Well looks more and more like both sides want to litigate over negotiate

[AzPatsFan]

Az, i respect your opinion as well and likewise have agreed with you on many occasions, but not this one. from what i can tell you are saying that the players simply have to take whatever the owners offer and that's not a negotiation.

The owners were not complaining about insufficient revenue in the pre-2006 CBA. I hardly think the terms of that CBA treated the football players as enslaved workers in a sweat shop, Take it or Leave.

It pays Sports leagues, just like Hollywood does, to have a "Star system", to encourage attendance at the productions that it vends. It adds "glamour, mystique and aura " to their product offering. Some of the best cinematic offerings of Hollywood were made with non-Star personnel that became "Stars" for the effort, but were not before hand, from Casablanca to Star Wars. The productions themselves create, "Stars".

There are altogether too many unthinking people that assume a court litigation settling whether the owners can conduct a particular labor action called a "lockout", has any meaning or solves any particular thing.

It is as useless to an eventual settlement, as whether the Union can "de-certify", another legal buffoonery. Antitrust Law violations must favor the Players; as Sport leagues must routinely violate these laws in order to operate.

Even eventual awards with triple damages solves nothing either, but it at least effects some terms of the nature of any eventual settlement, such as outlawing a patently illegal, collegiate Draft. What about Union scale?

Many Union agreements specify the "union wage" for all employees of a category, regardless of seniority. How do you think it will affect a Sports league to pay all QBs or all Tackles the same? Of what use is Free Agency then?

Like other Union agreements, there could be only one payscale for the player's lifetime until another CBA is agreed to, which may alter it. It may encourage fans of teams assigned a Brady or Manning, but what about another team's fans faced with a lifetime of Ryan Leaf, or Jamarcus Russel, but no way to change it?

Trades are another patently illegal device. Why can you tear up a home and settled family existence to send a player elsewhere. What would the incentive be, if the pay were all the same. Who would trade a better say Tackle for a poorer one, and for what, with what?

The Player's chosen "unelected", "non-existent" Union head is a Lawyer. He thinks winning a judgment changes something, anything. It doesn't, except to add credibility that he is a "tough guy", Union leader, which may be important to his NFLPA re-election, but not to the interests of the Players.

It is as useless as litigating whether a Union exists or not, which is another stupid legal irrelevancy going on. The lawyers can bill, and argue how many Unions can exist on the head of a Pin, but does that change a thing? Of course not.

Any Court award, payable by the owners, for patently obvious, but un-conceded, "genuine" Antitrust violations, merely lowers the amount of money they are wiling and will pay to the Players. The discussion of what the next CBA will be, is not changed one iota, and has merely been obfuscated and delayed from even starting to occur.

The day after an exhaustion of the last Appeal on an unfavorable "lockout" opinion, and the owners are still free to conduct another labor stoppage such as to cancel the season just like the NHL owners did. Caterwauling that its impossible due to existing stadium leases, existing player contracts, et cetera were just as valid for the NHL owners. But they still managed to carry that unprecedented, labor action through.

There has been ZERO progress on reaching a negotiated settlement and neither side is even offering proposals to do so. There is no basis to decree what a "Fair" profit is, except as a way to curry PR and fan favor, but that doesn't sign paychecks.

It is a test of wills and bank accounts now, until one side cries "Uncle". Meanwhile the Lawyers stage a ceremonial Kabuki dance, to make it appear as if something is happening. In such a contest, I favor the old dictum, "... God fights on the side with the best artillery...".

The Owners have that; the Players hope the Owners don't have the will to use it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Actually they are the same players who told the owners they would continue to negotiate for a deal and keep playing under the 2010 pro ownership rules that essentially killed free agency. And after the owners took more money from Direct TV to not play what player in their right mind would ever trust them without having the books open?

You ask for balance yet not one person supporting the owners has ever made a factual case as to why they needed to lock the players out. So far the entire pro owner argument has been that if the owners want more they should get more, and for a group of basically intelligent people that is the weakest argument imaginable. On the one hand people crow about what great businessmen these guys are while on the other insisting the made a deal so bad that they weren't making enough off of record ratings, attendance, merchandise sales, and TV deals that are skyrocketing. Seriously, an NFL owner would have to be beyond braindead to not be making big money.



