have pushed DeMaurice Smith into conceding the tough-guy act (which is why you see him having the so-called "jovial dinner" with Roger Goodell recently--A peace offering, of sorts).

Smith came into his position saying he wasn't going to be best friends with the commissioner. I think he held his line right up until about a week or so ago, and my hunch is that a few key players have expressed to him that now is the time to back off and to settle with the owners.

And, possibly the tough guy act has partially allowed the players to even get to this point where the owners, too, are ready to put away the spears and settle the dispute like gentlemen. Maybe both sides are worn down and know they need to rescue themselves from a bad situation growing worse as the summer drags along.

June has typically been spent in rather mild-mannered OTAs, as well as signing rookies from the draft. July is the real crunch time: Training Camps. I was not looking forward to the idea of possibly no camps and maybe even no preseason, as well. Now, it seems our team will be able to soak up Wade Phillips defensive philosophies like they need to.

Mort at espn.go.com has been saying all along it gets done prior to July 4th. We've spent so long without any legit football news that it's going to be a fast-moving landslide when business resumes in the next few weeks.

Doubt three days more kills a deal. Its still on in my book until the 7th of July.

Allstar
06-15-2011, 02:22 AM
I'm just ready to explode. Please let this get done.

gary
06-15-2011, 12:38 PM
Attorneys almost blew up talks yesterday but Smith tells them to stand down.

One person close to the talks even went so far as to say, "This almost blew up yesterday."

How close it did is a matter of opinion. Fact is, the moment came shortly after lawyers from both sides were brought back into the process at an undisclosed location in the Washington, D.C., area. As tensions rose and anger grew, two sources said NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith instructed his lawyers to "stand down."

With the lawyers removed from the direct negotiations, the process was said to get back on track and to a good spot. The scenario is an example of just how tenuous these talks can be and how quickly they can be derailed.

But it also is the ultimate proof that Smith and his players, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners have taken the process out of the hands of the attorneys and demanded that they control it as the two sides try to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6663832

TD
06-15-2011, 01:06 PM
^^^^^^^

LOL...every dispute has one winner....the lawyers. Kicking them out is a good sign for sure.

Thorn
06-15-2011, 03:28 PM
I'm still somewhat hopefull, and I'm still pissed about it all, and I'm still in a holding pattern before I get seriously hopefull.

CloakNNNdagger
06-15-2011, 09:48 PM
They may have "kicked the attornies out" for the negotiating, but I doubt the sides will finalize anything without final OK by their attornies............that's where everything could be blown up again.

badboy
06-15-2011, 10:11 PM
Sometimes I think people get caught up in being "right" more so than doing right for others. Call it ego, reputation or looking ahead to the next deal & maybe impressing someone.

GP
06-15-2011, 11:03 PM
They may have "kicked the attornies out" for the negotiating, but I doubt the sides will finalize anything without final OK by their attornies............that's where everything could be blown up again.

Well, now what exactly would a bunch of corporate lawyers have to gain by sabotaging and delaying a conclusion to the lockout?

rhetorical question of the day...you may all go about your business now.

All I know is that both sides need to let the lawyers know who is running the show. Otherwise, I say we throw the lawyers into the Black Hole and let Raiders Nation deal with them.

CloakNNNdagger
06-15-2011, 11:24 PM
Well, now what exactly would a bunch of corporate lawyers have to gain by sabotaging and delaying a conclusion to the lockout?

rhetorical question of the day...you may all go about your business now.

All I know is that both sides need to let the lawyers know who is running the show. Otherwise, I say we throw the lawyers into the Black Hole and let Raiders Nation deal with them.

:spit:Must spread the rep.

CloakNNNdagger
06-16-2011, 08:00 PM
:toropalm:

On Monday, Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reported that the NFLPA* annual report revealed an expenditure of $8.9 million in legal fees on the labor situation for the 12 months in the year that ended on February 28, 2011. Of that amount, Jeffrey Kessler’s firm received $2.87 million.

Bob Batterman’s firm undoubtedly billed the NFL in a similar amount over the same time period.

Surely, those number have grown since the lockout began, and likely at a much higher rate. The payments made through February 28 would reflect, at most, activity through January 31, 2011, given the manner in which most law firms create and submit their invoices. With the legal work spiking dramatically in February 2011 and even more in March, April, and May, an effort to track the legal fees likely looks something like the national debt clock.

