Cris Collinsworth on the CBA - sees 9-10 game season & possible armageddon with the NFL as you know it

[g-dawg]

What the **** have the owners been threatening, planning for the last 3 years? Don't be naive. Decertification came about because the NFLPA knew the owners were going to anyway. It was there only tool to fight the lockout without caving into a bad deal and you know it. The owners always planned to lockout, and there is no evidence otherewise besides NFL propaganda press releases. How else were they going to get the players to agree to taking less share without showing the books, unless they hit them in the wallet?

And where are all these injunctions and court rulings on the players decertifying? No where because it's not illegal. If you don't like it, change the law.

Besides the NFL crying, where are all of the legal opinions that the Union acted illegally? No where. There is not a lawyer outside of the NFL offices that think the NFL has a chance of winning this in the long term.

It's a waste of time.

the offer on March 11th was pretty dayum close to a total surrender by the owners. Salary caps increasing each year by double digits percentages, owners wanted extra $1 billion for expenses - think the last offered number was like $400 million, more off-time for off-sason, less practice during the season, better health benefits, take care of the retired players health issues, etc. - i'm not including the lack of 18-game schedule because I agree that was a 'throw-away' request from the get-go.

Seemed fair to me......owner's take $400 million more off-the-top for increased expenses - I don't doubt that expenses are more - how much more? who knows but simple logic tells you they are more now than they were 3 years ago....

If player salaries are going up by 10-20% each year, WTH is the problem anyway? rising water lifts all boats and all that other crap.

[g-dawg]

What the **** have the owners been threatening, planning for the last 3 years? Don't be naive. Decertification came about because the NFLPA knew the owners were going to anyway. It was there only tool to fight the lockout without caving into a bad deal and you know it. The owners always planned to lockout, and there is no evidence otherewise besides NFL propaganda press releases. How else were they going to get the players to agree to taking less share without showing the books, unless they hit them in the wallet?

And where are all these injunctions and court rulings on the players decertifying? No where because it's not illegal. If you don't like it, change the law.

Besides the NFL crying, where are all of the legal opinions that the Union acted illegally? No where. There is not a lawyer outside of the NFL offices that think the NFL has a chance of winning this in the long term.

It's a waste of time.

you gotta get out of the beltway, paully

[paulitik]

well said birds-til-death. I see no holes in your statements or logic either.

I too believe if the NFLPA did not decertify and if the players were at baragaining table, I believe we would have had a deal by now.

The players are holding up the show. Litigation is litigation - it takes forever and is not sensitive to the NFL schedule.

There is nothing stopping the NFL from lifting the lockout, and resuming under 2010 rule which is better for the owners anyway.

There was a deadline, the negotiations were going nowhere, the NFLPA hasd to make a call to decertify in time to try to save the season. If they extended talks and they went on through May, if they decertify that late, it's too late to salvage the season. They had to.

The owners know they will lose in court, and they are holding the season hostage to try and win.

The players repeatedly tried to continue talks and were rejected until the courts forced it. Then you have owners coming out in public saying that these talks are meaningless.

None of these issues you all are peeing your pants about aren't what the players are suing for. They are trying to overturn the lockout. As of right now they are just threats.

[g-dawg]

There is nothing stopping the NFL from lifting the lockout, and resuming under 2010 rule which is better for the owners anyway.

There was a deadline, the negotiations were going nowhere, the NFLPA hasd to make a call to decertify in time to try to save the season. If they extended talks and they went on through May, if they decertify that late, it's too late to salvage the season. They had to.

The owners know they will lose in court, and they are holding the season hostage to try and win.

The players repeatedly tried to continue talks and were rejected until the courts forced it. Then you have owners coming out in public saying that these talks are meaningless.

None of these issues you all are peeing your pants about aren't what the players are suing for. They are trying to overturn the lockout. As of right now they are just threats.

I don't understand......once the players decertified and started the anti-trust lawsuit - what then would be motivation for the owners to end the lockout?

Owners: "You sued me players, I locked you out after your sued me. I will let you come back to work, and I know you are not going to drop the lawsuit - which is fine w/ me". - Does this make sense? H3ll NO!!!

I would say to players, drop your anti-trust lawsuit and I will not lock you out.

"no ticky, no washee"

[paulitik]

the offer on March 11th was pretty dayum close to a total surrender by the owners. Salary caps increasing each year by double digits percentages, owners wanted extra $1 billion for expenses - think the last offered number was like $400 million, more off-time for off-sason, less practice during the season, better health benefits, take care of the retired players health issues, etc. - i'm not including the lack of 18-game schedule because I agree that was a 'throw-away' request from the get-go.

