Lockout

[piratesownninjas]

the entire desertification process would enable the NFLPA to file a class action lawsuit against the NFL. It's happened before, as recently as 1989 when Gene Upshaw decertified the union in order to access the courts and anti-trust laws.

By rule, the NFLPA would cease to exist after desertification.

[tazinib1]

By rule, the NFLPA would cease to exist after desertification.

 

 

You are correct. It would allow the players, in a class action lawsuit, the ability to sue the NFL. Here is what happened in 1989:

 

Decertification would prevent the union from collectively bargaining with the NFL team owners and allow players to sue the league under antitrust laws if they are locked out. After last decertifying in 1989, the union re-formed in 1993, and players won an antitrust action challenging free-agency rules as an unlawful restraint of trade.

 

The players victory in 1993 has led to what we now know as free agency today. I'm not too sure the Owners want another one of these.

[piratesownninjas]

You are correct. It would allow the players, in a class action lawsuit, the ability to sue the NFL. Here is what happened in 1989:

 

 

 

The players victory in 1993 has led to what we now know as free agency today. I'm not too sure the Owners want another one of these.

So we could be looking at 4 years without the NFLPA? What in the eff happens over that period of time this time?

 

Ugh, this gives me a headache.

[Bronco Billy]

A question for nerds of labor laws...

So lets say the NFLPA decides to decertify... What's keeping them from forming a union again once they get what they wanted from decertifying?

 

Nothing stops them from reforming once they get what they want. Decertification is a ploy to allow the players to leverage anti-trust laws against the league. It has happened in the past.

 

Once the negotiations are finished, the players will then simply re-establish the union.

 

I'd be curious to hear the opinions of those who thought the owners' contract with the networks to provide revenue regardless of whether there is a 2011 season was underhanded. Is this as equally underhanded to them? Players decertifying to access anti-trust laws knowing full well that they will re-establish the players union?

Edited March 3, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[SLAYER]

bye bye football, it was nice knowing you.

[detlef]

Nothing stops them from reforming once they get what they want. Decertification is a ploy to allow the players to leverage anti-trust laws against the league. It has happened in the past.

 

Once the negotiations are finished, the players will then simply re-establish the union.

 

I'd be curious to hear the opinions of those who thought the owners' contract with the networks to provide revenue regardless of whether there is a 2011 season was underhanded. Is this as equally underhanded to them? Players decertifying to access anti-trust laws knowing full well that they will re-establish the players union?

Seems about as underhanded. I guess. Well, not really. I think the owners negotiating a back-ended contract with lock-out insurance (undoubtedly at the expense of up-front money that they would have to share with the players) is literally using the players money to buy a tool that they can use against them.

 

This who decert thing, while perhaps a bit sneaky, seems less like theft to me.

[Square]

Nothing stops them from reforming once they get what they want. Decertification is a ploy to allow the players to leverage anti-trust laws against the league. It has happened in the past.

 

Once the negotiations are finished, the players will then simply re-establish the union.

 

I'd be curious to hear the opinions of those who thought the owners' contract with the networks to provide revenue regardless of whether there is a 2011 season was underhanded. Is this as equally underhanded to them? Players decertifying to access anti-trust laws knowing full well that they will re-establish the players union?

Yea, it's terrible that the players would actually want the owners to follow the anti-trust laws. I mean can you believe the brass ones on those guys?

 

All this talk of "the owners" league and how everyone has a choice to work there ignores that they are really a monopoly on that professional sport. So if being a pro football player is your line of work, you really have no option but to play for them. Now if Apple or GE had been having it's most productive years ever but management asked the employees to take a 20% pay cut so they could make more money, the board of directors would probably intervene and some heads would roll. But since a lot of the players aren't good with their money, some of you don't give a chit. I mean think of how much better the league will be when the owners get to split an extra billion and the players all have shortened careers because of an 18 game schedule. Talk about nirvana. I'm f-ing pumped about the future of football.

 

To your point, I think it's something that has happened in the past so I definitely don't consider it out of the realm of normal for what happens in these situations. So "underhanded" is a bit loaded and I wouldn't use that term for desertification. Besides the paperwork on desertification went out about 9 months ago. Desertification would be the most telegraphed punch in the history of the planet. I don't think there has ever been a case where the owners got paid TV rights regardless of whether there was games are not. So between the two I think the owners are being more "dirty". We'll see how this plays out as it should be interesting. Especially since judge Doty (who would get this case) seems to be somewhat sympathetic to the players cause.

