8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Let's recap...if they players take the 59% proposal, they are getting the short end of the stick compared to the last CBA...if the players take the 53% they care getting screwed in the long run compared to the 59% proposal. On top of that they can't look at the books and If they don't take any deal they get locked out.


Sounds like the players are #winning.

CRedskinsRule, what would you do differently from the players?

I don't understand your first part. The 59/53 numbers are from the 2006 CBA. The owners refer to 59 because it makes the players side nearly 60%. The players use the 53 because they want the whole pot considered. I would say when owners of a business are accepting less than half of their businesses revenue that is a win for the employees(players). that isn't all the employees either coaches league officials, team staff, all come fro the owners half as well.

As for what I would do if I were a player. First as NC_SKINS points out, I really can't imagine that bargaining position. But since you asked, I will give it a shot.

1) hire a corporate lawyer who is skilled in negotiating not a diehard litigator. [The time for that was as soon as the owners opted out]

2). Focus on positive messages and positive results. For example, rather than harping on not getting 10 years of data, refer to data shared as a good start, but more would be better.

3). Be ready to respond to an owner bullet list with specific alternatives.

4). Lose the high strung rhetoric, for example refer to the owners march 11th as a disappointment but certainly now we can have a dialogue. Not "its the worst offer in the history of sports". That simply creates untenable positions on both sides.

5). Knowing the owners were intent on locking us out, prep the players for that fact and in the end I may still have decertified like they did, but I would have been in intense dialogue before march and if necessary making very frequent public calls for negotiations. Including times places and set asides to meet.

6). And in the end I would be prepared to compromise and make sure that the union members got a) the best deal that avoided a long lockout and b) not incite them but help them understand the realities and benefits to avoiding lockout/litigation. Yes the most high paid players might balk but a cash floor, better health and a minimal reduction of the salary cap could and would be sold to the bulk of the players as a better deal. I would take a tough stance on 18 games not included at all, tough stances on many non cash but quality of life issues such as OTAs, voluntary work outs etc.

Hope that makes sense.

[CRedskinsRule]

And on #5 above, I would certainly have enlisted the FMRC long before, and if the owners weren't responsive I would have pushed for the FRMC to find or declare an impasse and have it on record for any litigation to follow. If the FRMC had formally found that the NFL was not bargaining in good faith the positions now would be much different.

[CRedskinsRule]

And just for fun if I were the owners this is what I would have done differently:

1). Once we opted out, focus our internal intentions and goals. Start with underlying assumptions that players today a) will have competent representation and as such prepare full fledged briefs, P/L statements, charts and projections that explain and show the stated concerns. Don't hire a lawyer who brought hockey through a year long lock out as a primary attorney, though put him on as a consultant.

2). Get past the past history question, find a reputable accounting firm, and let them make representative case books. Show a merged high, med and low rev team. And present that to the players early on. Let that be known publicly, so there is little reason for distrust.

3). If you believe a lockout is inevitable, again be forceful about getting to a FRMC mediation. Make every effort to have intense mediation dates. If the players are not going to budge at all then atleast have it on record that you were trying your hardest.

4). The tv deal is a hindsight thing. Chances are when being done most felt or atleast let themselves be convinced it was just reasonable measures. At this point I would obviously say don't make those deals.

5). If DSmith was a stumbling block, appeal to player reps directly. At first there might be pushback, but the owners know these guys and vice versa. Have Saturday and Irsay talk, have kraft and their player rep talk, etc. Obviously this is early on and has to be handled delicately, but reach out and listen to the players side. While maintaining the message that somethings have to change, find out what non cash issues resonate with the players and the reps.

6) don't threaten lockout 2years out, focus on moving points through negotiation.

7) finally, make sure the deal is a solid one for the longterm

[CRedskinsRule]

And of course both players and owners should always stay at a holiday inn the night before mediation,

[SBXVII]

League launches effort to get players to focus on dollars, not percentages | ProFootballTalk


League finds no improper lockout contact | ProFootballTalk

[NC_Skins]

MLB, NBA, NHL unions file brief in lockout suit - ESPN

With the NHL owners supporting the NFL owners, you knew this was going to happen...lol

[GMScud]

One of my closest friends is a NY Jets fan and season ticket holder. Over the course of the next 6 months, the Jets will be taking $342/month out of his checking account. He'll get a refund if there's no season, but still, that's freaking ridiculous. The owners lockout the players, then proceed to rake the fans for ticket money?? How does that make any sense? Greedy SOB's.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GMScud

One of my closest friends is a NY Jets fan and season ticket holder. Over the course of the next 6 months, the Jets will be taking $342/month out of his checking account. He'll get a refund if there's no season, but still, that's freaking ridiculous. The owners lockout the players, then proceed to rake the fans for ticket money?? How does that make any sense? Greedy SOB's.

Because fans allow it. Now owners get to make interest off that money they are collecting from the fans. They say there is a sucker born every minute, and NFL fans prove that statement to be correct.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Because fans allow it. Now owners get to make interest off that money they are collecting from the fans. They say there is a sucker born every minute, and NFL fans prove that statement to be correct.

....does that include you?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

....does that include you?