Seemed fair to me......owner's take $400 million more off-the-top for increased expenses - I don't doubt that expenses are more - how much more? who knows but simple logic tells you they are more now than they were 3 years ago....

If player salaries are going up by 10-20% each year, WTH is the problem anyway? rising water lifts all boats and all that other crap.

So we are just supposed to take the NFL at their word? The players agreed to the terms, and the owners wouldn't show the books. So after the Owners get busted trying to scam $4 Billion, we are supposed to believe that? We are supposed to believe that was the entire deal why? Because it was put out in a pretty press release. The owners blew any credibility they had with the TV deal.

There is a serious lack of trust between the sides. Unfortunately mediation, court-ordered may be the only means to get there.

I'm not thrilled having to try to defend the NFLPA, I certainly don't like a lot of what they are doing, but the NFL shutting down the season is absolutely inexcusable to me. Sorry, even if the courts take apart the Draft and Revenue sharing, I don't see that doing much worse than shutting the whole thing down for 2 years in the long run. Either scenario will damage the NFL for years.

As far as getting out of the Beltway? Not sure what that has to do with anything. I could go back to Georgia and struggle to find a job, and make half of what I should or live here where everyone is prospering thanks to "Big Government". That said, I don't plan on being here forever. Westward bound.

[Aria7]

Peter King's MMQB - Collinsworth on NFL Labor Unrest

A smart arbiter looks at the labor endgame. And it's not pretty

I want to start today with a guy who can be a fair referee to both players and owners. He was a player, a very good one, and now he's close to lots of players, and to key people on both sides. He's part jock, part lawyer, part E.F. Hutton. And one great color man. And he has a thoughtful, plaintive wail for everyone in this labor mess:

"Is this really what we want -- judges determining so much about the future of the National Football League?'' Cris Collinsworth said over the weekend. "We've got the greatest game in the world here in a time of incredible wealth, and we're in a position where that very possibly can be changed forever here very soon. And I'm just asking: Why?''

The other day, I noticed Collinsworth had written on his website, footballpros.com, and tweeted that his best guess for the start of the NFL season was early November. Then there'd be a nine- or 10-game regular season, then the same number of playoff games. So I reached out to him to see what he meant.

This disclaimer right up front: I've known Collinsworth since 1984, when I covered him on the Bengals in Cincinnati. Now I work with Collinsworth and consider him a friend. We've beaten each other up on many topics over the years, but that's why I like him. I can tell him he's nuts, and usually he likes it; we did it a lot at HBO and then NBC before he left the studio and went into the play-by-play booth. But I understand if you're sitting there thinking I'm not going to be impartial or I'm going to paint Collinsworth in a good way. I am -- but that's because what he's saying makes a lot of sense.

Collinsworth's point is an interesting one. He thinks the appeals court will side with the owners and the current lockout will stay in place. If it does, neither side will be supremely motivated to move; the owners will figure they've already made a strong offer (the March 11 offer) and will wait for the players to budge. But the players, on a tremendous streak in the courts right now, will figure they've made sound arguments in front of a mediator in Washington and judges in Minneapolis, and even if the lockout stays legal, their antitrust case will have a good chance in the Eighth Circuit.

And the players won't blink until they start missing paychecks. Collinsworth saw it twice as a player, in 1982 and 1987. "The only thing I'm absolutely certain of,'' he told me, "is that there will be players broke by the middle of September. There will be pressure to make a deal. But there will be pressure by owners too. They've got payments to make too -- stadium mortgages.''

Collinsworth gives them three or four weeks to make a deal. Then a week of free agency, signing undrafted college players and unsigned veterans. Two weeks of camp. One preseason game. Then the season starts, either on Oct. 30 or Nov. 6.

But if that scenario doesn't happen, and if the two sides stay in a cold war, what happens if, say, a season is missed? Here's where it gets hairy, and where we have to start wondering which way the game will go. In Brady v. the NFL, the players argue for a new way of doing football business. Longtime players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler would like to see the draft abolished; in fact, as Daniel Kaplan of Sports Business Journal has reported, Kessler would like to see no player-acquisition rules. No draft. Free agency for every unsigned player. What would the NFL look like if every player and every team were allowed to make its own business decisions that would, of course, be in the best interests of each?

Say the TV contracts were abolished and teams could make their own deals. "If the Cowboys could sell their rights, maybe they'd get $500 million a year, and maybe the Bengals would get $50 [million],'' he said.

