Could the owners run the league under the 2002 CBA Rules????

[DaBruinz]

Are the owners limited to which rules they can run the league under??? If they aren't, then they could easily turn back the clock and use rules from the CBA that expired in 2006 (signed in 2002) which would drop the cap back a bit.

 

[Triumph]

Wouldnt almost every team be over the cap?

 

[signbabybrady]

Wouldnt almost every team be over the cap?

I think that would be part of the sting jobs would be cut and tons if money would be lost by the players.

 

[Wolfpack]

Are the owners limited to which rules they can run the league under??? If they aren't, then they could easily turn back the clock and use rules from the CBA that expired in 2006 (signed in 2002) which would drop the cap back a bit.

Assuming no agreement (and no lockout) is in place, the owners can implement whatever rules they want within the confines of the laws of the United States of America. Problem is, absent a CBA, a lot of the old rules were in direct violation of those laws.

I think the league is going to implement the same rules we saw in 2010. Now those rules certainly include some rules that break the law (the franchise tag comes to mind). I think they're hoping that any lawsuits filed against the league for violating antitrust laws will not wind their way through the court system prior to a new deal actually being agreed upon, and such a new deal would include a sort of "amnesty clause" for all those itty-bitty illegal things the league did in autumn of 2011.

 

[AzPatsFan]

There are lots more than a few "itty bittsy rules'" that the antitrust lawyers would surely find illegal.

The Draft, the League schedule, No immediate Free Agency on contract expiration, Sharing of revenues, these are just a few.

If antitrust were to be fully enforced the NFL would probably have to go to a Soccer like system. All Players are FA after the contract. The league would have to admit new league entrants and probably would have to implement something like the graduated "A" or premier league, a "B" league and a "C" league that the teams graduated or fell to each season. New league entrants might be constrained to the C league at least initially. An ultimate World Cup like quadrennial championship open to all competitors.

I don't quite know how a A level player continues making his A level salary when the team falls into a B league revenue structure. I could see many perpetual losers folding franchises.

It would be legal and football, but a far different league and levels of revenue, and fan interest.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Assuming no agreement (and no lockout) is in place, the owners can implement whatever rules they want within the confines of the laws of the United States of America. Problem is, absent a CBA, a lot of the old rules were in direct violation of those laws.

I think the league is going to implement the same rules we saw in 2010. Now those rules certainly include some rules that break the law (the franchise tag comes to mind). I think they're hoping that any lawsuits filed against the league for violating antitrust laws will not wind their way through the court system prior to a new deal actually being agreed upon, and such a new deal would include a sort of "amnesty clause" for all those itty-bitty illegal things the league did in autumn of 2011.

They are going to face anti trust challenge no matter what they do short of abandoning what made this league work. That being the case they might as well not half ass it and just play under the rules they wanted. This case will not ultimately be settled in the courts, that's just about leverage, it will be settled long before that would happen and as part of that settlement all the suits would be dropped by players who are members of the suddenly recertified union who can't thereafter due the league based on terms agreed to in a CBA.

 

[Wolfpack]

There are lots more than a few "itty bittsy rules'" that the antitrust lawyers would surely find illegal.

The Draft, the League schedule, No immediate Free Agency on contract expiration, Sharing of revenues, these are just a few.

Not all of those issues are as cut and dry as you think. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have talked about leagues being allowed to do certain things in order to simply survive. Revenue sharing and actually making a schedule would probably survive any challenge (and I doubt they would be challenged in the first place because there would be no real incentive to challenge either of those things).

Yes, "no free agency" and the draft violate anti trust rules and would not survive an actual challenge.

If antitrust were to be fully enforced the NFL would probably have to go to a Soccer like system. All Players are FA after the contract. The league would have to admit new league entrants and probably would have to implement something like the graduated "A" or premier league, a "B" league and a "C" league that the teams graduated or fell to each season. New league entrants might be constrained to the C league at least initially. An ultimate World Cup like quadrennial championship open to all competitors.

I don't quite know how a A level player continues making his A level salary when the team falls into a B league revenue structure. I could see many perpetual losers folding franchises.

This would never happen and no court would impose such a structure on the NFL. It is not even remotely in the realm of possibility.

 

[Wolfpack]

They are going to face anti trust challenge no matter what they do short of abandoning what made this league work. That being the case they might as well not half ass it and just play under the rules they wanted.

If they go overboard and just, like, blatently violate the law they could face some sort of immediate sanctions and orders to cease.

This case will not ultimately be settled in the courts, that's just about leverage, it will be settled long before that would happen and as part of that settlement all the suits would be dropped by players who are members of the suddenly recertified union who can't thereafter due the league based on terms agreed to in a CBA.

That part I agree with. If they don't do anything radical, they can just wait out any legal challenge with the anticipated "amnesty" of a new CBA.