There is simply no good reason at all that the owners refused the players offer to keep the game going for the season under the owner friendly rules while negotiating a good deal for all. the only logical reason for their refusal is that they don't want a fair deal they wanted to crush the players and dictate a lousy deal to them. There is no way the owners would have been harmed by playing 2011 under the present rules and there is absolutely no excuse for their refusal to do so.

The owners had to lock the players out because they decertified prior to the expiration of the CBA that said if they did so the owners could contend it was a sham decertification intended to leverage anti trust against them...

Those rules were not owner friendly. That's why 4 years earlier with an uncapped year gun held to their heads the owners entered into a bad CBA that Kevin Mawae touted as a slam dunk victory for the players. And yet the NFLPA filed a suit in 2010 that is still pending alleging collusion as a result of the lack of big FA deals and RFA signings given it was an uncapped season intended to be a panacea for the players with the exception of those 250 or so players scheduled to be UDFA's they threw under the bus in order to achieve it.

You've based your entire opposition to ownership on the fact that the owners somehow screwed the players by negotiating a TV deal in violation of the CBA. Well, Stephen Burbank, the special master who rules on all CBA violations, found that they only erred in granting an additional game to NBC in lieu of compensation. For that violation he awarded the players a whopping $6.9M in damages. That wouldn't cover their legal bills for a month these days. The CBA allowed for the league to operate in the best business interests of all the parties in negotiating these deals. Burbank said they were within their rights to secure payment in the event games were not played. Duh... Sounds like a pretty damn smart business move to me. By appealing Burbank's ruling to Doty the NFLPA set in motion the path to litigation as it's bargaining tool. Doty as expected interpreted the intent of the CBA was to guarantee the solely players best interest. Remains to be seen what he decides the penalty is, but just remember he doesn't have the final say. His ruling can and likely will be appealed to the entire 8th Circuit.

If they then determine that the owners were within their rights in securing lockout protection and in locking out players who were holding an anti trust litigation gun to their heads, will your entire attitude change towards just whose greed caused this whole mess? And if I were the players I'd be even more wary of following off a cliff the same guys who were perfectly willing to negotiate away 2 years of my supposedly incompensable FA not to mention my windfall rookie contract millions that might be the only deal I ever see before I bust or get paralyzed...or historically trade away my post career security for straight cash to their current dues paying homey's and their agents...in favor of triggering a lockout that will probably the beginning or end of a couple of hundred players careers when they were supposed to be representing all players collective best interests.

The owners knew once Gene died in the wake of the ugly 2006 negotiations (you seem to have forgotten the rhetoric spewing then about a number starting with a 6 and how if the cap went it would never return and how if the expiring rules flumoxed Polian's abiity to manipulate his cap he too would see them in court) and the executive committee started his replacement search intent on hiring a lawyer and not a former player that this thing was going back to court. Owners were well advised to prep for a lockout scenario because ultimately it was inevitable. In 2006 the NFL took full advantage of an ownership already in dissaray too focused on their own internal battles to negotiate a sound CBA under duress. Claiming they should have compounded that error or shoved their collective heads deeper into the sand by simply maintaining the status quo ad nauseum to somehow prove to you they are the good guys is just foolish. Franchise values are already slipping, only an idiot (like the clowns running the NBA into the ground) would wait for more ominous signs before taking action to insure the league's future.

The players are simply playing their own little ego driven game this offseason. Watch us prove to all our critics we're not nearly as dumb as they've always claimed we were. The vast majority of them want no part of the kind of a league their lawsuit would result in. Unfortunately for the rest of us they don't seem to realize that if their agenda driven advisors in the association have their way that is just what we all may end up with. And they will finally have proved their critics correct.