Perhaps the post-lockout invoices from the various law firms have helped persuade the parties to focus on getting a deal done. With no money coming in, the last thing either side needs is millions of dollars in monthly legal fees.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/16/yet-another-reason-to-bench-the-lawyers/)

gwallaia
06-17-2011, 09:46 AM
I have a feeling that any legal fees the NFL endures will be passed on to the fans in higher parking and concessions costs.

HOU-TEX
06-17-2011, 12:02 PM
some owners reportedly are resisting the direction in which the talks are going.

Per Adam Schefter of ESPN, a “handful” of owners don’t believe that the talks adequately address the concerns that prompted the decision to opt out early of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Schefter says that the potential conversion of Tuesday’s one-day ownership meeting into a two-day affair arises from a desire to address these concerns and establish a clear consensus as talks continue.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-some-owners-are-resisting-potential-deal/

As llong as this handful of owners is less than 9...who cares

gary
06-17-2011, 12:10 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-some-owners-are-resisting-potential-deal/

As llong as this handful of owners is less than 9...who caresI just want a done deal.

HOU-TEX
06-17-2011, 12:16 PM
I just want a done deal.

Me too, big guy, me too

gary
06-17-2011, 12:22 PM
Me too, big guy, me tooThe Stros aren't cutting it right now.

CloakNNNdagger
06-17-2011, 02:29 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-some-owners-are-resisting-potential-deal/

As llong as this handful of owners is less than 9...who cares

I would love to know WHO those resisting owners are........what they are resisting.............and if McNair (and his buddy Jerry) are in that "elite" group.

CloakNNNdagger
06-17-2011, 02:35 PM
I have a feeling that any legal fees the NFL endures will be passed on to the fans in higher parking and concessions costs.

Take it out of the "feeling" stage and bank on the fact that if the owners lose ANYTHING in this fiasco will be TEMPORARY..........and it will assuredly be recouped from fans in ways that you may not have even imagined possible.

Double Barrel
06-17-2011, 02:46 PM
I would love to know WHO those resisting owners are........what they are resisting.............and if McNair (and his buddy Jerry) are in that "elite" group.

That's the first thing that I thought, as well. Which owners are playing hardball, and if McNair is in that group. I have a gut feeling that he's not, though. Not sure why, but just a hunch on my part.

HOU-TEX
06-17-2011, 02:54 PM
I would love to know WHO those resisting owners are........what they are resisting.............and if McNair (and his buddy Jerry) are in that "elite" group.

My understanding is that they want something that would cushion the blow if there was another economic crash of some sort. I guess they consider themselves better than the average joe.

TD
06-17-2011, 02:56 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-some-owners-are-resisting-potential-deal/

As llong as this handful of owners is less than 9...who cares

Yep, and the article made a good point that if there are a few unhappy owners then the deal is probably fair. So in a way, this is good news.

gary
06-17-2011, 06:25 PM
My understanding is that they want something that would cushion the blow if there was another economic crash of some sort. I guess they consider themselves better than the average joe.So they should fail and suffer like rest of us? Oh please, give me a break already.

CloakNNNdagger
06-18-2011, 08:55 AM
Arlen Specter calls for Congressional involvement in lockoutPosted by Mike Florio on June 17, 2011, 10:41 PM EDT

For months, one of the pre-asterisked NFLPA’s strategies for gaining leverage against a lockout came from generating political pressure. By lobbying Congress to squeeze the NFL via threats to its sacred broadcast antitrust exemption, the league in theory may have become less inclined to squeeze the players.

The tactic has not been effective, due in large part to gains made by the Republicans during the mid-term elections. Now, a former senator has argued that it’s time for Congress to get involved.

Arlen Specter, a long-time Republican who switched to the Democratic party in 2009 and lost his bid for re-election at the primary level in 2010, writes in an op-ed for the New York Times that Congress should force a resolution of the labor dispute. Specifically, Specter believes Congress should hinge the antitrust exemption upon the parties’ agreement to binding arbitration based on each side’s last, best offer. Under this approach, a third party would weigh the respective final offers, and choose one or the other.

The last 11 words from Specter, whose last involvement with the NFL involved extensive criticism of the league and the Patriots for the Spygate scandal, make the most sense; Specter concludes by pointing out that “even the mere threat of such legislation might induce a settlement.” But with all signs currently pointing to the strong possibility of a settlement, it’s still too early for Congress to become involved.

