Per PFT: Judge Doty rules owners violated the CBA

[jmt57]

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Lockout Insurance Case Decision.pdf

is the ruling.

That court document gets a bit wordy, especially after about page 8 or so - though there are some eye-opening facts and figures in those first few pages.

If anyone's interested here's a pretty good summary as an alternative:
Judge David Doty's Court Document Shows How NFL Set Itself Up to Make $4 Billion in Potential Lockout - NFL - NESN.com - Jeff Howe

In total, the NFL negotiated access to more than $4 billion in rights fees for 2011 if it locked out its players.

But check out the NFL's bargaining power. According to Doty's court document, "Initially, FOX expressed reluctance to pay rights fees during a work stoppage. The NFL considered opposition to the work-stoppage provision a 'deal breaker.'"

So, basically, the NFL would not grant FOX a television contract unless FOX was prepared to show blind faith that the NFL would work to negotiate a new CBA that would prevent a lockout. Clearly, FOX was skeptical of that faith.

The document also noted at least three networks expressed some degree of resistance to the work-stoppage provisions, but the networks all recognized the NFL had all the leverage it needed. After all, it's the NFL.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

True. Unfortunate truth about society I guess.

There is more at stake here though. They're pretty set financially, but football is a huge part of this country. They're obliged to give to the populace.

they have no such obligation except in your mind

 

[Joker]

who is this Judge Dotty and why is she screwin' around with one of the few pleasures I have left??

 

[BlueString94]

they have no such obligation except in your mind

A lot of peoples' minds actually. Don't get me wrong, I'd be able to enjoy my life just fine without the NFL, but they should still get it done.

 

[upstater1]

they have no such obligation except in your mind

Obligation is a word that encompasses many things. The word noblesse oblige comes from it, and even in the 20th century, it was a principle taught to many affluent children. Many these days it doesn't exist anymore.

But let's put it this way: no amount of work and determination can explain how Ralph Wilson's $20k investment turned into $800 million in 40 years without taking into account a similar investment made in the team by the citizens of Buffalo. Whether they can support the team or not is a different question, but I believe he's obliged to do what he can to make it work in that city even if it means he comes up a few dollars short. I see that as an obligation.

 

[townes]

Until Doty is gone their will be no agreement. The owners will not accept his
presence any longer. If the PA insists on trying to keep him involved then
this will be a really, really, long and fruitless road for the players. There is no
way Doty is going to be involved with the NFL in the future.

i.e...if the owners don't get the ruling they want then they need a new judge.

The owners are the problem, not the players.

 

[DaBruinz]

i.e...if the owners don't get the ruling they want then they need a new judge.

The owners are the problem, not the players.

How are the players not part of the problem? The players are the ones who keep insisting that the league do more and more for them. As I have mentioned previously, the players ignore the huge benefits they get, such as not having to pay healthcare. Well, many are learning just how much it is to cover them because they are having to pay COBRA payments going forward until such time as the situation is resolved.

The salary cap increased 50% from 2006 to 2009. From 83 million to $123 million. Yet, that wasn't enough for them. They want MORE. Well, guess what. The owners are the ones who ponied up their millions long before many of these guys were in college. Anyone thinking that the owners don't deserve a regular ROI on their investment is just living in la la land.

The players have significantly less leverage than they have ever had because they don't have free agency are their main pursuit. And, I'll be honest, I have to agree with many people who say that the Union decertifying is an effort to just get more of the money. And as such, it will be denied.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Boy, this thread is bizarre. So much misinformation.

This ruling was as close to a no-brainer as is possible. The SSA says the league is obligated to maximize revenues both for the league and the players in each playing year under the SSA.

The special master took evidence, and it was pretty unequivocal that the NFL specifically negotiated lockout payments from the broadcasters in exchange for giving them additional stuff (broadband, more games) for free and also letting them pay less in 2009 and 2010.

As a matter of common sense, is there anyone who doubts this? The broadcasters agreed to pay $4 billion even if they weren't being given any games to show. Hmmm. You think they're into charity? They did it because the owners wanted to lock the players in 2011 after the SSA and took less money in 2009 and 2010.

For those asking why Doty is involved, that's the answer. The league and the players agreed he would be the judge. The SSA doesn't expire until tomorrow, and it covers all prior years. This is a dispute about 2009 and 2010, and the players pretty plainly got hosed in those years so the owners could have a slush fund.

I understand people want whatever results get football back more quickly. I do too. I actually think this ruling helps, not hurts, negotiations. The league is hell bent on locking the players out. It has had this as a strategy for more than 2 years, that's pretty clear. Reading the Doty opinion leaves one with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what their strategy has been. They wanted a war chest for a protracted and prolonged stoppage, where they would be able to outlast the players for however long they needed, until they had made sure they had extracted every last possible concession they could get. This ruling makes that a less viable strategy, and we're all better off for it.

But even if you don't agree, fair is fair. The league agreed to something and then breached their agreement. The league's apparent argument -- that what they did in 2009 and 2010 is now irrelevant because the SSA expires in March -- is so absurd to almost be laughable. I can't believe they made it with a straight face.

