Adam Shefter Tweets "DeSmith told players plan is to decertify"

[KDPPatsfan85]

We'll see if anything changes, it always could, but De Smith told players during his conference call the plan is to decertify.

Looks like this thing is going to court!!! There might not be an NFL Season!!

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

if this is accurate, and that's "the plan" doesn't that indicate the NFLPA is not bargaining in good faith?

 

[Calciumee]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Really does seem NFLPA are willing to accept anything!

Looks like I am going to be getting into NCAA

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com//2.../03/10/nfl-labor-restraining-order/index.html

^^^^This would be our only hope of some normalcy at this point.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Looks like this thing is going to court!!! There might not be an NFL Season!!

Actually a decertification will almost guarantee a season. The reason the NFLPA are decertifying is to block the NFL from locking them out.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

if this is accurate, and that's "the plan" doesn't that indicate the NFLPA is not bargaining in good faith?

They have to decertify prior to the expiration of the CBA (in this case, the agreed upon extension), or the rules on the ground change in the owners favor.

 

[McCourty Island]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

They have to decertify prior to the expiration of the CBA (in this case, the agreed upon extension), or the rules on the ground change in the owners favor.

I belive the deadline for them to decertify is 5pm today so I don't think notifying the members 2 hours prior is an issue.

 

[Triumph]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Actually a decertification will almost guarantee a season. The reason the NFLPA are decertifying is to block the NFL from locking them out.

Its very unlikely there will be a 2011 season.

The NFLPA will decertify, sue the owners and the owners will counter sue the players. Lawyers get paid by the hour.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Its very unlikely there will be a 2011 season.

The NFLPA will decertify, sue the owners and the owners will counter sue the players. Lawyers get paid by the hour.

Any lawsuit will be fast tracked because of the interest to the public. Besides, the league would pretty fast have to get a judge to say the league made a good faith effort in negotiation to block the decertification or the league year starts at 5PM today (assuming the NFLPA decertifies). The league would keep going while the lawsuits go.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Its very unlikely there will be a 2011 season.

The NFLPA will decertify, sue the owners and the owners will counter sue the players. Lawyers get paid by the hour.

Does not follow.
Players could still play if owners then continued business as of their last best offer. Still WAY too many variables to make a call. What will happen should the NFLPA decertify is that the rhetoric will get very heated and things will look much much worse in the short term.

 

[patsinthesnow]

They aren't decertifying.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

NFL free agency could happen sooner under one labor scenario - Peter King - SI.com

^^^^This would be our only hope of some normalcy at this point.

Here are some points King should clarify from his "sources":

1) How exactly would owners "lockout" a couple thousand independent contractors? Decertifying the union just signifies that the players aren't collectively bargaining the rules of their employment. At that point, the owners put whatever rules in place that they want...subject to US labor and antitrust laws. The players don't have to agree to the rules so there is no basis for a "lockout".

2) What specific conditions of their employment would serve as the basis for the players lawsuit? There are several possibilities (salary cap/floor, draft, trades, league contracts for TV/radio/marketing, etc) and the players would win the majority of these challenges in court.

3) How exactly would a victory in court compel the owners to play the players more money? Removal of the components in #2 above would certainly not result in owners opening up their checkbooks. The owners don't fear losing the salary cap/floor since they just lived through that in 2010. Losing the ability to collectively negotiate league-wide deals would destroy the NFL as we know it. How does that help the players exactly? In fact, the threat of a lawsuit is a much more effective weapon than the lawsuit itself.

4) So Doty could possibly rule for the players and declare the 2010 CBA rules (including the league/player revenue split) to still be in effect? I would love to see the legal precedent for that. "Um, your honor...I kinda liked my job situation last year and I don't like how my boss changed it this year. So even through those rules violate antitrust laws and form the basis for my lawsuit, I would like you to tell him to keep things the way they were and not make any changes. Thank you." Really? That is an option?

I have not seen a single talking head explain a scenario where a lawsuit (even a successful one where the players win every challenge) results in a positive outcome for the players. They could certainly use the courts to blow up the league, but I'm not sure that poisoning your boss and torching the only place of employment in your field is a good long-term career move.

 

[Deus Irae]

They aren't decertifying.

# Same source: Union made no counter, heading to court 33 minutes ago via web

# A good source just told me that management's offer "split the difference." The union hasn't countered 40 minutes ago via web

Michael Silver (MikeSilver) on Twitter

If that remains the case, it would be with a decertification.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Michael Silver (MikeSilver) on Twitter

If that remains the case, it would be with a decertification.