[Cunning Runt]

Nothing stops them from reforming once they get what they want. Decertification is a ploy to allow the players to leverage anti-trust laws against the league. It has happened in the past.

 

Once the negotiations are finished, the players will then simply re-establish the union.

 

I'd be curious to hear the opinions of those who thought the owners' contract with the networks to provide revenue regardless of whether there is a 2011 season was underhanded. Is this as equally underhanded to them? Players decertifying to access anti-trust laws knowing full well that they will re-establish the players union?

 

It absolutely is and the type of thing that makes me want the league to just bury the players' union in every way possible.

 

It's total BS that they can decertify for the sole purpose of gaining leverage, then reform. Didn't the league recently file an unfair labor practice claim against the union seeking to prevent them from doing this? Whatever became of that?

[Cunning Runt]

Yea, it's terrible that the players would actually want the owners to follow the anti-trust laws. I mean can you believe the brass ones on those guys?

 

All this talk of "the owners" league and how everyone has a choice to work there ignores that they are really a monopoly on that professional sport. So if being a pro football player is your line of work, you really have no option but to play for them. Now if Apple or GE had been having it's most productive years ever but management asked the employees to take a 20% pay cut so they could make more money, the board of directors would probably intervene and some heads would roll. But since a lot of the players aren't good with their money, some of you don't give a chit. I mean think of how much better the league will be when the owners get to split an extra billion and the players all have shortened careers because of an 18 game schedule. Talk about nirvana. I'm f-ing pumped about the future of football.

 

To your point, I think it's something that has happened in the past so I definitely don't consider it out of the realm of normal for what happens in these situations. So "underhanded" is a bit loaded and I wouldn't use that term for desertification. Besides the paperwork on desertification went out about 9 months ago. Desertification would be the most telegraphed punch in the history of the planet. I don't think there has ever been a case where the owners got paid TV rights regardless of whether there was games are not. So between the two I think the owners are being more "dirty". We'll see how this plays out as it should be interesting. Especially since judge Doty (who would get this case) seems to be somewhat sympathetic to the players cause.

 

Brother, you and I could not disagree more on all this.

[detlef]

It absolutely is and the type of thing that makes me want the league to just bury the players' union in every way possible.

 

It's total BS that they can decertify for the sole purpose of gaining leverage, then reform. Didn't the league recently file an unfair labor practice claim against the union seeking to prevent them from doing this? Whatever became of that?

OK then, spin it around. Since you think what the players are doing is so bad, explain why what the owners are doing isn't at least as bad.

 

Think of it like this. You and I have an agreement where I give you specific % of what our project makes. Only, it's my job to negotiate the deal with our "customer" (in this case, TV). So, in these negotiations, a price gets thrown out there, say $10 billion per year, and I say, you've got to throw in some money on the back end that happens to be after yours and my deal expires that pays me even if you and I don't deliver the product. The customer comes back and says, "If you want that, we've got to knock the price down to $9 billion a year" and I accept.

 

I have just screwed you royally. I've taken money out of your pocket, your cut of the $1 billion per year that I could have made for us, in exchange for money that only I get. Money that I can use as leverage against you the next time we negotiate. That honestly seems borderline criminal. Not, finding a loophole in the law but literally reaching into your pocket and taking money.

 

That's barely different than going to the customer and saying, "I want you to pay us $9 billion per year that everyone knows about and then slide me $1 billion on the side so I don't have to split it.

 

I have investors, for whom I am legally bound to share a % of what my business makes. If I somehow channel revenues in some way that avoids me having to share it with these investors, that's basically embezzling. And that seems a whole lot like what the owners did here.

 

Hell, I also have key employees for whom, when times were lean and I knew they deserved a raise, I offered profit sharing to encourage them to help me make the business more profitable. That means I also owe to them to not strike deals with my customers that specifically circumvent this profit sharing agreement I have with them. I can't open up some other entity that I don't share with anyone, and start funneling revenues to that for, say off-site gigs so I don't have to split the loot.

Edited March 3, 2011 by detlef

[tazinib1]

BTW: Tomorrow is when FA is suppose to start.