Say Peyton Manning could sign anywhere. Could some owners field super teams and some field Kansas City Royal-type teams?

Say there was no draft. It's every player for himself. Collinsworth isn't even sure that's the worst thing. Nor am I. But it'd certainly be revolutionary.

And say drug-testing was abolished.

How many doors do you want to open?

"It's possible the structure of the game could change forever,'' he said. "Now, game after game after game, week after week after week, goes down to the wire. The pro game could become like college football -- 55-14 most games, with four or five tremendous games of national interest every year. Now we have that many every week.''

There's no guarantee Collinsworth's right. I remember the late George Young, the Giants' longtime GM, railing against free agency for years as the '80s ended and a free market was inevitable. "We're not like baseball,'' he said. "You can't just plug in a guard the way you plug in a second baseman. Guards can have much different responsibilities depending on what team they're on.''

True. But it worked out fine. Free agency's been a boon. And not only hasn't it hurt the competitive balance of the game, but also it's given the league another hot-stove month of the offseason when football's in the headlines. Traditionally, the combine's big for the last two weeks of February, free agency big for March, the draft for April, offseason workouts for six weeks in May and June, and then training camps begin at the end of July.

So I'm not sure the death of the draft would be the death of competitive balance. Teams would figure it out the same way they figured out how to replenish the roster when losing unsigned vets.

But if players take this all the way in the courts, and win, and change the game forever, what would stop Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder from becoming the Steinbrenners and John Henry? (If baseball had a franchise player designation, Adrian Gonzalez would be a Padre for life, not tearing up the American League for Boston right now.) There'd be nothing to stop Jones, with a monster TV network, from having a $250-million payroll. Similar to baseball, the bottom-feeder NFL teams would struggle. Dallas might have five minimum-salary special-teamers. Cincinnati might have 20, and some might start.

The question is: Would that make the game better?

Collinsworth, at times in our conversation, sounded like he sounds when he gets strident -- like he's throttling the microphone and would do anything to make you see his point.

"God, I just wish I could get through to somebody,'' he said. "You know how when you're talking to your kids, and you know positively what the right thing to do is, and you also know they're going to do something else, and there's nothing you can do about it? That's how I feel now. And, God, is it painful to watch.

"The game's so good. The players are making money. The owners are making money. The commissioner's got some good safety initiatives going. The networks are thrilled. The fans are thrilled. The game's never been better. It's time to quit sugarcoating this thing and really start thinking about what the NFL really might look like at the end of the process.''

If this did occur the Falcons would be in a good place to capitalize on this. Players would want to go to winning franchises. Also it would make the Julio Jones trade all the sweeter. There would be no draft next year and then the Falcons would simply have swapped #1 and gave up a 2 and 4.

It sure would suck to be the Panthers.

[ukfalc]

There is nothing stopping the NFL from lifting the lockout, and resuming under 2010 rule which is better for the owners anyway.

They could play under the 2010 rules, but they would be leaving themeselves open to further anti-trust claims (and treble damages) by doing so.

There was a deadline, the negotiations were going nowhere, the NFLPA hasd to make a call to decertify in time to try to save the season. If they extended talks and they went on through May, if they decertify that late, it's too late to salvage the season. They had to.

No they didnlt. If the media reports are correct, the owners were prepared to agree a further extensionn of the CBA to enable the players to fully consider the offer. The owners have also said that they fully expected the players to have some issues with the offers, which they would have been happy to negotiate with the players on.

I've seen nothing for to indicate that the NFLPA made any meaningful concessions during the negotiations. The NFL went public with its offer, and the concession it made. The NFLPA's reposne to that was extreemly weak, made up of bizarre comments which suggested that they didn't think that the NFL's offer was serious one and some very vague rebuttals that clearly didn't hold water in the light of the NFL's offer (e.g. they accused the owners of not loking after player safety, even though the 18 game season was being abandoned and off-season OTA reduced by 40%).

The players repeatedly tried to continue talks and were rejected until the courts forced it. Then you have owners coming out in public saying that these talks are meaningless.

None of these issues you all are peeing your pants about aren't what the players are suing for. They are trying to overturn the lockout. As of right now they are just threats.

They player were willing to negotiate after the court case was issued. the NFL refused because they want to collectively bargain with a union, rather than be in settlement discussions with a group of player.