 

[lamafist]

Courts and fans are irrelevant in establishing what the pay and benefit levels will eventually be. There is plenty of proof, that there are lots of would be-players who will work for levels the owners are willing to pay. There are currently no owners petitioning to buy a franchise, and who are willing to step in place of current owners and to spend more. Even if there were owners who were willing to sellout, it is a lengthy process, including the acceptance and approval of all current owners.

The only reason there aren't potential owners petitioning to buy a franchise is that you don't get to own an NFL franchise by publicly petitioning for one. None of the recently sold teams had any trouble finding potential buyers, and all recent sales of teams have generously exceeded franchise valuations.

And this is all despite the 'lengthy process' of securing approval from the other 31 owners disqualifying some interested parties. This process is also why no prospective owner would ever indicate he'd be inclined to make concessions to the NFLPA -- there'd be no better way to ensure being blackballed.

 

[lamafist]

The owners had to lock the players out because they decertified prior to the expiration of the CBA that said if they did so the owners could contend it was a sham decertification intended to leverage anti trust against them...

Huh? The players' decertification in no way compels the owners to lock the players out. In fact, it was a tactical move intended to prevent the owners from be able to lock the players out. If the players hadn't declaimed their union, then the owners could and would have locked them out without fear of legal action.

The owners "had" to lock the players out because if the NFL was going on with the league year as usual, and FA's were getting signed and players were earning off-season workout bonuses and not worried about not getting paid for the 2011 season, they'd have absolutely no incentive to make any concessions to reach a new CBA.

 

[lamafist]

I keep seeing posts in this thread that seem to operate under the presumption that the players have collectively been making more money under the CBA signed in 2006. All evidence suggests that this is not at all the case.

The players share of both all unadjusted revenues and of the CBA-defined Total Revenues has remained pretty much level over the past 10 years, even dipping slightly since the 2006 CBA:

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

This doesn't mean the '06 CBA wasn't a big win for the NFLPA. Previously, their compensation had been tied only to league-wide revenue streams, which were in the process of being eclipsed by the NFL franchise's local revenue streams. The big breakthrough for the players in the '06 CBA was that for the first time, the cap was tied in to all relevant revenue streams, preventing their cut from shrinking along with the proportion of shared to retained revenues.

 

[Joker]

scintillating................:sleeping:

 

[Deus Irae]

Breer is reporting that the stay has been granted, again 2-1.

Twitter


Likely outcome: no significant movement until after the June hearing.

 

[Metaphors]

The owners "had" to lock the players out because if the NFL was going on with the league year as usual, and FA's were getting signed and players were earning off-season workout bonuses and not worried about not getting paid for the 2011 season, they'd have absolutely no incentive to make any concessions to reach a new CBA.

That is not the whole story. Once the players decertified, the owners were faced with 3 choices:

1) Challenge the decertification and impose a lockout

2) Impose rules similar to 2010 or similar to their last offer. The players would respond with an antitrust lawsuit that they know they would win. The actual lawsuit would be irrelevant since the remedy the players want (more money) can't be imposed by the court. It would just be leverage to gain more money in settlement talks.

3) Impose rules that would pass antitrust scrutiny. Flush the draft, tags, cap/floor, any league-wide contracts (TV, radio, marketing), revenue sharing, etc. This would fundamentally change the league and not for the better. The players would still sue charging collusion over falling league-wide salaries, contraction and other inevitable consequences. The only difference is that the players would likely lose this suit.

Obviously option #3 is a disaster for everyone, including the players. Option #2 is what will happen if the owners lose the appeal next month. It will lead to football but won't bring them closer to a settlement. It will be a dog and pony show since the players would want to pick-n-choose which antitrust elements (salary restricting like cap and tags) to eliminate but won't want to remove them all. This makes it unlikely the lawsuit will actually get to a penalty phase.

Option #1 was the best option for the owners and the stay granted today is huge for them. Now the players have to sweat it out until the July decision on the owners appeal. If the owners win the appeal (and they are 2-0 in front of this court), then the players have lost all leverage with the season 2 months away. The players will have no faith in the NFLPA and will have to bend over backwards to avoid losing paychecks.

