8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

SBXVII- If the NFL owners did not get money back from the players in a new CBA deal the owners were going lock out the players anyway. The NBA owners are heading the same direction. You can see that right?
They will agree to a new deal at some point.
In the mean time the supposed "financially hurt NFL owners" greed continues:


In NFL owners’ enterprise, nothing’s free - The Washington Post

Honestly, I don't care about the NBA. I like the Wizards, but I'm more of a NFL/NHL fan.

Again, owners and their greed. What about the players greed? They are/were making 59% of the profit. I understand the owners skimmed off the top, and want more, but I look at it this way... either you have a job or you don't. Go ahead and play hard ball and hopefully later some of the teams don't fold or are forced to other markets. Want and example? Buffalo and the owner wanting to move to Canada because there are more fans there and probably a better market.

I know I'm taking it to an extreme when I say the worst teams are relying on the revenue sharing heavily in order to help their clubs and with out the money needed they will fold, but as I'm taking it to an extreme so I think others are when they say the NFL is doing just fine and the owners are greedy. I'd like to know what the owners take is after paying for their stadiums, practice fields, players, equipement, coach's, people who fix the fields, secretearies and related staff, plane costs, gas, food, etc. etc. etc. Then the owners have to take a % of their income and hand it over to the NFL to be distributed to the less fortunate clubs. But even though I'm just wondering... I don't think it's really anybodies business. Not mine, not the media's, not the players.

I think if this is the sticking point then the owners should take the 3 worst clubs and show their books. Then the players can't complain since I'm pretty sure it would prove loss of revenue.

[GTripp0012]

I am not "for the players" or "for the owners" or anything. I am just pointing out how as more information becomes available, the owners look more and more justified. Which is the complete opposite of what I predicted in February. I figured the players would eventually be justified in their plight. And they may be, eventually.

I supported American Needle 100% in their Supreme Court case against the NFL, and it would have been a disaster if major pro sports leagues gained full US antitrust exemption. But this labor dispute has a completely different set of facts. And I think the players' supporters are being forced to get more and more ideological in their arguments as more info becomes available.

[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

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.

[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.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The main problem here is trust. There is none, and it's hard to bargain or compromise when there isn't trust.



This is what should happen. The owners should open their books to a third party financial firm to allow them to review the books. They could make it so that other owner's (or the public) wouldn't have access to them. That way the players can then trust the owners in this negotiation and proceed from there. It's hard to ask somebody to "trust me" over a billion dollars when in fact many of these guys are notorious for making money in shady ways.

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

The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.

Smith is all about leverage and winning. Like the comment I posted before alluded to, the players are taught to be competitive about everything are rewarded with positive reinforcement for having a competitive spirit. Winning is the only thing that matters. They're even told to compete with their own teammates.

That might be why they gravitated towards a ruthless litigation lawyer instead of a corporate lawyer that understands negotiation as well as the concept of give and take. They thought "hey we plug this guy in, knock around a few heads and the owners will be begging us to accept an even better deal."

Most of the owners on the other hand, while competitive are still business men/women first and most of them understand negotiation. That's probably where the pyscho ex-Girlfriend comment came from. They're trying to conduct business (albeit shady business at times) and Smith is just going on and on with rhetoric and threats of winning in court.

I'm already a record on repeat but it's the same pattern with the NFLPA, particularly their top two lawyers. Show up to court appointed functions, look at offer for a second, balk at offer, storm out, and then make over the top statements to the media.

Personally I think the funniest thing about Smith is how quickly he can go from Gloater to Victim.
DeMaurice Smith Has It Backwards - Bleeding Green Nation

[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.

[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.

[Dirtbag59]

My beef is as follows.

Owners and Goodell:
- Complain about the split and talk of the players getting 60% when in fact they only get 53% which is less then the NHL, NBA, and I'm pretty sure the MLB.

- Only a small portion of NFL contracts are guaranteed so aside from paying less in salary then the other three leagues the owners can terminate contracts only owing a fraction of what the other leagues pay.

- Goodell talks of fans being excited about the prospect of an 18 game season because the preseason games don't meet the standard set by the NFL for quality. The reality is the majority of fans don't want an 18 game season because they have little interest in increasing the risk of injury to their key players.