[Bronco Billy]

OK then, spin it around. Since you think what the players are doing is so bad, explain why what the owners are doing isn't at least as bad.

 

Think of it like this. You and I have an agreement where I give you specific % of what our project makes. Only, it's my job to negotiate the deal with our "customer" (in this case, TV). So, in these negotiations, a price gets thrown out there, say $10 billion per year, and I say, you've got to throw in some money on the back end that happens to be after yours and my deal expires that pays me even if you and I don't deliver the product. The customer comes back and says, "If you want that, we've got to knock the price down to $9 billion a year" and I accept.

 

I have just screwed you royally. I've taken money out of your pocket, your cut of the $1 billion per year that I could have made for us, in exchange for money that only I get. Money that I can use as leverage against you the next time we negotiate. That honestly seems borderline criminal. Not, finding a loophole in the law but literally reaching into your pocket and taking money.

 

That's barely different than going to the customer and saying, "I want you to pay us $9 billion per year that everyone knows about and then slide me $1 billion on the side so I don't have to split it.

 

I have investors, for whom I am legally bound to share a % of what my business makes. If I somehow channel revenues in some way that avoids me having to share it with these investors, that's basically embezzling. And that seems a whole lot like what the owners did here.

 

And hence the problem with the understanding. The owners and the players are not partners. The owners are the owners and the players are their employees.

 

It is entirely reasonable to expect the owners to take a cut up front, since they are responsible for all other employees other than the players, for insurance and health care costs for the entire organization - not just the players, for providing a venue for games to be played, for providing organization and infrastructure for the league, as well as many other expense items that the players have absolutely no responsibility for. The players don't have responsibility for this because they are not partners - they are employees.

 

If this up-front payment was established and the NFLPA was aware of it when they signed the contract, there is no "stealing" of the money. It is not taking any money out of the any players' pockets - it wasn't money the players were entitled to share in the first place.

 

It's incomprehensible to me how these simple facts simply do not register in some people's minds, and how these same people speak with such authority that the owners are just screwing over the players and stealing from them.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[MikesVikes]

Are the owners all in agreement on whether there will be revenue sharing? Jerry Jones liked to voice his opinion on his "to each his own" theory whenever he could. Is that going to happen?

 

Just saw a piece about it.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nfl-owner...ther-2011-03-03

Edited March 3, 2011 by MikesVikes

[detlef]

And hence the problem with the understanding. The owners and the players are not partners. The owners are the owners and the players are their employees.

 

It is entirely reasonable to expect the owners to take a cut up front, since they are responsible for all other employees other than the players, for insurance and health care costs for the entire organization - not just the players, for providing a venue for games to be played, for providing organization and infrastructure for the league, as well as many other expense items that the players have absolutely no responsibility for. The players don't have responsibility for this because they are not partners - they are employees.

 

If this up-front payment was established and the NFLPA was aware of it when they signed the contract, there is no "stealing" of the money. It is not taking any money out of the any players' pockets - it wasn't money the players were entitled to share in the first place.

 

It's incomprehensible to me how these simple facts simply do not register in some people's minds, and how these same people speak with such authority that the owners are just screwing over the players and stealing from them.

That's a great explanation for something entirely different than what I was saying. I'm not talking about the upfront cut. Never once mentioned it in my post. If there's a stipulation in the agreement that they and the players split the pot minus a specified amount to cover costs, so be it. Sound reasonable.

 

But that's not in any way what I am talking about. I am talking about the owners negotiating a deal with their customer that specifically sacrifices current revenues for a back-ended deal that they don't have to share as per their agreement with the players.

 

Now, spare us the condescending "you can't understand the simplest things" bit until you show enough sack to actually respond to the points being made rather than pretending they're something else because that's an easier argument to knock down.

 

Again, explain how this is any different than if I were to offer some key employees profit sharing and then specifically funnel revenues into another entity that I own separately to avoid given them their fair due?

Edited March 3, 2011 by detlef

[tazinib1]

Are the owners all in agreement on whether there will be revenue sharing? Jerry Jones liked to voice his opinion on his "to each his own" theory whenever he could. Is that going to happen?

 

Just saw a piece about it.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nfl-owner...ther-2011-03-03

 

 

TBH, and maybe I've missed it, this is the first time I've heard Revenue Sharing being called a major player in the negotiations. This is an owners problem IMO, not an owners/NFPLA problem.