If/when the current talks disintegrate, it may be time for Specter’s suggestion to gain some steam.

CloakNNNdagger
06-18-2011, 09:07 AM
Report: NFL coaches anticipate labor deal in late July (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-nfl-coaches-anticipate-labor-deal-in-late-july/)

Clark Judge of CBSSports.com reports that NFL coaches have been put on alert for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement to be reached in mid to late July.

Judge’s report cites two sources. Both of them, however, believe a late-July agreement is most likely.

“As long as we get six weeks to prepare for the season opener, we’ll be fine,” one unnamed NFL coach told Judge. “But I don’t think you’ll see anything happen before the end of July.”

Another source presented two scenarios to Judge. One involved coaches holding roughly five days of conditioning-based workouts before training camp, with free agency occurring during that period.

The other scenario would involve a “looser schedule,” with two weeks prior to training camp allowed for signings and OTA-like gatherings. For this scenario to happen, the source speculated that a new CBA would likely need to be struck by as soon as July 11.

The most recent CBA reports, which point to discord in negotiating issues among owners, would seem to indicate that the first scenario is more likely, with talks continuing deeper into summer.

One of Judge’s sources noted a key factor to consider:

“Coaches and players are concerned about the number of reps and practices. But owners are not.”

Owners, however, are very concerned about preseason games, and are not yet considering eliminating any portion of the exhibition schedule:

“I can’t see it happening,” the source told Judge. “There’s too much money that would be lost by sacrificing games.”

Only a 5 DAY window for picking, negotiating and finalizing FA signings????? That should be fun to watch. Conditioning, preparing for football conditioning, learning positions, learning schemes. But the quality of the product, of course, will not decrease............nor will the price of a ticket.

TEXANRED
06-18-2011, 04:01 PM
Report: NFL coaches anticipate labor deal in late July (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-nfl-coaches-anticipate-labor-deal-in-late-july/)



Only a 5 DAY window for picking, negotiating and finalizing FA signings????? That should be fun to watch. Conditioning, preparing for football conditioning, learning positions, learning schemes. But the quality of the product, of course, will not decrease............nor will the price of a ticket.

So if a deal is this far along then lift the lock out so everyone can get back to work.

If I am not mistaken players don't don't actually receive check until the season starts right?

GP
06-18-2011, 05:26 PM
The resolution proposed by Specter should include this:

DEADLINE.

FOR EXAMPLE:

If the two sides do not have an executable agreement in place by July 15th, then they will all go home and await a decision by a 3rd Party Solution that delivers an executable agreement to be signed by both parties by July 22nd.

The 3rd Party Solution could begin, right now, looking at the numbers and deciding what is fair for both sides. That gives them several weeks to let the owners and players get their own deal accomplished...or, by July 15th they can all go swimming while someone else prepares their deal for them.

Court case dropped (regarding the lockout) and business back on by July 22nd, leaving them the last week of July and all of August to throw their teams together and get ready for first reg season week of 2011.

This, to me, is a situation of our already butt-hurt economy not needing another hit in the anus. The lack of NFL is a huge hit. Stadium workers, front office workers, maintenance crews, product and service technicians who support each team's operations (vendors, I.T. companies, etc.), tv production crews ranging from those on the field to the ones running the trucks and control boards etc, sales people at local stations who sell commercial time based on having the NFL as its lead product for men ages 18-99.

I think it is completely legitimate for the government to step in and dictate that a 3rd Party can solve this so that there is no delay in the Average Joe's paychecks that are derived form NFL business each fall. Screw what's "legal," and let's talk about what makes good, solid economic SENSE. IMO, there is too much legality mumbo-jumbo in our culture as it is. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes revolving around the issue of un-lubricated, forced anal sex. To a large degree, our culture is too litigious and it's crap like this lockout that only goes to further confirm such a claim.

GP
06-18-2011, 05:33 PM
So they should fail and suffer like rest of us? Oh please, give me a break already.

Huh?

I am not sure what you're saying here.

If the owners lose money due to having to concede certain points to the players, I don't think it's morally right for them to then say "Well, by golly, somebody HAS to pay to make up our losses. We'll tax the fan on Sundays. HE can pay $0.50 more for this and $1 more for that."