 

[part-timer]

How has every one assumed the term LOCK OUT INSURANCE has anything to do with the fund paid to the NFL in the event of no 2011 season. I believe the Nfl will allow this form of chalange to waist as much time as the NFLPA wishs to. The fact that it was ment as lock out insurance is an assumption even on the part of the ruleing judge which is incorect. There are number of reasons that the season may not have been run, first and for most the way it was interupted the last time, by a player strike. The simple "assumption of intention of action" shows a bias twards one party over another and makes the entire ruleing subject to review. The NFL may argue the contract modification were to create a safety. or equity loan to keep the NFL solvent in the result of a player strike. In a contract case like this there are so many assumptions made on interperatation or related case law,no two judges will rule exactly alike. Chances the CBA will be long in the books before all related litigation is determined or settled on.

 

[part-timer]

Boy, this thread is bizarre. So much misinformation.
You are correct there is a great deal of misinformation and it appears that you are party to a great deal.

This ruling was as close to a no-brainer as is possible. The SSA says the league is obligated to maximize revenues both for the league and the players in each playing year under the SSA.

It states that is must make a reasonable effort which is way beyond a no brainer. The term reasonable effort being undefined in the contract left the special master and the district judge on different sides of the fence in the interperatation of the terms in the contract.

The special master took evidence, and it was pretty unequivocal that the NFL specifically negotiated lockout payments from the broadcasters in exchange for giving them additional stuff (broadband, more games) for free and also letting them pay less in 2009 and 2010

Calling the network payments LOCK OUT payment is an assumtion, and as long as you consider an assumption to be "unequivocal evidence" you argument is flawed.

As a matter of common sense, is there anyone who doubts this? The broadcasters agreed to pay $4 billion even if they weren't being given any games to show. Hmmm. You think they're into charity? They did it because the owners wanted to lock the players in 2011 after the SSA and took less money in 2009 and 2010.

The fact that the special masters interpretation did not agree with the district judge shows that there is an educated body that does doubt it.

For those asking why Doty is involved, that's the answer. The league and the players agreed he would be the judge. The SSA doesn't expire until tomorrow, and it covers all prior years. This is a dispute about 2009 and 2010, and the players pretty plainly got hosed in those years so the owners could have a slush fund.

First of all Doty's oppinion is subject to apeal so it is not law. I would like your explanation on how th players got "HOSED" in 09 & 10. Plainly according to the NFLPA the players got over on the owners in the last contract terms, and the owners agree, that is why they exercised there option to opt-out of the last two years of the contract.

I understand people want whatever results get football back more quickly. I do too. I actually think this ruling helps, not hurts, negotiations. The league is hell bent on locking the players out. It has had this as a strategy for more than 2 years, that's pretty clear. Reading the Doty opinion leaves one with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what their strategy has been. They wanted a war chest for a protracted and prolonged stoppage, where they would be able to outlast the players for however long they needed, until they had made sure they had extracted every last possible concession they could get. This ruling makes that a less viable strategy, and we're all better off for it.

The fact that the assumption of the contract renegociations with the networks was for a preplaned LOCK OUT especialy in the district judges opinion will be the downfall of the entire oppinion. Assumption of "Intention of action" in these contracts can not be proven.

But even if you don't agree, fair is fair. The league agreed to something and then breached their agreement. The league's apparent argument -- that what they did in 2009 and 2010 is now irrelevant because the SSA expires in March -- is so absurd to almost be laughable. I can't believe they made it with a straight face.

This entire paragraph is an incorect assumption.

Useing their option built into the contract to OPT-OUT of the last two years of the contract is NOT breach of contract. The owners must have known that they got raped in the contract or the OPT-OUT clause would not have built in.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This entire paragraph is an incorect assumption.

Useing their option built into the contract to OPT-OUT of the last two years of the contract is NOT breach of contract. The owners must have known that they got raped in the contract or the OPT-OUT clause would not have built in.

Where did I say opting out was a breach? Clearly they can opt out. They did. Nobody is arguing about it.

The breach was undercharging for 2009 and 2010.

 

[upstater1]

This entire paragraph is an incorect assumption.

Useing their option built into the contract to OPT-OUT of the last two years of the contract is NOT breach of contract. The owners must have known that they got raped in the contract or the OPT-OUT clause would not have built in.

He didn't say that the opt-out was a breach of contract. He said not optimizing revenue for players in prior years and THEN using the opt out was a breach of contract. The two taken together is a breach. Not just the opt out.

Look, it appears the NFL is such a viable property that the networks are willing to spend a lot of money on it. But if they had an inkling that the NFL was going to lock out the players, the networks themselves figured that scenario into their offers to the NFL. Any company with labor instability is going to have clients, vendors, customers, who prepare themselves financially for their partner's instability. Clearly, the "insurance money" is something those networks can afford, and they think it's a worthwhile investment because the NFL gives so much to them. In other words, if the NFL had a stable labor situation, they could have racked up a much bigger score from the networks 2 years ago. In even broaching the topic of insurance for owners, the NFL did not maximize revenues. Ipso facto.