The players are now one decision from a non-sympathetic court from being completely neutered. Their hand got weakened today and there is an increased risk that it will get destroyed in July. There is now significant risk for the players to just sit on their hands until the appeal decision. Unfortunately De Smith and his team went all in with the litigation approach. They are stearing the Titanic and assuming they will reach their destination eventually. The 8th circuit is an iceberg on the horizon. Brady, Brees and Goober will stay dry regardless. There are now hundreds of players worried that they will end up cold and wet.

 

[RussFrancis]

That is not the whole story. Once the players decertified, the owners were faced with 3 choices:

1) Challenge the decertification and impose a lockout

2) Impose rules similar to 2010 or similar to their last offer. The players would respond with an antitrust lawsuit that they know they would win. The actual lawsuit would be irrelevant since the remedy the players want (more money) can't be imposed by the court. It would just be leverage to gain more money in settlement talks.

3) Impose rules that would pass antitrust scrutiny. Flush the draft, tags, cap/floor, any league-wide contracts (TV, radio, marketing), revenue sharing, etc. This would fundamentally change the league and not for the better. The players would still sue charging collusion over falling league-wide salaries, contraction and other inevitable consequences. The only difference is that the players would likely lose this suit.

Obviously option #3 is a disaster for everyone, including the players. Option #2 is what will happen if the owners lose the appeal next month. It will lead to football but won't bring them closer to a settlement. It will be a dog and pony show since the players would want to pick-n-choose which antitrust elements (salary restricting like cap and tags) to eliminate but won't want to remove them all. This makes it unlikely the lawsuit will actually get to a penalty phase.

Option #1 was the best option for the owners and the stay granted today is huge for them. Now the players have to sweat it out until the July decision on the owners appeal. If the owners win the appeal (and they are 2-0 in front of this court), then the players have lost all leverage with the season 2 months away. The players will have no faith in the NFLPA and will have to bend over backwards to avoid losing paychecks.

The players are now one decision from a non-sympathetic court from being completely neutered. Their hand got weakened today and there is an increased risk that it will get destroyed in July. There is now significant risk for the players to just sit on their hands until the appeal decision. Unfortunately De Smith and his team went all in with the litigation approach. They are stearing the Titanic and assuming they will reach their destination eventually. The 8th circuit is an iceberg on the horizon. Brady, Brees and Goober will stay dry regardless. There are now hundreds of players worried that they will end up cold and wet.

BOOM. This could make the short list for post of the year, 'lockout' edition. Clear and concise and in actual layman's terms. Very nice.

 

[Fencer]

Great summary. Thanks!!

Is somebody with no professional expertise in these issues, I'd go on to add:

A) The fundamental principle of labor law in this country is that workers have the right to COLLECTIVELY not show up to work (and hence not get paid).

B) A lockout does not interfere with that right.

C) The TV contracts normally wouldn't interfere with that right either, BUT ...

D) ... due to the revenue-sharing provisions of the CBA, the owners were in part acting as agents of the players, with a kind of fiduciary responsibility to get the most money they could in the contracts, rather than sacrificing some for a provision that benefits only them (and indeed hurts the players).

That is not the whole story. Once the players decertified, the owners were faced with 3 choices:

1) Challenge the decertification and impose a lockout

2) Impose rules similar to 2010 or similar to their last offer. The players would respond with an antitrust lawsuit that they know they would win. The actual lawsuit would be irrelevant since the remedy the players want (more money) can't be imposed by the court. It would just be leverage to gain more money in settlement talks.

3) Impose rules that would pass antitrust scrutiny. Flush the draft, tags, cap/floor, any league-wide contracts (TV, radio, marketing), revenue sharing, etc. This would fundamentally change the league and not for the better. The players would still sue charging collusion over falling league-wide salaries, contraction and other inevitable consequences. The only difference is that the players would likely lose this suit.

Obviously option #3 is a disaster for everyone, including the players. Option #2 is what will happen if the owners lose the appeal next month. It will lead to football but won't bring them closer to a settlement. It will be a dog and pony show since the players would want to pick-n-choose which antitrust elements (salary restricting like cap and tags) to eliminate but won't want to remove them all. This makes it unlikely the lawsuit will actually get to a penalty phase.