Do you think it's right for the owners to collude (which means to get together and agree that the fans will be up-charged) and decide to make YOU pay for whatever millions they lost to the players in order to get a deal done?

That's going to happen anyways, since prices only go UP every year, but it's going to happen more sharply if they want to make YOU carry the burden of lost money from the labor situation they're trying to solve right now.

I'm telling ya' what, guys and gals: You should just go and tailgate and then go home and DVR the game and watch it later. Hell, you can watch SundayTicket on your iPhone now via their web app.

gary
06-18-2011, 06:38 PM
So they not should fail and suffer like rest of us? Oh please, give me a break already.This might make more sense for you I just forgot one very critical word in my post.

gary
06-18-2011, 07:28 PM
There have been constant rumors flying in all directions in the last week or two and the NFL Lockout rollercoaster ride continues. Here is the collective emotion that we have felt as fans in the last 72 hours or so: we start the day out with hopes high that an agreement is almost complete and we're all at our team shop buying our new favorite rookie's jersey, and then only hours later, the wheels have completely fallen off of talks and we realize that we should all just become fans of the Arena League. By the time we've finished returning our jersey, throwing our hats on the ground, stomping on them in a fit of rage and swearing off the NFL all together, Adam Schefter leaks a nugget of optimism that gets us all back on board. That was last few days anyway.

For an update in the spirit of that rollercoaster, there have been rumblings today that suggest this recent rift or minority pushback in the owners group is actually a good thing, and could signal that talks are getting very close to wrapping up. Though this could simply be wishful thinking, it has been brought up in several places that we're starting to hear about the discord among owners because these owners have seen a settlement agreement on the table or at least been part of the talks in which their side offers concessions, and they don't like it. Thus, they leak their curmudgeonly paranoid opposition, citing the state of the economy and their poor investment portfolios as reasons to keep this thing going.

In reality, this group of owners aren't likely to agree to any deal that offers one cent in conciliatory money; they'll vote 'no' simply out of principal. The good news though is that according the Associated Press, this group of owners is still not large enough to make a difference. Per the Los Angeles Times, (AP):

"Getting the required 24 of 32 owners to agree on anything can be difficult, let alone something as complex as a collective bargaining agreement. And there has been enough pushback from owners familiar with those proposals that progress made recently might not lead to an agreement in the next few weeks.

Still, according to a person with knowledge of the negotiations, the faction of unhappy owners that exists is not yet large enough to derail an agreement. That could lead to heavy lobbying in Chicago at the first owners' meeting specifically scheduled to deal with the lockout."

Star-divide

Ray Ratto of CBS Sports brings up another point that hasn't really been talked about much during this lockout: the owners don't like each other much either. He says:

"The owners like each other far less than they like the players, and trust each other not at all. It's why all the reports of an imminent settlement always sound more like begging than fact-finding. The latest hint that the problems began, reside and will continue with the owners comes with the news that a number of owners have been balking at settlement developments for months now -- in part because they still harbor resentments over the 2006 deal, and because they want the revenue-sharing rules between themselves to be changed."

He continues,

"In short, this is an owners' problem and always has been. The argument is not about making or losing money, but how much more and how to limit or expand sharing of that money. Thus the reports that a number of owners already hate this new deal even though it is nowhere close to being done tell us that what we have always believed about the process is true:

Specifically, that the process is 32 rich guys fighting with each other over the nature and distribution of an immense pie that would feed them all five generations out."

So in other words, you shouldn't expect these owners to get on the same page anytime soon. As long as the majority of owners can vote on a settlement that will resolve this labor dispute, we shouldn't have to worry about the dissenters. It now becomes up to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to keep that majority together.

Per Yahoo's Jason Cole:

"There's a lot on the line [next] week," one owner said Friday. "I don't envy Roger's position because he has to make a lot of people happy. I think there's enough common sense out there that we'll get something done, but there are also some [owners] who still want to fight."

That's all I got for today regarding the soap opera that the NFL lockout has become.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/6/18/2231033/nfl-lockout-update-progress-roger-goodell-settlement

CloakNNNdagger
06-18-2011, 08:07 PM
This might make more sense for you I just forgot one very critical word in my post.