- Also sad is the fact that part of the reason the fans hate preaseason games is they have to pay full price. Common sense dictates that the owners should stop charging regular season prices, Owners on the other hand don't want to loose that money and instead propose two extra games even if it means putting key players at risk.

- The total revenue earned by the NFL has increased in a recession ergo proving that for the foreseeable future the NFL is recession proof.

- These stadiums that the owners claim they need more money to build are mostly being paid for by tax payers and cities. Not the owners or the league. IIRC the Bidwells paid something like $9 million for their stadium after cost were covered by the city of Phoenix and the University of Phoenix with sponsorship.

-Using the TV deals and exclusivity contracts as a rainy day fund.

- Threatening the fans with essentially an anarchy system. 'No draft, no parity, etc'

NFLPA, particularly De Smith

- Rather then engage in serious negotiations the NFLPA is simply trying to bully it's way through the courts. They are more interested in power mongering and attempting to acquire leverage rather then act like adults and work towards a CBA thats good for everyone. Collectively the NFLPA has virtually zero idea as to how to approach negotiation. Rather then viewing it as an adversarial form of team work they approach it like a football game where there is a clearly defined winner and looser.

- Lack of counter offers. Just as I've been saying rather then come up with an alternate proposal the NFLPA's solution is simply to storm out and complain to the media about getting a raw deal. The owners have offered deals that at the very least have served as a great starting point. Instead De Smith comes out and calls it "the worst deal in sports."

- Not immediately shooting down the idea of an NFLPA draft event to compete with the draft.

- Decertification. Another attempt to acquire leverage and exploit the legal system. No better then the owners rainy day fund.

- Insisting on seeing the books for themselves. Third party audits aren't good enough for the NFLPA. Again focused more on winning and acquiring leverage rather then moving things along and finding a solution to the lockout.


The owners may have started the lockout but I blame the players for allowing it to continue for as long as it has.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

TA DAA!


Thank You, Thank You, Point, Set, Match. Ladies and Gentleman.... Elvis has left the building.

If you can't dazzle them with facts baffle them with BS.

Everything done has been legal, except what the players have done.... decertify. But everyone is hung up on the lower court lifting the lockout. The fact is the courts need to look at the first action (the decertification) before they can look into the owners actions.

A judge does not listen to the facts of a drunk driver before he listens to whether the traffic stop was legal or not first. A judge does not listen to the officer finding drugs in the car before he listens to whether the traffic stop was legal and what probable cause the police officer had to even search the person or car.

People are completely jumping past whether the players had a right to decertify prior to the CBA ending and running with the owners can't lockout the players. News flash, if the Union/players were wrong in what they did then the owners lockout will not be illegal.

I agree with the $$$. You can't fault either side for trying to get as much as they can. Thats the nature of the beast. Why the owners agreed to the 59% back in 05 or 06 I don't know, maybe they did it for the fans to keep football going. But the owners now realize they made a mistake and want some of it back.

[SmootSmack]

Somewhere along the line, I must have missed that decertification is illegal

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Somewhere along the line, I must have missed that decertification is illegal

It's more of a glitch. Technically it's not illegal but based on the context in which it has been used it should be. They look like a union, act like a union, but technically aren't a union and are using it as a front to bring fourth anti-trust litigation in an attempt to gain leverage.

[CRedskinsRule]

2 points-
Legally, the players didn't de-certify they filed a disclaimer of the union. The difference is that a disclaimer can be rescinded any time, a de-certification is in place for a year. Thus, a disclaimer is much more a light switch the nflpa can turn on or off as needed.

So far the disclaimer is not illegal, or a sham, however - I think it violates the spirit of the 2006 CBA terms on its expiration. The NLRB may at some point rule the disclaimer invalid.

[SmootSmack]

Wonder what the reaction on this site would have been back in '89 when Upshaw did much of (if not exactly) what De Smith is doing now

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Wonder what the reaction on this site would have been back in '89 when Upshaw did much of (if not exactly) what De Smith is doing now

One difference, and I think it does matter to your question, Upshaw let the existing agreements void before beginning a litigation strategy, D Smith planned for two years to use litigation as a labor tool.

I also tend to believe that the condition the players worked under in Upshaws time were far far worse then what the players are working under now.