Option #1 was the best option for the owners and the stay granted today is huge for them. Now the players have to sweat it out until the July decision on the owners appeal. If the owners win the appeal (and they are 2-0 in front of this court), then the players have lost all leverage with the season 2 months away. The players will have no faith in the NFLPA and will have to bend over backwards to avoid losing paychecks.

The players are now one decision from a non-sympathetic court from being completely neutered. Their hand got weakened today and there is an increased risk that it will get destroyed in July. There is now significant risk for the players to just sit on their hands until the appeal decision. Unfortunately De Smith and his team went all in with the litigation approach. They are stearing the Titanic and assuming they will reach their destination eventually. The 8th circuit is an iceberg on the horizon. Brady, Brees and Goober will stay dry regardless. There are now hundreds of players worried that they will end up cold and wet.

 

[Rob0729]

There is a breakthrough in the negotiations. Apparently Judge Boylan asked the owners to make a new proposal and the owners agreed. The players seem positive.

Sal Paolantonio of ESPN reports, citing Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller, that a breakthrough has occurred in the negotiations. Eller, who is one of the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by former players and consolidated with the Tom Brady antitrust case, said that U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan asked the owners at the outset of the day to make a new proposal, and the owners have agreed to do so.

Currently, the proposal is being formulated. Per Paolantonio, the players are very encouraged by the developments, and we think they should be. Given that the players never responded to the league’s March 11 offer, the NFL easily could have balked at the request to make a new offer as an invitation to bid against itself. By agreeing to make a new offer, the NFL has shown good faith, which possibly has helped to thaw the relationship between the two sides, at least a little.

The mediation will continue on Monday night until 9:00 p.m. CT, and Paolantonio said the overall mood is improving. The session is scheduled to continue tomorrow only. If real progress is being made, here’s hoping that gets extended.

Report: “Breakthrough” in talks | ProFootballTalk


On the other side, the 8th Circuit have pretty much told the players in their decision that they are going to rule against them in June.

Here’s the money quote, from page 11: “[W]e have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.”

Eighth Circuit tips its hand; Judge Nelson’s ruling is in serious jeopardy | ProFootballTalk

So this could speed up negotiations since it is generally accepted that both sides are jockeying for leverage to negotiate from a position of strength. This ruling is almost as good as a victory for the owners winning the motion in June. It might bring both sides to the table to negotiate in good faith. It could do the opposite by either make the owners not willing to give at all knowing they won the lockout battle (ensuring a lockout battle into the fall) or the players allow Jeffrey Kessler nuke the NFL by pushing the antitrust suit to the brink which will destroy the NFL as we know it.

My guess is both sides will get serious about negotiations and really try to come to a deal. The June 2nd hearing is basically a formality at this point. The owners have basically won the lockout battle and they have the leverage in this area. Or as Chester Pitts has put it:

“It ends soon,” Pitts said regarding when the lockout. “Basically, one side is going to get leverage in the courts. And whichever side has leverage is going to force the hand of the other.”

Chester Pitts says lockout will “end soon,” once one side gets leverage | ProFootballTalk

 

[Rob0729]

Update: The owners have made a new proposal and the players are in the process of reviewing it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Update: The owners have made a new proposal and the players are in the process of reviewing it.

Well, that's encouraging...that the players are even reviewing it. Of course by tomorrow we could be hearing it's the second worst proposed deal in pro sports...

Boylan had only scheduled mediation for 2 days this week. I hope he's prepared to extend that mandate since it's the only one he has. He cannot force the sides into an agreement, just into mediation...

Watch Doty spring into action if he senses the thumb on the scale has shifted the leverage though.

 

[Deus Irae]

The players are now one decision from a non-sympathetic court from being completely neutered.

This is incorrect.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This is incorrect.

No it's really not. The appeals court has clearly telegraphed it's intention to rule against the injunction barring a lockout for the duration. The players can't win over the duration...because with appeals that will take years and not weeks or months. And while Doty could yet try to blow a little more financial smoke up the players deflated skirts, his decision too is appealable to the full 8th where the concept of lockout insurance being sound business and not in violation of the CBA (as Burbank essentially ruled initially) wouldn't be any more surprising than today's ruling.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Love how Florio has done a 180 now that the appeals court has ruled...