Thank goodness, you have just re-instated my faith in your logic!:handshake:

gary
06-18-2011, 08:13 PM
Thank goodness, you have just re-instated my faith in your logic!:handshake:You're welcome. Owners not really liking each other now. Oh, boy. This just keeps on snow balling bigger and bigger.

gary
06-19-2011, 10:20 PM
The NFL standoff has gone over 100 days, but for most of us, the clock hasn't even started running yet. Not really.

That's what makes the next week or two so interesting and important. If you've paid only a passing interest in the legal strategies and the posturing up until now, you may want to start paying a bit closer attention now. This next stretch is the final opportunity for this thing to be settled before irreparable harm is done to the 2011 season.

Defining terms: The lack of player movement and practice time already has made a mark on the coming season, but it won't be a permanent stain until training camps are disrupted. Shorter camps, accompanied by two preseason games instead of four, won't ruin the season, but there will be some consequences. The more camp time is missed, the worse the damage will be.

Commissioner Roger Goodell acknowledged as much last month. Several months into the lockout, with tensions mounting, he wouldn't give a hard deadline for a resolution that doesn't jeopardize camps and preseason games. "But," he told reporters, "obviously that time is coming. . . . We're getting close enough now where those will have to be considerations."

That comment reinforces the belief that the league and its players went into this process without any real urgency to get a deal done. March, April, May, and June were always disposable. Lo and behold, they have been disposed of.

Now July is knocking. July was not, and is not, disposable.

This week, NFL owners will gather in Chicago to harrumph over whatever progress has been made in the "secret" (even though everyone knew where and when they occurred) negotiations between Goodell and a handful of owners on one side and DeMaurice Smith and a small group of players on the other. What happens in Chicago Tuesday and Wednesday could well determine whether this thing ends without serious bloodshed or things get really ugly.

The question is: Are the owners greedy, or are they determined to be the greediest pigs in the history of troughs?

The other question that will be answered is whether Goodell can be an effective commissioner. It was on his watch that the owners opted to tear up a collective bargaining agreement that they had negotiated and approved in 2006 - not because anyone was losing money, but because those darn players were getting too large a share of the revenue they generated.

If Goodell can't herd the pigs toward a resolution in this meeting, it's hard to see what value he has as commissioner. Then again, Bud Selig and Gary Bettman held onto their gigs after presiding over the '94 and '04 disasters.

There has been a lot of varied and contradictory reporting on the state of negotiations. That probably means no one is really getting hard information from the participants, who have agreed not to comment on the talks. Based on the identity of the negotiators, the length of the talks, and the elevated urgency of the timing, it is logical to assume some real progress has been made.

If that progress is undone by the owners' greed this week, this thing could spiral out of control. Goodell and the more reasonable among the owners can't allow that to happen. Another 100 days would be unforgivable.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/124165899.html#ixzz1PmKEuA4u
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

CloakNNNdagger
06-20-2011, 01:51 AM
Looks like there might be a very sticky sidebar to the negotiations...............the Rookie Pay Scale (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/19/the-rookie-wage-scale-issue-continues-to-loom/). Your guess is as good as mine how much player agents may factor in this scenario.

infantrycak
06-20-2011, 10:28 AM
Looks like there might be a very sticky sidebar to the negotiations...............the Rookie Pay Scale (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/19/the-rookie-wage-scale-issue-continues-to-loom/). Your guess is as good as mine how much player agents may factor in this scenario.

There was a report early in this process that the players had already agreed on a rookie pay scale. But who knows.

CloakNNNdagger
06-20-2011, 11:46 AM
There was a report early in this process that the players had already agreed on a rookie pay scale. But who knows.

You're right. But, if I remember correctly, there was also an agreement that the NFLPA decertification would not enter into legal arguments. That certainly has gone to the wayside since then. It's hard to trust any "progress." Everyday is a new day.

infantrycak
06-20-2011, 12:11 PM
You're right. But, if I remember correctly, there was also an agreement that the NFLPA decertification would not enter into legal arguments. That certainly has gone to the wayside since then. It's hard to trust any "progress." Everyday is a new day.

That was misreported if stated in that fashion. The agreement was the NFL would not use negotiations by the NFLPA after decertification as an example the NFLPA wasn't really decertified. The NFL never agreed to not argue the decertification itself was a sham.

CloakNNNdagger
06-20-2011, 12:26 PM
That was misreported if stated in that fashion. The agreement was the NFL would not use negotiations by the NFLPA after decertification as an example the NFLPA wasn't really decertified. The NFL never agreed to not argue the decertification itself was a sham.

