8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Me: In Good Faith Move, Players Should Drop Law Suit.

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially


The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially


The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

As to the TV contracts, I haven't been following that issue to closely. As such, not going to contest the issue at this point.

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.



You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

...and most of it goes to the guys who started this. Owners.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

To be direct: yes, the players had that right, as well.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

The players agreed to a CBA that allowed the owners to opt out without any justification necessary. I am not sure how the owners exercising a negotiated contract right is in any way improper. Show me where, any where, in the CBA agreed to by the players, that the owners are required to show cause, injury or other justification prior to exercising their negotiated rights.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

Loopholes I get. I got no problem with legal loopholes. Hell, I love'em. The players, however, aren't taking advantage of a loophole. Read the CBA - (see CRed's post earlier). The players union, essentially, agreed not to decertify as a means of circumventing federal labor laws. Despite this agreement, they decertify with the specific intent of filing suit and attempting to gain leverage by intentionally circumventing their earlier agreement and established labor law.

This is not a "loophole", it is a flagrant violation of the CBA and federal labor laws. This was the basis of the NFL's opposition to the District Court's injunction and, according to the 8th Circuit when it overruled the lower court, is a claim upon which the NFL is likely to succeed.

Had the players followed the CBA and allowed the matter to proceed through the NLRB or other applicable (as agreed by the players union), I would have no beef with them.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

Nothing technically legal about it? I am assuming your using hyperbole, but, if not, the sheer unbridled ignorance of this remark makes a response impossible. Short answer: The NFL and its teams are legal entities that can choose to do business anyway they so choose subject to the appropriate lablor laws which the players availed themselves of by forming a union.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.

Their decertification, I suggest, was illegal and forced the owners hand into a lockout. Ultimately, the courts will make a determination as to the decertification's legality but, based on the 8th Circuit's recent ruling, it is likely they will find the decertification illegal.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything illegal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Let's get something straight - I think the owner's voided the CBA out of greed, they were unhappy with their cut and wanted to increase it. This does not mean what they did was illegal or a violation of the CBA or applicable law. It is legal to be greedy.

The players actions also demonstrate a level of greed - not nearly as much as the owners. However, in pursuing their perfectly legal greed, the players, IMO (and apparently the 8th Circuit's) are using illegal methods.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

Go look it up. By all accounts, the March 11th proposal met the players demands half way. As I understand it, the most recent proposal is more favorable.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.




The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!



Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.



Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.



You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.



So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.



...and most of it goes to the guys who started this. Owners.

#1- Yes the players had the option to back out.

#2- Yes the players have the right to file as a group. I think it's what the owners hoped would happen if they locked out. Cuts down on individual law suits.

#3- Monopoly? I don't think so. Prior to the UFL, yes, but the players do have more then one option now. They may not get as good a pay but they have options.

#4- Proof? You act as though the Judge has already ruled and said the players are not doing anything wrong? Lets look at the chronology of whats happened;
A- The Players decertified prior to the end of the CBA.
B- The Owners (forced) to lockout due to Union decertifying.
c- Players sued over lockout.
D- Owners sued over presumed illegal Union decertification.

So to fill in the gaps... the players chose to let the CBA expire when they chose not to stay the 6 hours and try to talk. The players chose to let the CBA expire (opt out) when they did not stay and request an extension to work things out.

Did the players decertify previously? yes, but they did it legally. They waited until "AFTER" the first CBA expired and chose to decertify which is supposedly legal under the law, but this time around the Union chose to decertify "PRIOR" to the CBA expiring to as the players put it "get the upper hand." But this "MIGHT" be illegal. All thats happened so far is that a Judge looked at the players case first because it was filed first and the Judge felt the players had a right to work. In reality one Judge should be listening to all the information and making a decision. If this happened the Judge would have tabled the players case and listened to the owners case first, which is the first event. If the players were wrong and decertified illegally then all the rest is moot. If they were not breaking the law then the next subject is the owners and their lockout. The problem is this decision won't be made until June 3rd.

The players may not be doing anything wrong in your eyes but guess what? the 8th Circuit agreed the owners were not doing anything wrong either when they kept the lockout in place.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

#3- Monopoly? I don't think so. Prior to the UFL, yes, but the players do have more then one option now. They may not get as good a pay but they have options.

It isn't about being a monopoly. It is about monopolizing the market. Collusion would fit under the act of monopolizing, but they have an exemption to that, so some OTHER act that would consistitute monopolizing the market. The UFL's existence is irrelevant to the matter unless the NFL is trying actively wipe it out.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

As to the TV contracts, I haven't been following that issue to closely. As such, not going to contest the issue at this point.

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

Two solid compromises and no "COUNTER OFFER." People talking that they need to bounce the ideas back and forth which is communicating. The players have failed and yet to make a counter offer for the owners to work with.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially


The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.

So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.

2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.

So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.

2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.

First that 59% should be 53%. You forget that the owners take 1 billion off the top so they are essentially splitting 8 billion, not the 9 that is brought in.

Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses.

