No lock-out, no CBA scenario

[MoLewisrocks]

When the owners opted to end the CBA early they were essentially saying that the state of the economy and the football buisness required a change in the CBA in their favor.

I tend to think that things are worse, not better, in the current economy now.

Unfortunately for the players they've got little leverage. They can't up and start a new league without the infrastructure and organization of the current NFL.

The NFL on the other hand can always bring in replacement players to sustaiin themselves, even if it's not as lucrative as the NFL. I would tend to think that players out of college would be inclined to play as replacements as well.

The new Forbes valuations (for 2009) are in. Seems the franchise values have declined for the first time since 1998...

And again, owners can change the landscape without resorting to a lockout. It's really a matter of what works best for both parties in the short and long term. Short term everyone is OK as long as the games and paychecks continue. Long term each side may realize issues exist they can't live comfortably with. The owners might force a lockout because they prefer to bite the bullit in hopes of leveraging a new CBA that way, rather than get to essentially have it their way for three or four years under the specter of court mandated rules that are potentially unpalatable going forward. One reason they might do that is a firm belief that the players won't be able to maintain solidarity once the checks stop coming. Warnings to save your money and get what you can this season aside, Smith has admitted recently there is no support for a work stoppage from his constituents.


Value of NFL teams declines according to Forbes | ProFootballTalk.com

 

[JoeSixPat]

that last scenario is not going to happen. It's a different NFL and different world. Fans aren't gonna pay NFL ticket prices and advertisers are not going to pay the TV minute fees for amateur night.

I'd be shocked if anyone in the NFL thought they'd get anything near full value in tickets or tv rights (though I'm not sure how that contract works).

I'm just not sure why "nothing" would be better than "something" in terms of selling some seats, gaining some concession money, etc. and I don't see the fans taking a "I won't watch" attitude.

But I'm coming around to what others are saying - that there are possibilites other than a lockout where NFL can simply state the rules they are offering to play under, at least for one season until a true CBA could be worked out. I'd think the NFL would be open to some limited negotiations under that. The union would of course be an all or nothing proposition - I don't see players abandoning them - but if there's no accord then I can't see why the NFL owners couldn't exploring bringing replacement players and possibly draftees

All it does is give them more leverage and income as opposed to a full lockout