The players are challenging the draft, salary cap and free agency restrictions. It is in the court papers that were filed on March 11th before the lockout (see para's 125 ownwards of the link below). They may only be raising those issues for leverage (which would affirm the league's case that the decertification is a sham), but as it stands they are being challenged.

https://docs.google.com/a/leventhalpllc.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwVkb6p7OhGiMmY1MzMyZTktN2RiNC00NDA2LWFiOTAtNDhkYzAxOWE3NmU5&hl=en

[g-dawg]

As far as getting out of the Beltway? Not sure what that has to do with anything. I could go back to Georgia and struggle to find a job, and make half of what I should or live here where everyone is prospering thanks to "Big Government". That said, I don't plan on being here forever. Westward bound.

yeah, that is right - the only big city in america that did not participate in the recession was Washington DC - with six figure jobs for as far as the eye can see -

Washington D.C's prosperity

financed by: the Chi-comms

ultimately paid for by: all those living outside the beltway

and mostly will be paid by: my children and everyone else's children and grandchildren

its a disgrace what current "grown-up"(so called) generation is doing to future generations. Basically the future generations are being "stolen from" right now in broad daylight by the political leaders.

[Aria7]

Peter King's MMQB - Collinsworth on NFL Labor Unrest

A smart arbiter looks at the labor endgame. And it's not pretty

I want to start today with a guy who can be a fair referee to both players and owners. He was a player, a very good one, and now he's close to lots of players, and to key people on both sides. He's part jock, part lawyer, part E.F. Hutton. And one great color man. And he has a thoughtful, plaintive wail for everyone in this labor mess:

"Is this really what we want -- judges determining so much about the future of the National Football League?'' Cris Collinsworth said over the weekend. "We've got the greatest game in the world here in a time of incredible wealth, and we're in a position where that very possibly can be changed forever here very soon. And I'm just asking: Why?''

The other day, I noticed Collinsworth had written on his website, footballpros.com, and tweeted that his best guess for the start of the NFL season was early November. Then there'd be a nine- or 10-game regular season, then the same number of playoff games. So I reached out to him to see what he meant.

This disclaimer right up front: I've known Collinsworth since 1984, when I covered him on the Bengals in Cincinnati. Now I work with Collinsworth and consider him a friend. We've beaten each other up on many topics over the years, but that's why I like him. I can tell him he's nuts, and usually he likes it; we did it a lot at HBO and then NBC before he left the studio and went into the play-by-play booth. But I understand if you're sitting there thinking I'm not going to be impartial or I'm going to paint Collinsworth in a good way. I am -- but that's because what he's saying makes a lot of sense.

Collinsworth's point is an interesting one. He thinks the appeals court will side with the owners and the current lockout will stay in place. If it does, neither side will be supremely motivated to move; the owners will figure they've already made a strong offer (the March 11 offer) and will wait for the players to budge. But the players, on a tremendous streak in the courts right now, will figure they've made sound arguments in front of a mediator in Washington and judges in Minneapolis, and even if the lockout stays legal, their antitrust case will have a good chance in the Eighth Circuit.

And the players won't blink until they start missing paychecks. Collinsworth saw it twice as a player, in 1982 and 1987. "The only thing I'm absolutely certain of,'' he told me, "is that there will be players broke by the middle of September. There will be pressure to make a deal. But there will be pressure by owners too. They've got payments to make too -- stadium mortgages.''

Collinsworth gives them three or four weeks to make a deal. Then a week of free agency, signing undrafted college players and unsigned veterans. Two weeks of camp. One preseason game. Then the season starts, either on Oct. 30 or Nov. 6.

But if that scenario doesn't happen, and if the two sides stay in a cold war, what happens if, say, a season is missed? Here's where it gets hairy, and where we have to start wondering which way the game will go. In Brady v. the NFL, the players argue for a new way of doing football business. Longtime players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler would like to see the draft abolished; in fact, as Daniel Kaplan of Sports Business Journal has reported, Kessler would like to see no player-acquisition rules. No draft. Free agency for every unsigned player. What would the NFL look like if every player and every team were allowed to make its own business decisions that would, of course, be in the best interests of each?

Say the TV contracts were abolished and teams could make their own deals. "If the Cowboys could sell their rights, maybe they'd get $500 million a year, and maybe the Bengals would get $50 [million],'' he said.

Say Peyton Manning could sign anywhere. Could some owners field super teams and some field Kansas City Royal-type teams?

Say there was no draft. It's every player for himself. Collinsworth isn't even sure that's the worst thing. Nor am I. But it'd certainly be revolutionary.

And say drug-testing was abolished.

How many doors do you want to open?

"It's possible the structure of the game could change forever,'' he said. "Now, game after game after game, week after week after week, goes down to the wire. The pro game could become like college football -- 55-14 most games, with four or five tremendous games of national interest every year. Now we have that many every week.''

