townes

Actually you are just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. The two goals are mutually exclusive, if there is no CBA/Union then they can have an unfettered free market, something many of those who support the owners actually claim as a principle, and if they have an agreement under CBA then there will be condition s that allow the owners to abridge some of the freedoms the players would have under an unfettered free market system.


Funny how you guys supposedly support a "free market" unless those in it are athletes, then they have to be reigned in.

PatsWickedPissah

You need to drop the ideology, read what's posted and think, however difficult that may be grasshopper.

The tactic of decertification kicks the issue back into the courts. The union* likely believes that it will win in court. What winning (the goal, the ends) means is to be seen. So we disregard the previously stated positions of influential union* protagonists? If the union* wins in court it does NOT have to re-certify and form a CBA as you so wrongly imply. Think!

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

townes

No kidding?


Once again, you don't get it. You can say the decertification is a "sham" or you can say they want an unfettered free market, not both. Let us know when you can figure that out.

AndyJohnson

I think that the 'sham' argument goes something like this.
-As a union they collectively bargained issues such as a salary cap and draft that are Anti-trust violations absent a CBA.
-By decertifying they can sue on those Anti-Trust violations.
-Should they win they could have the choice of free player movement, no draft etc, or to 'offer' to reform a union to save the NFL from such a system
-The players understand that a collectively bargainned scenario with a draft and controlled player movement is really the only way the league can work
-Therefore the 'sham' lies in the idea that decertification was not a decision with any permanance but one that allowed them to act as if they were not collective, in order to gain a bargaining advantage as a union.

In other words the 'sham' is that the manuever to be able to sue for 'an unfettered free market' but if the won, they would simply use that as a chip to collectively bargain.

Box_O_Rocks

I could have done without knowing about your "flaming."

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

townes

No disagreement here, the owners need player agreement to violate anti-trust statutes, that is actually what makes them "partners."

townes

Once again, no argument here, the player's will have the choice between a free market system or negotiating a deal with owners that abridges some freedoms in return for a good deal that benefits all.

townes

Disagree on this. I agree that the current systems are probably in the best interest of the league as a whole but I don't see how anyone can say that this is the "only" way the league can operate. If the owners offer a fair deal then i would expect the players to agree to it as they always have, if the owners insist on crushing the players and dictating the terms of the deal, as some here are openly rooting for, then I think the player's should tell them to go pound sand and opt for a free market. This is why the decertification is not a "sham" as the players will have options should they win the case, however if they lose it then they are essentially screwed, however they shouldn't as even those who side with the owners realize the players rights are abridged without a CBA.

townes

I don't agree that it is a "sham" because the player's sacrificed their right to strike by renouncing their union and the players are also at risk to lose the suit, even though they are clearly in the right. If they win they will have choices and leverage in making a deal that benefits all or simply going for a free market, so the decertification is very real as it brings high risk and sacrifices union options.

Hopefully they get a deal done in arbitration/mediation, both sides need to be reasonable.

townes

i.e... you believe it is a "sham" and therefore realize that those trying to say their goal is an unfettered free market are wrong.