My personal belief is this without seeing the books. There is absolutely no way that player income is the reason they are having loss of profits even though revenue has increase annually. My guess is the reason why owners are losing profits is because owners are bad businessmen. Let's take a look at who's losing money.

Al Davis - Raiders?
Wayne Weaver - Jaguars?
Mike Brown - Bengals?

Wonder why? Bad business decisions from owners?

NFL Labor Talks Hinge on Growth Issue - WSJ.com

This is a good read. Talks about how the NFL has probably hit it's ceiling for revenue and it's probably right. Inflation is sky high, and look no further than the price of gold to see that.

The one thing NFL owners care most about—the market value of their franchises—can only increase if revenues do. Increased revenues also give prospective NFL owners more confidence that they're making a solid investment as opposed to a vanity purchase

Sounds to me if owners want more money to expand their empire, they should be making better business decisions instead of stupid ones. Nobody told Snyder to set the market for DTs at 15million a year and a 100 million contract. Nobody twisted Al's arm to sign Russell to a 40 mil guaranteed contract, or any other over paid talent he's brought to that team. Should players take a cut because owners are making bad decisions? Hell no.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

First that 59% should be 53%. You forget that the owners take 1 billion off the top so they are essentially splitting 8 billion, not the 9 that is brought in.

Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses.

My personal belief is this without seeing the books. There is absolutely no way that player income is the reason they are having loss of profits even though revenue has increase annually. My guess is the reason why owners are losing profits is because owners are bad businessmen. Let's take a look at who's losing money.

Al Davis - Raiders?
Wayne Weaver - Jaguars?
Mike Brown - Bengals?

Wonder why? Bad business decisions from owners?

NFL Labor Talks Hinge on Growth Issue - WSJ.com

This is a good read. Talks about how the NFL has probably hit it's ceiling for revenue and it's probably right. Inflation is sky high, and look no further than the price of gold to see that.



Sounds to me if owners want more money to expand their empire, they should be making better business decisions instead of stupid ones. Nobody told Snyder to set the market for DTs at 15million a year and a 100 million contract. Nobody twisted Al's arm to sign Russell to a 40 mil guaranteed contract, or any other over paid talent he's brought to that team. Should players take a cut because owners are making bad decisions? Hell no.

Again the semantics over who opted out of the CBA. Maybe I should just play your fiddle and say "I don't care that the Players opted out of the CBA." What point of the players leaving 6 hrs prior to the deadline to file their decertification and not staying, not requesting and extension, and not even offering a counter offer makes the owners the bad guys who wanted to opt out of the CBA? I'm sorry but to put it in your words..." I don't care that the players opted out of the CBA."

You mention "proof". This illustrious "proof" that they are losing money. Is the revenue sharing increasing every year because they are making more money or is it increasing because of agreements in the CBA? The CAP grew each year so I presume the revenue sharing would grow.

But I think the majority of the fans are still missing the point that there are teams out there who are not doing well, not because of their owners (as you put it) being bad businessmen, the Bills have issue's with attendance, the Panthers have issue's with attendance, the Jaguars have issue's with attendance, and I'm betting there are a few others. I'll admit there are teams who are doing well like the Skins and Cowboys, but if these teams are taking a good portion off the top of their income to share with the lesser fortunate teams, then there is the fact the economy is bad and I'm betting more people are turning in season tickets or not renewing their season tickets due to the economy. But go ahead and argue that. I recently posted a thread on another site in which many fans were saying just that in regards to their Redskin season tickets. Hmmm, I guess the NFL would not be losing money.

Season Ticket Renewals

EDIT: I did not post the thread. Sorry. Meant to say I posted here a thread from another site.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

They offered to open the books to a third party audit and the NFLPA refused. They wanted to look them over themselves, most likely to look for leverage.

NFL's Statement On NFLPA Decertification - Battle Red Blog

That doesn't say they offered to open their books to a third party. The "audited' information that they offering is going to hide any personal expenses they may be masking as their business expenses. This isn't the real information needed to ascertain whether the owners are lying about their claim of loss of profits. THIS is what the owners don't want players seeing because it'll kill their very plea that they are losing money when in fact they are blowing it for personal gain. (See the LA Dodgers for a prime example) Now, most owners aren't going to go all out like the McCourts but I will bet you my life that owners do use their business stuff for personal use and write it off as a "business expense". In fact, every owner I know in America does this. Goes back to my idea that you can't expect the players to take cuts all because you run your business horribly.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

What point of the players leaving 6 hrs prior to the deadline to file their decertification and not staying, not requesting and extension, and not even offering a counter offer makes the owners the bad guys who wanted to opt out of the CBA? I'm sorry but to put it in your words..." I don't care that the players opted out of the CBA."

I don't know of any courts that stay open till midnight, so they had to decertify by 5pm that day or the case wouldn't have stayed in Minnesota. Surely you do realize this right? They would have had an extension of the CBA before that 5pm deadline in order stop the NFLPA from decertifying. However, it had been said that there was no use of going forward at this point because both sides were no budging. They had no other choice but to decertify.