 

ETA: Ok I misread the article. This is apparently a sideline fight between the owners.

Edited March 3, 2011 by tazinib1

[MikesVikes]

TBH, and maybe I've missed it, this is the first time I've heard Revenue Sharing being called a major player in the negotiations. This is an owners problem IMO, not an owners/NFPLA problem.

 

Sounds like the Owners would rather struggle with the players union than amongst themselves. If the least of the ownership brotherhood is surviving, then they can all live with it.

[Bronco Billy]

That's a great explanation for something entirely different than what I was saying. I'm not talking about the upfront cut. Never once mentioned it in my post. If there's a stipulation in the agreement that they and the players split the pot minus a specified amount to cover costs, so be it. Sound reasonable.

 

But that's not in any way what I am talking about. I am talking about the owners negotiating a deal with their customer that specifically sacrifices current revenues for a back-ended deal that they don't have to share as per their agreement with the players.

 

Now, spare us the condescending "you can't understand the simplest things" bit until you show enough sack to actually respond to the points being made rather than pretending they're something else because that's an easier argument to knock down.

 

Again, explain how this is any different than if I were to offer some key employees profit sharing and then specifically funnel revenues into another entity that I own separately to avoid given them their fair due?

 

Why don't you explain to all of us where this "money on the back end" came from?

 

As far as any deal that the owners make with the networks, that is their perrogative. They are the OWNERS - something you still can't seem to grasp - and they can negotiate any deal they like because it is their business. The players are EMPLOYEES, and therefore they do not have any say in those negotiations. If the owners want to build insurance into the deal for a lower cost because they and the service provider have both identified a tangible risk, that's an entirely reasonable and normal business transaction.

 

The union for the employees elected to choose compensation for the players as a percentage rather than a flat rate. That's a risk the union and consequently the players took - a gamble for greater overall compensation because they projected league revenues would grow beyond the flat rate they could get. But in taking a percentage rather than a flat rate, they knowingly placed themselves in a position like this, where they were vulnerable to adjustments in revenue dependent on what deal the owners swung with the networks. That's on the NFLPA and the players, not the owners. Everyone is acting in their own best interest here and the NFLPA and the players were short-sighted and got one-upped this time.

 

As far as the deal between the owners and the network, again I understand the judge's ruling about unjust enrichment and negotiating in bad faith. But if that is the judge's ruling, then the decertification by the players is negotiating in just as similar bad faith, since they will ressurect the union afterwards as they have done in the past. That goes both ways.

 

This is hard ball in a hugh business. Both sides look for edges, and there are some places where each side is completely vulnerable to the other. Don't expect the players to have decertification as their ace-in-the-hole that the owners can do nothing about and not expect owners to look for some ace themselves that the players have no control over. Of course, that doesn't fit into your evil-corporation/saintly-working-man fairy tale, does it?

Edited March 3, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[MikesVikes]

Why don't you explain to all of us where this "money on the back end" came from?

 

As far as any deal that the owners make with the networks, that is their perrogative. They are the OWNERS - something you still can't seem to grasp - and they can negotiate any deal they like because it is their business. The players are EMPLOYEES, and therefore they do not have any say in those negotiations. If the owners want to build insurance into the deal for a lower cost because they and the service provider have both identified a tangible risk, that's an entirely reasonable and normal business transaction.

 

The union for the employees elected to choose compensation for the players as a percentage rather than a flat rate. That's a risk the union and consequently the players took - a gamble for greater overall compensation because they projected league revenues would grow beyond the flat rate they could get. But in taking a percentage rather than a flat rate, they knowingly placed themselves in a position like this, where they were vulnerable to adjustments in revenue dependent on what deal the owners swung with the networks. That's on the NFLPA and the players, not the owners. Everyone is acting in their own best interest here and the NFLPA and the players were short-sighted and got one-upped this time.

 

As far as the deal between the owners and the network, again I understand the judge's ruling about unjust enrichment and negotiating in bad faith. But if that is the judge's ruling, then the decertification by the players is negotiating in just as similar bad faith, since they will ressurect the union afterwards as they have done in the past. That goes both ways.

 

This is hard ball in a hugh business. Both sides look for edges, and there are some places where each side is completely vulnerable to the other. Don't expect the players to have decertification as their ace-in-the-hole that the owners can do nothing about and not expect owners to look for some ace themselves that the players have no control over. Of course, that doesn't fit into your evil-corporation/saintly-working-man fairy tale, does it?