I guess this recent piece has confused me. http://www.indystar.com/article/20110612/OPINION03/106120325/NFL-s-labor-pains?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp

infantrycak
06-20-2011, 12:35 PM
I guess this recent piece has confused me. http://www.indystar.com/article/20110612/OPINION03/106120325/NFL-s-labor-pains?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp

The media typically doesn't spend the time to really understand the issues. I can't believe the NFL would actually be stupid enough to stipulate the decertification itself didn't count given that it was an obvious sham.

Not saying what the law should be but this was an obvious sham under the current law.

disaacks3
06-20-2011, 12:49 PM
Here’s what the CBA says at Article LVII, Section 3(b): “The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.”

Linkage (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/sham-argument-may-not-apply/)

infantrycak
06-20-2011, 01:02 PM
Linkage (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/sham-argument-may-not-apply/)

OK. That I can see as part of a bigger deal (kind of stupid but hey you agreed to it). Just didn't believe the NFL would waive (recently) the argument to have mediation continue.

CloakNNNdagger
06-20-2011, 02:12 PM
Kraft, Ross have concerns about another economic downturn (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/20/kraft-ross-have-concerns-about-another-economic-downturn/)

It’s widely believed, as Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com recently explained, that Patriots owner Robert Kraft has emerged as a much-needed Wellington Mara/Dan Rooney figure in the ongoing labor talks. But that doesn’t mean Kraft is fully on board with the direction in which the process is heading.

Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that both Kraft and Dolphins owner Stephen Ross (who, from the standpoint of building bridges with players, has become the anti-Kraft) have concerns regarding the manner in which another economic downturn along with ever-rising unemployment could impact the next labor deal.

In our view, Kraft’s concerns possibly will result in what we’ll call a “true-down” — a device for reeling back the year-by-year salary cap in the event that performance comes in lower than projected. It’s a fair goose-gander point; if the players want to share in the upside (as they should), then they should be required to share in the risk of the pie shrinking. The current talks focus essentially on a guaranteed minimum (via a “pegged cap”) plus a share of the upside; perhaps to get a deal done, Kraft and the rest of the owners will seek, and receive, a commitment that a fully sliding scale will be used, both for better and for worse.

Seems like this could get the participants closer to a "fair" deal.

Double Barrel
06-20-2011, 02:59 PM
[I]f the players want to share in the upside, then they should be required to share in the risk of the pie shrinking.

I can't argue with this perspective.

HOU-TEX
06-20-2011, 03:38 PM
I can't argue with this perspective.

Agreed. Should be a no-brainer. However, given how the asshats have monkey-f---ed this whole situation....you never know

Ryan
06-20-2011, 06:09 PM
I keep on clicking this thread every time i see a new post hoping for good news.

When will the good news come?

gary
06-20-2011, 07:21 PM
I keep on clicking this thread every time i see a new post hoping for good news.

When will the good news come?I'll take the no news because it's not bad news.

GP
06-21-2011, 04:36 AM
Snapped a screen shot of some good tweets by Mort of espn.go.com

Here's the first round of tweets (http://twitter.com/#!/espn/nfl) (start at the bottom of this list):

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t128/gpshafer_1976/mort-tweet-1.jpg

GP
06-21-2011, 04:37 AM
And here's the second section of them (http://twitter.com/#!/espn/nfl).

By the way, I'm all about Mort For President 2012

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t128/gpshafer_1976/mort-tweet-2.jpg

GP
06-21-2011, 04:46 AM
Be sure to check out my two posts where I re-post Mort's tweets on the NFL CBA situation.

1.) It seems Robert Kraft, owner of the Patriots, and Roger Goodell are trying to get the few irritated owners to sign onto a deal. Mort thinks those two guys are trying to quarterback the owners into solidifying a deal.

2.) Is Mort right when he says that only 24 of the 32 team owners need to be unified in order to get this thing done? This would mean the "handful of owners" that Schefter had recently said were upset and getting anxious over recent negotiations could be told to STFU if enough owners say it's time to get a deal done. ???

3.) Pre-season still seems available if a deal gets done in the next two weeks.

4.) 18-game season was a backburner item for owners (pre-lockout) and there's no certain word if it is being discussed AND if it is a possibility now or later in a later year of the CBA.

drs23
06-21-2011, 10:33 AM
Thanks GP. Interesting.