Hell no....lol

1) not buying season tickets
2) not buying NFL ticket (dont even have direct TV)
3) not buying gear


So I'm doing my part. :P If I were a season ticket holder, I certainly would not pay them my invoice with a lockout in progress.

[CRedskinsRule]

I have a question that I hope someone here can answer. If the 8th DCofA upholds its stay, and the lockout continues, can the NFLPA re-decertify at the 6month mark which the CBA speaks of, and invalidate the NFL's claim of a sham? I would think so. Then if the NFL can't argue sham, they could no longer lockout the players, correct?

Basically, what I am saying - but don't know if I am right - is that on 9-11(or 9-12 since 9-11 is a Sunday) the NFLPA, could re-form by vote of the players, and officially de-certify. Once they do that in accordance with the 2006 CBA, the owners would no longer be able to claim sham, and thus could not invoke labor law tools such as a lockout. If that is true, and I am right on that, then all this legal maneuvering now would simply have been a waste on both parties, which doesn't make sense to me, but I can't figure out why the above statements would not be true. Finally, if that's the case, then really we have wasted 2 1/2 months of this lockout that could have been spent negotiating, with out changing either sides legal position. After all, if the NFLPA had stayed as a union, the NFL locked them out, and they continued negotiating, what would have changed legally, or financially, for the players. And on Sep12th, if no deal was reached the NFLPA could have de-certified and the owners would have no recourse through the NLRB, or the courts, to fault it.

If all that is right, and I am not sure it is, this whole thing seems even more like the huge screw up that we all already know it as.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I have a question that I hope someone here can answer. If the 8th DCofA upholds its stay, and the lockout continues, can the NFLPA re-decertify at the 6month mark which the CBA speaks of, and invalidate the NFL's claim of a sham? I would think so. Then if the NFL can't argue sham, they could no longer lockout the players, correct?

Basically, what I am saying - but don't know if I am right - is that on 9-11(or 9-12 since 9-11 is a Sunday) the NFLPA, could re-form by vote of the players, and officially de-certify. Once they do that in accordance with the 2006 CBA, the owners would no longer be able to claim sham, and thus could not invoke labor law tools such as a lockout. If that is true, and I am right on that, then all this legal maneuvering now would simply have been a waste on both parties, which doesn't make sense to me, but I can't figure out why the above statements would not be true. Finally, if that's the case, then really we have wasted 2 1/2 months of this lockout that could have been spent negotiating, with out changing either sides legal position. After all, if the NFLPA had stayed as a union, the NFL locked them out, and they continued negotiating, what would have changed legally, or financially, for the players. And on Sep12th, if no deal was reached the NFLPA could have de-certified and the owners would have no recourse through the NLRB, or the courts, to fault it.

If all that is right, and I am not sure it is, this whole thing seems even more like the huge screw up that we all already know it as.

Can the NFLPA re-decertify? They are already decertified, how can they re-decertify if they are already decertified? I'm confused.

If the courts find that the NFLPA's decertification is invalid then that mean's those Anti-Trust suits will also be invalid as well. It means the NFLPA would have to bargain as a union and the owners would have all the leverage. A lockout is going to occur with or without a union. That much is guaranteed.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Can the NFLPA re-decertify? They are already decertified, how can they re-decertify if they are already decertified? I'm confused.

If the courts find that the NFLPA's decertification is invalid then that mean's those Anti-Trust suits will also be invalid as well. It means the NFLPA would have to bargain as a union and the owners would have all the leverage. A lockout is going to occur with or without a union. That much is guaranteed.

The NFLPA disclaimed interest, the media keeps saying decertified. A disclaimer of interest can be undone in a heart beat of a vote. A true de-certification vote has procedures, and then the union is barred from recertifying for a year.

I don't think that is right about the lockout, because the owners contention is that they are in their rights to lockout BECAUSE the decertification was a sham. But if the union follows the CBA clause of 6 months then the NFL can't claim it's a sham, and the whole process starts over, without a lockout in place. The main thing it would mean is we just wasted this time in getting a deal done.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The NFLPA disclaimed interest, the media keeps saying decertified. A disclaimer of interest can be undone in a heart beat of a vote. A true de-certification vote has procedures, and then the union is barred from recertifying for a year.

I don't think that is right about the lockout, because the owners contention is that they are in their rights to lockout BECAUSE the decertification was a sham. But if the union follows the CBA clause of 6 months then the NFL can't claim it's a sham, and the whole process starts over, without a lockout in place. The main thing it would mean is we just wasted this time in getting a deal done.

Well, they had to file the decertification in the court by 5pm that day the CBA expired. That's why they walked out 6 hours early. They are technically decertified as of right now.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Well, they had to file the decertification in the court by 5pm that day the CBA expired. That's why they walked out 6 hours early. They are technically decertified as of right now.

No. They did not legally decertify. CR is right. They filed a disclaimer of interest which the media has repeatedly purported as decertification. Which it is not. By law. Different things legally. I have no read on the case-law but commonsense says the 8th isn't going to all the trouble they have been so far to simply let them off on a technicality like that. But the law isn't always based in commonsense.