The NFL lawyers practically admitted this by explaining that the court's decision was not at all unexpected.

So, one wonders what the NFL was trying to achieve because the NFL has now risked being perceived as greedy in the PR wars in order to... use the insurance as a cudgel to threaten the players? If the union hadn't taken this insurance deal to court so quickly, maybe the NFL could have lorded the money over the players during a lockout, and maybe that would have intimidated them... but I doubt it.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

In even broaching the topic of insurance for owners, the NFL did not maximize revenues. Ipso facto.

Yup. No brainer.

Nobody pays $4 billion for nothing. They agreed to pay it to pay less in 2009 and 2010. There's nobody that seriously believes that without the lockout insurance the nets wouldn't have paid more in 2009 and 2010. The NFL didn't even argue it.

Perhaps my favorite part of this thread are the folks pontificating on appellate procedure. We're told, for example, that Doty's opinion is not "law," because it's subject to appeal. With great respect, I submit y'all should stick to your day jobs.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

These money-grabbing owners are starting to piss me off. How greedy can a human being get? I know, the players get paid a lot of money too, but their career and future can go down the drain at any given moment.

It's millions vs. billions. The billions should GTFO.

You know, I feel the exact opposite. The owners invest their money, pay for the players food, transportation and give these morons millions of dollars. And as gratitude the players demand more.

Let them all go do what they are best suited for, can you say paper or plastic, or maybe some of the really bright ones can get a job saying Welcome to Walmart.

 

[Deus Irae]

You know, I feel the exact opposite. The owners invest their money, pay for the players food, transportation and give these morons millions of dollars. And as gratitude the players demand more.

Let them all go do what they are best suited for, can you say paper or plastic, or maybe some of the really bright ones can get a job saying Welcome to Walmart.

Most of them seem quite well suited for playing football at a high level, which is what they've gone and done.

 

[upstater1]

You know, I feel the exact opposite. The owners invest their money, pay for the players food, transportation and give these morons millions of dollars. And as gratitude the players demand more.

Let them all go do what they are best suited for, can you say paper or plastic, or maybe some of the really bright ones can get a job saying Welcome to Walmart.

If the owners are so intelligent, then why did they give the players the store a few years back? Why do they hire and then listen to lawyers that make basic errors that make the entire league look petty?

Do you realize that a good chunk of the owners have only made their money by staying invested in football for so long?

Some people literally fall into s%@$ and their bank accounts explode. All power to the Hunts, Wilsons, Browns, Irsays, Davis, Rooneys, etc., but about a third of the owners are football guys whose money comes from holding on to NFL franchises for so long. They are not world beaters themselves. Ralph Wilson, for instance, has had a 40,000 percent increase on his initial investment of $20k. Great for him, but otherwise he was a man who took over his father's insurance agency.

The number 1 reason I'm against the owners is because the business expansion mentality at play under Goodell, of constant expansion to keep up the premiums on all the price-to-earnings values, is going to ruin and corrupt the sport eventually. These owners have a go-go mentality because of the astounding increases they've seen in their investments. I suggest they adopt the Warren Buffet approach. Think of the NFL as a value company. Heavy on revenue, good profits on low margins. Think Coca-Cola, not Google. Coca-Cola does a few things very well, while at Google they are hatching plans that would blow your mind.

 

[Miguel]

The salary cap increased 50% from 2006 to 2009. From 83 million to $123 million. Yet, that wasn't enough for them. They want MORE.

The players did not opt of the contract because they wanted more. The owners opted out. The players are happy with the status quo. They have even offered to play the 2010 season capped under the 2006 CBA extending the deadline to reach a deal by a yeat. That offer was turned down by the owners.

Union's pitch for capped 2010 shot down - Extra Points - Boston.com

 

[Clonamery]

If the owners are so intelligent, then why did they give the players the store a few years back? Why do they hire and then listen to lawyers that make basic errors that make the entire league look petty?

Do you realize that a good chunk of the owners have only made their money by staying invested in football for so long?

Some people literally fall into s%@$ and their bank accounts explode. All power to the Hunts, Wilsons, Browns, Irsays, Davis, Rooneys, etc., but about a third of the owners are football guys whose money comes from holding on to NFL franchises for so long. They are not world beaters themselves. Ralph Wilson, for instance, has had a 40,000 percent increase on his initial investment of $20k. Great for him, but otherwise he was a man who took over his father's insurance agency.

The number 1 reason I'm against the owners is because the business expansion mentality at play under Goodell, of constant expansion to keep up the premiums on all the price-to-earnings values, is going to ruin and corrupt the sport eventually. These owners have a go-go mentality because of the astounding increases they've seen in their investments. I suggest they adopt the Warren Buffet approach. Think of the NFL as a value company. Heavy on revenue, good profits on low margins. Think Coca-Cola, not Google. Coca-Cola does a few things very well, while at Google they are hatching plans that would blow your mind.

Very well said.