Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why do people think no NFL in 2008?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by DaBruinz, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,309
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +364 / 24 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    Upshaw has said he'd have the Union decertify in prior to the 2007 season. That would effectively end the CBA. And I have no doubt he'd get lawyers to tie the league up in court so there wouldn't be a 2007 season.

    To me, no extension means no football beyond THIS year.

    If I am wrong about the CBA and the Union decertification for next year, I hope someone points it out to me.
  2. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    Well, first of all, Upshaw can't decertify the Union. It would have to be the executive committee, and would have to be subject to a vote of membership. I can't see all these things happening. Frankly, I can't see Upshaw having a job May 1.

    Now, assuming the PA de-certifies, it wouldn't take effect until the CBA in-force expires. The CBA is a contract.

    Thirdly, if the Union de-certifies, it forfeits its right to strike.

    Fourthly, NFL players want to get paid. They can't do that if they don't play. Not playing in 2007 and beyond works against that goal.

    Fifthly, how would he tie up the league in court next year? There's no issue to take to court. I don't know what you mean here. And even if there was a court action, there's no reason for the league to stop operating while it's ongoing.

    If there's a work stoppage on the horizon, it's going to take form of a lockout, and it's going to happen this summer.
  3. T-ShirtDynasty

    T-ShirtDynasty Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Messages:
    3,562
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    The reporter on ESPNews said there's a Union meeting scheduled for next week where they might try to decertify the union.
  4. Sean Pa Patriot

    Sean Pa Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,228
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Earliest lockout 2008...
  5. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,309
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +364 / 24 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    1) Upshaw has already said that he was drawing the paperwork up for the Union to decertify if there was no extension.

    2) Why can't it take effect until after 2007? So they have a contract? Contracts are made to be broken.

    3) While the union would forfeit its right to strike, it would also forfeit the Owners right to lock them out. Which is one of the rumors that has been circulating for next season. That the owners would lock the players out until they got a CBA done.

    4) I understand that they don't get paid. I also understand that, typically, unions also have a slush fund that they pay their members from in the time of work stoppage. But I don't know how that works if they decertify.

    5) If the Union were to decertify, then the league would lose its "Anti-Trust" protection and the players could take the league to court over the labor practices of the league. (Personally, its not a battle I think they could win)
  6. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    1. Yes, I'm sure he's doing the paperwork. However, that's only the first step of the process. He's going to have to convince quite a few players that it's good for them.

    2. Contracts are made to be broken? Then why doesn't every NFL player declare himself a free agent? Why doesn't Halliburton keep all the governments rebuilding money and go drinking with it? Why do you pay your mortgage or car payment? Contracts are legally binding documents, and just because the structure you were in when you signed it has changed doesn't void it.

    3. Yes, we agree they forfeit they're ability to strike. Then why are you afraid of no football in 2007 if there's no chance of lockout or strike? That's why it would have to be a lockout, and soon, as a pre-emptive strike.

    4. Football players don't age like wine. If the average career is 3-5 years, they need to play. When the NHL locked out, the NHLPA started telling players two years in advance to start putting money away. We've seen no evidence of that. The NHL players could also play in Europe or in the minor leagues. NFL players don't have that option. I can't see striking in the plans.

    5. The league could lose it's Anti-Trust status. The most significant change would be the end of the draft. Everybody in the world would be a free agent, from age 14 on up. If that came to pass, we'd get used to it. And we probably see a lot of teams sold (the cheap ones who wouldn't pay for top talent, because there'd be no salary cap.).
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>