There's no guarantee Collinsworth's right. I remember the late George Young, the Giants' longtime GM, railing against free agency for years as the '80s ended and a free market was inevitable. "We're not like baseball,'' he said. "You can't just plug in a guard the way you plug in a second baseman. Guards can have much different responsibilities depending on what team they're on.''

True. But it worked out fine. Free agency's been a boon. And not only hasn't it hurt the competitive balance of the game, but also it's given the league another hot-stove month of the offseason when football's in the headlines. Traditionally, the combine's big for the last two weeks of February, free agency big for March, the draft for April, offseason workouts for six weeks in May and June, and then training camps begin at the end of July.

So I'm not sure the death of the draft would be the death of competitive balance. Teams would figure it out the same way they figured out how to replenish the roster when losing unsigned vets.

But if players take this all the way in the courts, and win, and change the game forever, what would stop Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder from becoming the Steinbrenners and John Henry? (If baseball had a franchise player designation, Adrian Gonzalez would be a Padre for life, not tearing up the American League for Boston right now.) There'd be nothing to stop Jones, with a monster TV network, from having a $250-million payroll. Similar to baseball, the bottom-feeder NFL teams would struggle. Dallas might have five minimum-salary special-teamers. Cincinnati might have 20, and some might start.

The question is: Would that make the game better?

Collinsworth, at times in our conversation, sounded like he sounds when he gets strident -- like he's throttling the microphone and would do anything to make you see his point.

"God, I just wish I could get through to somebody,'' he said. "You know how when you're talking to your kids, and you know positively what the right thing to do is, and you also know they're going to do something else, and there's nothing you can do about it? That's how I feel now. And, God, is it painful to watch.

"The game's so good. The players are making money. The owners are making money. The commissioner's got some good safety initiatives going. The networks are thrilled. The fans are thrilled. The game's never been better. It's time to quit sugarcoating this thing and really start thinking about what the NFL really might look like at the end of the process.''

If this did occur the Falcons would be in a good place to capitalize on this. Players would want to go to winning franchises. Also it would make the Julio Jones trade all the sweeter. There would be no draft next year and then the Falcons would simply have swapped #1 and gave up a 2 and 4.

It sure would suck to be the Panthers.

[g-dawg]

If this did occur the Falcons would be in a good place to capitalize on this. Players would want to go to winning franchises. Also it would make the Julio Jones trade all the sweeter. There would be no draft next year and then the Falcons would simply have swapped #1 and gave up a 2 and 4.

It sure would suck to be the Panthers.

it would suck to be the Falcons as well. Falcons franchise value is about 20th or so....with no revenue sharing - Falcons would be a "have not" - not a "have" Blank's billions of personal wealth would not be enough to keep up with Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder who would bring in 5 times the revenue in ticket prices, licesensing, TV deals, etc. - Skins and Pokes could "buy the free agent market - college and pro."

[CoolUsernameHere]

Once upon a time there was a goose in a small village. And it laid wonderful golden eggs. Every day the townspeople went out to see dozens of golden eggs underneath the goose. The townspeople shared them and profited greatly.

The goose became famous. People from neighboring towns came to watch, and the goose didn't disappoint. The more people that showed, the more eggs the goose laid. The townspeople were amazed at this magical goose and thankful for their great fortunes in having it arrive at their village. By now they were becoming very wealthy.

But everything has a natural limit. And soon no matter how much it tried the magical goose just couldn't keep up with the increasing demands of the townspeople for more and more golden eggs. They began to poke at the goose, which worked for awhile. Each time they poked and prodded, more eggs came out. But it was clear very soon that these actions were making the goose sick.

After a while, the townspeople began to argue about who owned the right to the majority of the now short supply of golden eggs. A dispute broke out between the breeder/keeper's family, and the stable manager's family as to who ultimately controlled the goose. The stablekeepers shut the doors and refused to allow any visitors in to see the goose, even locking the keeper's family out. This only made things worse for the now very sickly magical goose.

A few more months passed and the highly prized "prime egg laying" season passed with no visitors from neighboring towns. This greatly hurt all the other townspeople who made their living selling food and souveniers to the once plentiful visitors. The goose was sicker than ever, now in critical condition. The stable managers panicked and let the keepers back in to try to save the dying magical goose. But it was too late.

The keepers and stable managers were in shock. What had they done? They searched the village repeatedly and tried to find other magical gooses, but none were the same, and none ever came close to attaining the popularity of the long lost goose. The village struggled and perservered, and after many years began to scrape things together again and get back on its feet.