The best outcome, in our opinion, remains a long-term CBA that both the league and the players regard as fair. Though many people just want this mess to end, it needs to end the right way in order to keep it from happening again a few years down the road.

Then again, the league could decide that the best way to keep this from happening a few years down the road comes from pushing the litigation to a conclusion, so that the non-asterisked NFLPA won’t be able at some future juncture to decertify and sue if faced with a lockout. Hopefully, any settlement will include an agreement to seal that door in the future.

 

[Deus Irae]

No it's really not. The appeals court has clearly telegraphed it's intention to rule against the injunction barring a lockout for the duration. The players can't win over the duration...because with appeals that will take years and not weeks or months. And while Doty could yet try to blow a little more financial smoke up the players deflated skirts, his decision too is appealable to the full 8th where the concept of lockout insurance being sound business and not in violation of the CBA (as Burbank essentially ruled initially) wouldn't be any more surprising than today's ruling.

Yes, it really is.

1.) This is just a 3 judge panel, not the whole court. That means that an en banc appeal is still out there.

2.) The underlying case continues.

3.) The NLRB is no slam dunk for the owners, should the case end up there, as Boeing could tell you.

4.) The Supreme Court is certainly not a guarantee for either side

Metaphors is confusing leverage with neutering, and you are too. This case is far from over.

Having said that, it would be great if the sides could reach agreement outside of the courthouse.

 

[BlueThunder]

Reviewing the owners proposal is only half the job...if the players don't like it (which they won't)...The ball will be in players court....there needs to be a counter proposal to keep things moving...

JUST GET IT DONE :rocker:

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Reviewing the owners proposal is only half the job...if the players don't like it (which they won't)...The ball will be in players court....there needs to be a counter proposal to keep things moving...

JUST GET IT DONE :rocker:

We'll see how serious things are if the players come back with a reasonable proposal and not something they know the owners wont consider, Im also assuming the owners proposal is reasonable.

 

[Metaphors]

1.) This is just a 3 judge panel, not the whole court. That means that an en banc appeal is still out there.

Absolutely. That is the one decision I was talking about. If the 3 judges are representative of the makeup of the full court (a reasonable assumption), then the players shouldn't be optimistic.

2.) The underlying case continues.

Yep, but that case could take months or years to get to resolution. The key to the players litigation strategy is the court preventing a lockout. If the court is unwilling/unable to do that, the underlying case and subsequent antitrust litigation won't matter. Missing paychecks will soften the players resolve and lead to needed compromises well before any court case can be heard, much less completed.

3.) The NLRB is no slam dunk for the owners, should the case end up there, as Boeing could tell you.

Agreed. Though I doubt an organization that decided to flush collective bargaining rights as a means to gain more money is anxious to let a group devoted to promoting labor peace decide their fate. Regardless the main point now becomes time before game checks are lost. The NRLB is unlikely to run its course quickly enough for the players, even if they rule their way.

4.) The Supreme Court is certainly not a guarantee for either side

The Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to even take the case. Even if they did, can you imagine the conservative 5 going against the owners? Going back to the time factor, the Supreme Court wouldn't get the case, much less decide it, anytime soon.

Metaphors is confusing leverage with neutering, and you are too. This case is far from over.

Having said that, it would be great if the sides could reach agreement outside of the courthouse.

My use of "neutering" was to describe the complete loss of leverage. Winning the case was never important. The antitrust suit was just a tool to get a settlement, which the players believe is a better path than bargaining. That is true as long as the players are getting paid. If the players are locked out either way, the difference between a settlement and CBA disappears. So the strategy of pursuing litigation...neutralized.

The end result was always going to be a CBA. The variable was who controlled the process. The players want the league operating as antitrust lawsuits slowly sapped the owners resolve. The owners want no football until a new CBA is reached, with missing paychecks pushing the players to compromise.