I'm confused. I really don't follow how this works, I'm just going by the NFL.com banner.

So...whats up with that

EDIT: NFL.com just removed the "Breaking News: NFLPA won't decertify banner"

 

[McCourty Island]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Here are some points King should clarify from his "sources":

1) How exactly would owners "lockout" a couple thousand independent contractors? Decertifying the union just signifies that the players aren't collectively bargaining the rules of their employment. At that point, the owners put whatever rules in place that they want...subject to US labor and antitrust laws. The players don't have to agree to the rules so there is no basis for a "lockout".

2) What specific conditions of their employment would serve as the basis for the players lawsuit? There are several possibilities (salary cap/floor, draft, trades, league contracts for TV/radio/marketing, etc) and the players would win the majority of these challenges in court.

3) How exactly would a victory in court compel the owners to play the players more money? Removal of the components in #2 above would certainly not result in owners opening up their checkbooks. The owners don't fear losing the salary cap/floor since they just lived through that in 2010. Losing the ability to collectively negotiate league-wide deals would destroy the NFL as we know it. How does that help the players exactly? In fact, the threat of a lawsuit is a much more effective weapon than the lawsuit itself.

4) So Doty could possibly rule for the players and declare the 2010 CBA rules (including the league/player revenue split) to still be in effect? I would love to see the legal precedent for that. "Um, your honor...I kinda liked my job situation last year and I don't like how my boss changed it this year. So even through those rules violate antitrust laws and form the basis for my lawsuit, I would like you to tell him to keep things the way they were and not make any changes. Thank you." Really? That is an option?

I have not seen a single talking head explain a scenario where a lawsuit (even a successful one where the players win every challenge) results in a positive outcome for the players. They could certainly use the courts to blow up the league, but I'm not sure that poisoning your boss and torching the only place of employment in your field is a good long-term career move.

I think that the positive outcome from the players would be no salary cap, no franchise tags, and no rookie draft. I think that rookies salaries on the whole would probably rise due to multiple teams bidding. Can you imaging what some of the teams like the Cowboys or Redskins would pay top rookies? I agree that overall salaries probably wouldn't go through the roof though.

 

[sieglo]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

All I can say is EFF RODGER GOODELL.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Here are some points King should clarify from his "sources"

4) So Doty could possibly rule for the players and declare the 2010 CBA rules (including the league/player revenue split) to still be in effect? I would love to see the legal precedent for that. "Um, your honor...I kinda liked my job situation last year and I don't like how my boss changed it this year. So even through those rules violate antitrust laws and form the basis for my lawsuit, I would like you to tell him to keep things the way they were and not make any changes. Thank you." Really? That is an option?

I have not seen a single talking head explain a scenario where a lawsuit (even a successful one where the players win every challenge) results in a positive outcome for the players. They could certainly use the courts to blow up the league, but I'm not sure that poisoning your boss and torching the only place of employment in your field is a good long-term career move.

The NFL is incorporated in New York. There's something called the Taylor Law here which keeps CBAs in place when a new CBA is not agreed to.

 

[upstater1]

So... the NFL wanted to get $500 million back, and bluffed its way to the $500 billion demand.

Maybe the NFLPA should counter now with $250 million.

I think if the NFL accepted say $400 million giveback with NO INCREASE TO 18 games, then the NFLPA will end up looking like bad guys.

And I've been on the side of the players.

$400 mill giveback + no increase = OK deal for players, painful but fair.

 

[vyrago]

So... the NFL wanted to get $500 million back, and bluffed its way to the $500 billion demand.

Maybe the NFLPA should counter now with $250 million.

I think if the NFL accepted say $400 million giveback with NO INCREASE TO 18 games, then the NFLPA will end up looking like bad guys.

And I've been on the side of the players.

$400 mill giveback + no increase = OK deal for players, painful but fair.

How do you know it's fair? Let's see the books.

 

[TealSox]

Re: Adam Shefter Tweets

Actually a decertification will almost guarantee a season. The reason the NFLPA are decertifying is to block the NFL from locking them out.

Yeah... from what I read, the owners can't [legally] lock out non-union employees. Unfortunately, it sounds like pure anarchy in a decertified world; no cap max/min, everyone is a free agent, etc.