But there was never another goose like the magical golden egg laying goose. And the old folks in the neighboring towns would tell their children and grandchildren amazing stories about their travels to the village during the days of the golden goose. Stories filled with tales of great parties, cookouts, and multitudes of cheering people. And if you looked closely as the old folks spoke, you could see the tiny, almost imperceptable tears falling from the corner of their eyes.

Hahaha... what a compelling story!

I just want football. I'm choosing to try not to agree with a particular side. Both sides need a reality check. I just want a 2011 NFL season.

[paulitik]

I don't understand......once the players decertified and started the anti-trust lawsuit - what then would be motivation for the owners to end the lockout?

Owners: "You sued me players, I locked you out after your sued me. I will let you come back to work, and I know you are not going to drop the lawsuit - which is fine w/ me". - Does this make sense? H3ll NO!!!

I would say to players, drop your anti-trust lawsuit and I will not lock you out.

"no ticky, no washee"

Why should the players drop it,when the courts most likely will overturn it? They are suing to take the lockout option away. If the recertify, then the owners lockout any way, then it's too late to save the season.

I don't understand why you are raising ****. It sounds to me like you support the lockout. I don't know what you're unhappy about. You think the owners should stand their ground. You need to go buy a generic NFL jersey with a big shield and cheer this thing on.

The simple fact is, the Owners blew it, they need to drop the appeal, let Nelson's ruling stand, take their lumps, come to an agreement with the previous CBA's share. They need to gut the NFL office, sh!+can Goodell, find an actual leader that knows what's going on, and try to recover in future negotiations. That is the only way we all win. You know as well as I do, with all of the trust lost, a long term CBA is no where near coming to fruition. Getting rid of Goodell would be a nice gesture to the players, that they are committing to dealing in good faith, granted a symbolic one.

[g-dawg]

Why should the players drop it,when the courts most likely will overturn it? They are suing to take the lockout option away. If the recertify, then the owners lockout any way, then it's too late to save the season.

I don't understand why you are raising ****. It sounds to me like you support the lockout. I don't know what you're unhappy about. You think the owners should stand their ground. You need to go buy a generic NFL jersey with a big shield and cheer this thing on.

The simple fact is, the Owners blew it, they need to drop the appeal, let Nelson's ruling stand, take their lumps, come to an agreement with the previous CBA's share. They need to gut the NFL office, sh!+can Goodell, find an actual leader that knows what's going on, and try to recover in future negotiations. That is the only way we all win. You know as well as I do, with all of the trust lost, a long term CBA is no where near coming to fruition. Getting rid of Goodell would be a nice gesture to the players, that they are committing to dealing in good faith, granted a symbolic one.

players need to dump DeMaurice - that is how a deal will get done. At least Gene Upshaw actually cared about the future of the NFL and the players. DeMaurice does not care - he just doesn't...

[birds_till_death]

What the **** have the owners been threatening, planning for the last 3 years? Don't be naive. Decertification came about because the NFLPA knew the owners were going to anyway. It was there only tool to fight the lockout without caving into a bad deal and you know it. The owners always planned to lockout, and there is no evidence otherewise besides NFL propaganda press releases. How else were they going to get the players to agree to taking less share without showing the books, unless they hit them in the wallet?

And where are all these injunctions and court rulings on the players decertifying? No where because it's not illegal. If you don't like it, change the law.

Besides the NFL crying, where are all of the legal opinions that the Union acted illegally? No where. There is not a lawyer outside of the NFL offices that think the NFL has a chance of winning this in the long term.

It's a waste of time.

Better check your facts, it is illegal. IF the union decertified to gain better leverage towards negotiating a more favorable CBA, that is Illegal(which by your own points and admissions is exactly what they are doing, makes there actions ILLEGAL). The National Labor Relations board, where the NFL has a court case pending, is the only court in the United States that has the jurisdiction and authority to determine if the decertification was in fact a legal and legitimate move by the NFLPA. Did you even bother to read up on what this appeal is about and what was argued before Judge Nelson. Court ordered injuctions to end lockouts or strikes that arose from collectively bargained labor disputes are not within the jurisdiction of any court but the National Labor Relations Board. That's what is clearly stated in the Norris-Laguardia act, which is why that is being tossed around so much. This is a lockout that arised from a collectively bargained labor dispute.

The Labor board can very easily rule and force the players back to the CBA and union status, they just haven't heard the case yet, hence why there hasn't been any news on that. And unfortunatley, they like to take there sweet time on hearing appeals and cases.