One thing to remember in the owners argument that player costs are the reason they are losing profits. Player salaries for the most part are not guaranteed. (unlike MLB and NBA) The salary cap of a team is no indication of how much they are actually paying their players that year. I still don't believe their bullcrap. I've never seen a business in my life bring in more revenue each year and lose profits. Not without somebody either embezzling money or doing a piss poor job running it.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

That doesn't say they offered to open their books to a third party. The "audited' information that they offering is going to hide any personal expenses they may be masking as their business expenses. This isn't the real information needed to ascertain whether the owners are lying about their claim of loss of profits. THIS is what the owners don't want players seeing because it'll kill their very plea that they are losing money when in fact they are blowing it for personal gain. (See the LA Dodgers for a prime example) Now, most owners aren't going to go all out like the McCourts but I will bet you my life that owners do use their business stuff for personal use and write it off as a "business expense". In fact, every owner I know in America does this. Goes back to my idea that you can't expect the players to take cuts all because you run your business horribly.

It would have most likely been audited by a public firm, companies which ever since the fall of Arthur Anderson and Enron are under intense scrutiny (which is an understatement) to audit statements correctly. They already know 99% of the tricks companies use to either inflate earnings for stock purposes or report losses for tax purposes.

What's amazing, and what shows the absolute distrust the players have for the owners, is that the NFL offered the players to have an independent auditor -- to be determined by both sides -- study the audited financial statements. The independent auditor would have studied the statements, then reported to the union the year-by-year profit-and-loss statements for each team. Theoretically, that would have shown whether teams were becoming less profitable in the past two or three years, a core argument of the ownership.

Read more: Full access to financial statements at core of NFL labor issues - Peter King - SI.com

In short if the owners try to pull a fast one it would most likely be discovered by the auditors and corrected. Remember these aren't the accountants employed by the teams or the NFL. This would be done by an outside firm that would be putting it's reputation on the line in the interest of providing accurate financial reports.

And also remember this is a very public case thats being watched closely by the government, no accounting firm in their right mind is going to help the owners, or the players for that matter, cook the books.

Bottom line I would fully expect the third party audits to be accurate. What I wouldn't trust is the players getting their hands on these reports and not trying to toy around with the numbers to help their case. As has been said before the players are obsessed with obtaining leverage, as are the owners but the players seem to be under more pressure, and pressure is one of the key motivators when it comes to potential fraud.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

In short if the owners try to pull a fast one it would most likely be discovered by the auditors and corrected. Remember these aren't the accountants employed by the teams or the NFL. This would be done by an outside firm that would be putting it's reputation on the line in the interest of providing accurate financial reports.

You still aren't getting it. You obviously don't understand what a "audited" version of their books is, but they are basically offering a watered down version of their numbers that will not show any improper financial entries.

Something like this.

Revenue : $900 million
Player Cost: $285 million
Business Costs: $600 million
----------------------------------------------
Profit: 15 million

From this, you can't tell diddly squat about those "business expenses". You know that trip he took his private jet overseas with for a vacation? Yup, wrote it off as a "business trip" since he had a business meeting for 1 hour out of the 2 weeks he was there.

It's stuff like that are being hidden in "audited" numbers that the players want to see, and they have that right to see it if they are being asked to cut 1 billion from their payroll.


edit: D. Smith (and other players) have said they have gotten more information about the teams financial data from the Wall Street Journal reports than they have from the teams themselves. Again, I say open your books (unedited and unaudited) to a 3rd party and let them decide.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially

The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses. .

So the Owners opting out backed the players in a corner but you have "no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA". You keep moving the target.

As Tripp said, the "open your books" issue is giant red herring. As part of the old CBA, the books are audited by a third party. If I understand you, however, your biggest problem is that a bunch of billionaires are crying "poor" and not allowing the players to see how much they spent on towel cleaning. Again, as Tripp said, idealogically, that's a hard sell for the owners, D-Smith knows it and is playing it up regardless of whether it is a sound legal theory. Doesn't matter that what D-Smith is asking for is legally unprecedented, it makes a great sound bite and joe-schmoe is bound to sympathize with sticking it to the owners.

My biggest beef with the players is not that they are seeking to increase/protect their share - both they and the owners are entilted to do so. Rather, its the deceptive manner in which they are trying to do so (i.e. the illegal decertification). I blame that mainly on D-Smith. He is nothing more than a high-priced schlock ambulance chaser - He just chases Mercedes instead.

When you don't have the law, argue the facts, when you don't have the facts, baffle'em with BS. Well, D-Smith is down to BS. His characterizations are consistently one off the accurate truth, his appeals are not to the law but to fans emotions. Doing mainly civil defense work, I see his type all the time and they piss me off simply 'cause you have to work twice as hard refuting all the BS rather than focusing on the issues. They throw everything against the wall, accurate or not, in hopes something will stick. He is a pile o' crap with a mouth. "You refuted what I said yesterday, I'll just move the target over here even if, in doing so, I indirectly contradict everything I said yesterday."

Sorry rant over. The owners opted out 'cause they wanted a bigger piece of the pie. The players got a great deal and don't want to change it. Cut the baby in the middle and move on (which is what the owners March 11th reportedly did). To me, that's the bottom line.