 

[DaBruinz]

Wouldnt almost every team be over the cap?

Not necessarily. You have to remember that the CAP is about the % of money from the revenue sources alloted and is set prior to the start of the year. And the TV contracts for this year are significantly greater than they were for 2002. So, that would raise the cap from the 71 million it was in 2002. If I remember correctly, the DirecTV contract then was only about 150 million. Now it's like 900 million.. And all the others are up as well. Now, it certainly won't be the $114 million that the league proposed in their last offer, but it also doesn't screw the players on any extra money going forward.

 

[DaBruinz]

There are lots more than a few "itty bittsy rules'" that the antitrust lawyers would surely find illegal.

The Draft, the League schedule, No immediate Free Agency on contract expiration, Sharing of revenues, these are just a few.

I've said it before and I will say it again. No judge is going to declare the basic system that all 4 Pro Leagues in the US use to be illegal. 5 if you want to include the UFL. None of them are crass enough or bold enough to bring every pro league to a screeching halt.

If antitrust were to be fully enforced the NFL would probably have to go to a Soccer like system. All Players are FA after the contract. The league would have to admit new league entrants and probably would have to implement something like the graduated "A" or premier league, a "B" league and a "C" league that the teams graduated or fell to each season. New league entrants might be constrained to the C league at least initially. An ultimate World Cup like quadrennial championship open to all competitors.

I don't quite know how a A level player continues making his A level salary when the team falls into a B league revenue structure. I could see many perpetual losers folding franchises.

It would be legal and football, but a far different league and levels of revenue, and fan interest.

This is the surest way to kill professional football.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Since when does Antitrust law have to make any sense? Commonsense has nothing to do with the Law.

The Draft is patently a restraint of trade, and therfore illegal. Reserving a player to any franchise in the absence of a contract is patently illegal.

Denying any would be entrant with the monies to participate as a franchise is patently illegal and a restraint of trade. If Bill Gates or Donald Trump decides he wants a franchise and is willing to spend the money to conform to the requirements, who are the present owners to stop him?

Enforcing that illegal restraint of new Team entrants, such as a Trump team, by a league schedule, is patently illegal.

Don't say the Soccer system is impossible. Everything it does, conforms to the laws of many lands. The systems they adopted were necessary to meet the laws of many nations and is the most widely followed sport in the world.

Players do jump from league to league after contracts expire. When under contract different teams in different leagues do buy and sell the contract, and with it the player's services.

All these things are legal to do.

Just because you are familiar with the NFL today and are used to the way it functions, does not mean that is the way it has to be. If no one follows the NFL with such changes, what do the lawyers care?

 

[DaBruinz]

Just because you are familiar with the NFL today and are used to the way it functions, does not mean that is the way it has to be. If no one follows the NFL with such changes, what do the lawyers care?

If you think the lawyers wouldn't care, your daft. Lawyers are making MILLIONS off the NFL every year. Whether they be agents, working out contracts for sponsors, or fighting with the insuance companies.

 

[Wolfpack]

The Draft is patently a restraint of trade, and therfore illegal. Reserving a player to any franchise in the absence of a contract is patently illegal.

I agree with those statements (absent a CBA).

Denying any would be entrant with the monies to participate as a franchise is patently illegal and a restraint of trade. If Bill Gates or Donald Trump decides he wants a franchise and is willing to spend the money to conform to the requirements, who are the present owners to stop him?

Enforcing that illegal restraint of new Team entrants, such as a Trump team, by a league schedule, is patently illegal.

Not true. You are allowed to restrict franchises within your own organization. If Donald Trump wanted to make a football team, call them the New Jersey Generals, and start a football league called the USFL he can go right ahead and do that (again). But he cannot form a football league and then sue his way into the NFL. That's kind of what he tried to do in the 80's with the aforementioned USFL, and he was awarded all of $1 in damages.

Besides, if what you said was true, why would a CBA change anything? Donald Trump is not a signatory to nor is he represented in the CBA. So he is not bound by any of the terms in the CBA.

Don't say the Soccer system is impossible. Everything it does, conforms to the laws of many lands. The systems they adopted were necessary to meet the laws of many nations and is the most widely followed sport in the world.

First of all, we're not talking about the "laws of many lands" we're talking about the laws of the United States. Second of all, I'm not saying such a system would be illegal here in the U.S. What I'm saying is there's nothing illegal with the NFL's current system and no court in the land would impose a soccer-style system on football.

Players do jump from league to league after contracts expire. When under contract different teams in different leagues do buy and sell the contract, and with it the player's services.

All these things are legal to do.

I never said they weren't.

Just because you are familiar with the NFL today and are used to the way it functions, does not mean that is the way it has to be. If no one follows the NFL with such changes, what do the lawyers care?

The NFL converting their league to a European-soccer style system of franchises is not even remotely within the realm of possibility.