Check your facts on what is an isn't illegal regarding Labor Law. Your entire argument and basis for what the players are doing is the exact definition of what makes there actions illegal and in violation of the existing Labor Statues.

And the same argument can be said about the NFLPA. Unless the recieved the exact same deal, they had always planned to decertify. They proved that by many quotes and statements made before the fact. There's just as much evidence showing their intent to decertify, but there is a lot more evidence showing the NFL's attemtps to negotiate. The bottom line, the players didn't budge on anything, while the owners budged on everything except wanting more from the revenue. Owners offered a 60% increase in retired benefits, increase in post career healthcare, shorter off-season training regimes, less full pad practice during the season, rookie wage scale(both sides wanted this but the owners adopted the players suggestion instead of their desire to have it slotted by draft position) with a gurantee the money saved would go towards veteran players and retired players' benefits. The owners offered MORE FINANCIAL DATA than had EVER been offered before during CBA negotiations and the players refused to look at it.

The owners knew they were going to have to make concessions to get a bigger piece of the pie. They did that, and offered that. The players weren't willing to give up any of their piece of pie to get all the extra add ons that they claim to have been wanting the past few years.

[birds_till_death]

They could play under the 2010 rules, but they would be leaving themeselves open to further anti-trust claims (and treble damages) by doing so.

No they didnlt. If the media reports are correct, the owners were prepared to agree a further extensionn of the CBA to enable the players to fully consider the offer. The owners have also said that they fully expected the players to have some issues with the offers, which they would have been happy to negotiate with the players on.

I've seen nothing for to indicate that the NFLPA made any meaningful concessions during the negotiations. The NFL went public with its offer, and the concession it made. The NFLPA's reposne to that was extreemly weak, made up of bizarre comments which suggested that they didn't think that the NFL's offer was serious one and some very vague rebuttals that clearly didn't hold water in the light of the NFL's offer (e.g. they accused the owners of not loking after player safety, even though the 18 game season was being abandoned and off-season OTA reduced by 40%).

They player were willing to negotiate after the court case was issued. the NFL refused because they want to collectively bargain with a union, rather than be in settlement discussions with a group of player.

The players are challenging the draft, salary cap and free agency restrictions. It is in the court papers that were filed on March 11th before the lockout (see para's 125 ownwards of the link below). They may only be raising those issues for leverage (which would affirm the league's case that the decertification is a sham), but as it stands they are being challenged.

https://docs.google.com/a/leventhalpllc.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwVkb6p7OhGiMmY1MzMyZTktN2RiNC00NDA2LWFiOTAtNDhkYzAxOWE3NmU5&hl=en

Very well stated. +1 good sir

[lasher1116]

I gave you +1. You said what I wanted to point out. The decertification of the NFLPA is completely Illegal, and once it is heard by the only and correct court system, the NFLPA will have to gather up its losses and meet with the owners.

I do not understand why people think the NFL owners are going to lose this???? The NFLPA by the Union laws and regulations can not decertify under the grounds they have, and the courts can not allow them to do that or it would cause a massive ripple effect for the Union world. The NFLPA will have to get back to the table and negotiate with the owners, and it will take a while before anything happens.

We more than likely will have no football this season, at all.

[paulitik]

Better check your facts, it is illegal. IF the union decertified to gain better leverage towards negotiating a more favorable CBA, that is Illegal(which by your own points and admissions is exactly what they are doing, makes there actions ILLEGAL). The National Labor Relations board, where the NFL has a court case pending, is the only court in the United States that has the jurisdiction and authority to determine if the decertification was in fact a legal and legitimate move by the NFLPA. Did you even bother to read up on what this appeal is about and what was argued before Judge Nelson. Court ordered injuctions to end lockouts or strikes that arose from collectively bargained labor disputes are not within the jurisdiction of any court but the National Labor Relations Board. That's what is clearly stated in the Norris-Laguardia act, which is why that is being tossed around so much. This is a lockout that arised from a collectively bargained labor dispute.

The Labor board can very easily rule and force the players back to the CBA and union status, they just haven't heard the case yet, hence why there hasn't been any news on that. And unfortunatley, they like to take there sweet time on hearing appeals and cases.

Check your facts on what is an isn't illegal regarding Labor Law. Your entire argument and basis for what the players are doing is the exact definition of what makes there actions illegal and in violation of the existing Labor Statues.