GP
06-21-2011, 11:19 AM
I want Mort to be my children's godfather.

Easily the most consistent performer at ESPN, in terms of providing NFL news and insight.

The tweets have been better than anything else put out there by other columnists, IMO.

gary
06-21-2011, 11:33 AM
Adam Schefter does a good job most of the time too.

HOU-TEX
06-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Schefter's Twitter:

More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents.

It's going to be absolute pandemonium when a deal is struck and FA opens.

gary
06-21-2011, 03:28 PM
Details are now leaking on purposed new CBA deal.

In the previous collective bargaining agreement, players received approximately 60 percent of "total revenue" but that did not include $1 billion that was designated as an expense credit off the top of the $9 billion revenue model. Owners initially were seeking another $1 billion in credit only to reduce that amount substantially before exercising the lockout on March 13.

Ultimately, the two sides have decided to simplify the formula, which will eliminate some tedious accounting audits of the credit the players have allowed in the previous deal. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent.

Owners still will get some expense credits that will allow funding for new stadium construction, sources said.

A rookie wage scale will be part of the new deal but is still being "tweaked," and the much-discussed 18-game regular season will be designated only as a negotiable item with the players and at no point is mandated in a potential agreement. A new 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012 will be the source of new revenue.

As revenues are projected to possibly double by 2016 to $18 billion annually, retired players will benefit from improved health and pension funding that is expected to increase significantly.

Players believe they can justify a 48 percent take because of the projected revenue growth, as well as built-in mechanisms that require teams to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap, a source told ESPN.com's John Clayton. The mandatory minimum spending increase is an element that concerns lower-revenue clubs, sources say.

For example, if the 2011 salary cap were to be at $120 million, a team would have to have a cash payroll of close to $120 million. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, the team payroll floor was less than 90 percent of the salary cap and was only in cap figures, not cash.

The higher floor proposal could cause some problems for the lower revenue teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. Along with the salary cap, teams have to pay an average of about $27 million a year in benefits.

A league source told ESPN's Sal Paolantonio that there will not be a vote on a new collective bargaining agreement Tuesday.

"This is strictly informational. There is nothing to vote on," the source told ESPN.

The negotiating teams for the owners and players, led by Goodell and Smith, are expected to return to the table most likely Wednesday and Thursday in Boston, hoping to build off the momentum of three strong weeks of talks under the supervision of a court-appointed mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

Cautious expectations on the two sides reaching an agreement in principle are varied, ranging from one-to-three weeks with the hopes of beginning a new league year (free agency, etc.) by mid-July.

If and when an agreement is reached, all players whose contracts have expired and have four or more years of experience are expected to be unrestricted free agents, sources familiar with the talks told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. Certain tags will be retained but that still is being discussed.

Players are willing to commit to at least a 10-year labor agreement if the sides can agree on the terms, sources told Clayton.

Any breakdown in talks could result in the loss of preseason games and threaten the opening of the regular season. The first preseason game, at the Pro Football Hall of Fame, is scheduled for Aug. 7.

"This is the season to get a deal," Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said before entering the conference room where representatives from all 32 teams were being updated by Goodell and his negotiating committee. "I think the logic that you're pushing on both sides is saying why get a deal Oct. 1, or whenever, when you could have had July 7, or whatever."

Tuesday marks Day 98 of the lockout, the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 and the longest in NFL history.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485

Ryan
06-21-2011, 03:50 PM
Schefter's Twitter:



It's going to be absolute pandemonium when a deal is struck and FA opens.


Does that affect any Texans?

Ryan
06-21-2011, 03:50 PM
Does that affect any Texans?


Only one i can think of is maybe Vonta.

ChampionTexan
06-21-2011, 04:31 PM
Does that affect any Texans?

The Texans tendered 7 players:


Owen Daniel - Already Signed (But it would have been 6 years)
Jacoby Jones - 4 years
Mark Anderson - 5 Years
Mike Brisiel - 3 Years
Matt Leinart - 5 Years
Rashad Butler - 5 Years
Arian Foster - 2 Years (Exclusive Rights FA)


The years experience listed in the above list is from the Texans Website.

Basically, unless the tweet from Scheffter ends up being off base - or changes with further negotiations, it appears the only tenders the Texans made that will matter are going to be Foster and Brisiel.