Rumor: No CBA means teams can't hold individual pre-draft workouts

[jmt57]

I'm not exactly sure why this would be, considering that fact that players that are not yet drafted are not yet part of the NFLPA, but the latest news is that teams will not be able to hold individual pre-draft workouts for those college prospects. I'm guessing this news is assuming that no CBA means a lockout will be triggered, and this would be one of the side effects of a lockout.

In addition teams will not be able to talk to agents at Pro Day workouts if there is a lockout.


All this is going to make player evaluations prior to the draft that much more difficult. Teams are going to have to rely that much more on breaking down college game film, and the 15-minute interviews they are able to get at the Combine.

 

[jmt57]

Re: No CBA means teams can't hold individual pre-draft workouts

Update: The NFLPA is now saying they won't object; if teams are restricted from talking to prospects that is an NFL rule and not an NFLPA rule.

It is an interpretation of the rule about teams not being able to communicate with players after the CBA expires. Although the NFLPA views rookies as members of the union, technically they are not until they sign a contract.

So why would the NFL look at the college prospects this way? I'm guessing they're looking for a little bit more leverage in the negotiations, but it sure does seem like an odd tactic.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: No CBA means teams can't hold individual pre-draft workouts

Update: The NFLPA is now saying they won't object; if teams are restricted from talking to prospects that is an NFL rule and not an NFLPA rule.

It is an interpretation of the rule about teams not being able to communicate with players after the CBA expires. Although the NFLPA views rookies as members of the union, technically they are not until they sign a contract.

So why would the NFL look at the college prospects this way? I'm guessing they're looking for a little bit more leverage in the negotiations, but it sure does seem like an odd tactic.

I don't think the NFL is the one taking the odd tactic here. Miscommunicating facts is the bread and butter of the NFLPA. These are the guys who according to agents wanted them to advise their clients not to attend the combine until the agents stopped laughing and said what are you, idiots?

 

[jmt57]

Re: No CBA means teams can't hold individual pre-draft workouts

For what it's worth - consider the source and take with a grain of salt; an agent is saying the following, based on DeMaurice Smith's remarks to the agents at the combine today:

"Not close on one single issue. This WILL go into September."




Back to the original topic, Thomas Dimitroff just said that he expects "business as usual" in regards to the whole pre-draft process of workouts, visits, interviews, etc., so the original information I posted may indeed be incorrect.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i think they are going to have one more uncaped year just like this one

 

[serifyn]

its not about cap, its about revenue sharing, right now its 50/50, the owners want more and the players dont want to give anything back.

the players lose more leading up to september, but if the owners start losing games, they will start losing alot more money than they are now.

the players dont have to do anything, except make it through to september, the owners will cave first because they have to, they need money to support everything including stadiums and facilities and other personnel costs.

 

[Pujo]

the players dont have to do anything, except make it through to september, the owners will cave first because they have to, they need money to support everything including stadiums and facilities and other personnel costs.

The biggest revenue sources for teams are the NFL TV contracts, which are guaranteed (the NFL gets paid even if they don't have games), while I'm sure many players live paycheck to paycheck, even with their massive salaries (think massive spending to go along with those salaries). The owners are in a better position to wait it out than the players.

 

[Deus Irae]

The biggest revenue sources for teams are the NFL TV contracts, which are guaranteed (the NFL gets paid even if they don't have games), while I'm sure many players live paycheck to paycheck, even with their massive salaries (think massive spending to go along with those salaries). The owners are in a better position to wait it out than the players.

The TV contract money is something that Doty will be ruling on.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/24/unsealed-documents-show-league-added-lockout-insurance-to-2009-tv-contract-extensions/

 

[sbpatfan]

its not about cap, its about revenue sharing, right now its 50/50, the owners want more and the players dont want to give anything back.

the players lose more leading up to september, but if the owners start losing games, they will start losing alot more money than they are now.

the players dont have to do anything, except make it through to september, the owners will cave first because they have to, they need money to support everything including stadiums and facilities and other personnel costs.

The owners are all rich businessmen, they will be fine in a lockout. Football is just another way they can make a profit, none of them solely rely on football to make money.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The TV contract money is something that Doty will be ruling on.

Unsealed documents show league added “lockout insurance” to 2009 TV contract extensions | ProFootballTalk

The Special Master already ruled in favor of the league after reviewing all the documents. He's a law professor. Doty declined to expedite the union's appeal because he didn't want to give either side additional leverage at this juncture. It's not remotely given he will reverse Burbank's ruling. Sometimes Florio confuses having a law degree with knowing all the ins and outs of every type of law and case...and he has shown something of an agenda where these management v. union arguments are concerned. The TV revenue was always included in the shared revenue. That didn't change when the formula did. The new formula added additional shared revenue like gate receipts and luxury boxes and signage and naming rights...that are negotiated or controlled by individual franchises. Maybe Florio thinks the players should mount a case against owners not maximizing those revenues...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

i think they are going to have one more uncaped year just like this one

The union would love that...but the owners have already said that is the one option that is not on the table. There will either be a new CBA or a lockout or an interim set of work rules that incorporates what owners are offering as a new CBA that will be in effect until court cases change the landscape and as a result the union decides to reorganize and agree to a new CBA.