And the same argument can be said about the NFLPA. Unless the recieved the exact same deal, they had always planned to decertify. They proved that by many quotes and statements made before the fact. There's just as much evidence showing their intent to decertify, but there is a lot more evidence showing the NFL's attemtps to negotiate. The bottom line, the players didn't budge on anything, while the owners budged on everything except wanting more from the revenue. Owners offered a 60% increase in retired benefits, increase in post career healthcare, shorter off-season training regimes, less full pad practice during the season, rookie wage scale(both sides wanted this but the owners adopted the players suggestion instead of their desire to have it slotted by draft position) with a gurantee the money saved would go towards veteran players and retired players' benefits. The owners offered MORE FINANCIAL DATA than had EVER been offered before during CBA negotiations and the players refused to look at it.

The owners knew they were going to have to make concessions to get a bigger piece of the pie. They did that, and offered that. The players weren't willing to give up any of their piece of pie to get all the extra add ons that they claim to have been wanting the past few years.

The players didn't budge because they can't trust the owners. After the TV deal, how can you trust them? You are just stating what the NFL has been arguing to save face in the public sector. Do you work in NFL PR?

Where is this evidence that the NFLPA always planned to decertify? The Doty case proved the NFL did plan to lockout, but there is no tangible evidence of that 3 or 4 years ago the NFLPA planned to decertify. They planned it only once talk of a lockout started and decided to use it as a possible tool over the last season. Yes, they voted on giving themselves the option, but there is no evidence that they weren't willing to negotiate without decertifying. They were willing to give the owners what they wanted, the owners didn't want to play ball by opening up all the books, just cherry pick the ones they want to.

I have heard all these arguments several times, and so have the NFLTA, they don't seem too concerned, and no where in the legal world in the articles and articles I've read, do I see anything near a consensus giving any edge to the owners in regards to the possible NLRB ruling? Judge Nelson didn't seem too worried about it, and I think the NFLPA lawyers are obviously smart enough to know they have a loophole, or else they wouldn't have decertified in the first place. It sure as **** doesn't look like the NLRB is in any hurry, and who knows, maybe they just know that they can get an injunction first. Whatever gets this done sooner.

So until the NLRB weighs in, I really don't care, and until they do as far as I'm concerned it's a moot point. I'm just crossing my fingers that the 8th circuit get their $#!+ together and overturn this farce.

So look, keep googling yourself more arguments, I'm done because this is getting tired. I'm tired of arguing. Because you can defend the owners all you want, but the ultimate reason there will be no football is because they chose to stop it. If the owners win the appeal, this won't end anytime soon. I want the quickest solution. I don't care if Paul Allen has to sell his yacht and get a canoe, I don't care if Roddy White has to switch to Timex watches. I want football. My political beliefs and stances on business and ownership aren't in this. I don't give a %$#%, just give me a season starting Sept 11, so I can take a trip to Chicago. So you keep cheering for TEAM LOCKOUT, I'm going to cheer for the Falcons.

I'm done.

[cannonballsghost]

What the **** have the owners been threatening, planning for the last 3 years? Don't be naive. Decertification came about because the NFLPA knew the owners were going to anyway. It was there only tool to fight the lockout without caving into a bad deal and you know it. The owners always planned to lockout, and there is no evidence otherewise besides NFL propaganda press releases. How else were they going to get the players to agree to taking less share without showing the books, unless they hit them in the wallet?

And where are all these injunctions and court rulings on the players decertifying? No where because it's not illegal. If you don't like it, change the law.

Besides the NFL crying, where are all of the legal opinions that the Union acted illegally? No where. There is not a lawyer outside of the NFL offices that think the NFL has a chance of winning this in the long term.

It's a waste of time.

You might want to reconsider this post after the ruling today :ph34r:

[Shuswap]

let's all just move to Canada and become Toronto Argounaut fans. :unsure:

BC Lions, we wil pay you

[DD: Objective Elite]

Pitt Steelers/ GB Packers totally invalidate the "small market myth" in football. It's not just the total amount of money available but how you reinvest it back into the team, coaching, scouting, player development.

Care to comment on how they are going to fund their team, without revenue sharing?

There's only one of two answer's pay less or charge more.

[ukfalc]

The players didn't budge because they can't trust the owners. After the TV deal, how can you trust them? You are just stating what the NFL has been arguing to save face in the public sector. Do you work in NFL PR?

I have somy sympathy with the players in that respect, BUT at some stage the parties are going to have to trust each other and work together - and litigation builds animosity rather than trust.

[Gritzblitz 2.0]

From the looks of things here, it's clear that management is winning the propaganda battle.

[youngbloodz]

Nobody knows what's going to happen with the NFL. You can assume all you want but none of us know anything but what someone else reports