 

I don't think it's as clear cut as the owners can do whatever they want because they are the owner and the players are just the employees.

 

Judge David Doty also seems to agree with that.

 

U.S. District Judge David S. Doty ruled the NFL violated agreements with the players union by renegotiating $4 billion in television rights revenue designed to help sustain the owners in the event they locked out the players.

 

link

Edited March 3, 2011 by MikesVikes

[Bronco Billy]

I don't think it's as clear cut as the owners can do whatever they want because they are the owner and the players are just the employees.

 

Judge David Doty also seems to agree with that.

 

U.S. District Judge David S. Doty ruled the NFL violated agreements with the players union by renegotiating $4 billion in television rights revenue designed to help sustain the owners in the event they locked out the players.

 

Pretty sure I addressed that, as well as conceding that the ruling was reasonable.

[lennykravitz2004]

I don't think it's as clear cut as the owners can do whatever they want because they are the owner and the players are just the employees.

 

Judge David Doty also seems to agree with that.

 

U.S. District Judge David S. Doty ruled the NFL violated agreements with the players union by renegotiating $4 billion in television rights revenue designed to help sustain the owners in the event they locked out the players.

 

link

 

IMHO, yes, the owners can make any contract they want. What I see as the issue is the owners' expectant access to those funds when those funds are part of the revenue sharing process with players (part of the $9 billion).

[Cunning Runt]

Why don't you explain to all of us where this "money on the back end" came from?

 

As far as any deal that the owners make with the networks, that is their perrogative. They are the OWNERS - something you still can't seem to grasp - and they can negotiate any deal they like because it is their business. The players are EMPLOYEES, and therefore they do not have any say in those negotiations. If the owners want to build insurance into the deal for a lower cost because they and the service provider have both identified a tangible risk, that's an entirely reasonable and normal business transaction.

 

The union for the employees elected to choose compensation for the players as a percentage rather than a flat rate. That's a risk the union and consequently the players took - a gamble for greater overall compensation because they projected league revenues would grow beyond the flat rate they could get. But in taking a percentage rather than a flat rate, they knowingly placed themselves in a position like this, where they were vulnerable to adjustments in revenue dependent on what deal the owners swung with the networks. That's on the NFLPA and the players, not the owners. Everyone is acting in their own best interest here and the NFLPA and the players were short-sighted and got one-upped this time.

 

As far as the deal between the owners and the network, again I understand the judge's ruling about unjust enrichment and negotiating in bad faith. But if that is the judge's ruling, then the decertification by the players is negotiating in just as similar bad faith, since they will ressurect the union afterwards as they have done in the past. That goes both ways.

 

This is hard ball in a hugh business. Both sides look for edges, and there are some places where each side is completely vulnerable to the other. Don't expect the players to have decertification as their ace-in-the-hole that the owners can do nothing about and not expect owners to look for some ace themselves that the players have no control over. Of course, that doesn't fit into your evil-corporation/saintly-working-man fairy tale, does it?

 

I think this pretty much expresses my take as well.

[Ursa Majoris]

That's barely different than going to the customer and saying, "I want you to pay us $9 billion per year that everyone knows about and then slide me $1 billion on the side so I don't have to split it.

This. Its not just "barely different", it's exactly the same.

[detlef]

Why don't you explain to all of us where this "money on the back end" came from?

 

As far as any deal that the owners make with the networks, that is their perrogative. They are the OWNERS - something you still can't seem to grasp - and they can negotiate any deal they like because it is their business. The players are EMPLOYEES, and therefore they do not have any say in those negotiations. If the owners want to build insurance into the deal for a lower cost because they and the service provider have both identified a tangible risk, that's an entirely reasonable and normal business transaction.

 

The union for the employees elected to choose compensation for the players as a percentage rather than a flat rate. That's a risk the union and consequently the players took - a gamble for greater overall compensation because they projected league revenues would grow beyond the flat rate they could get. But in taking a percentage rather than a flat rate, they knowingly placed themselves in a position like this, where they were vulnerable to adjustments in revenue dependent on what deal the owners swung with the networks. That's on the NFLPA and the players, not the owners. Everyone is acting in their own best interest here and the NFLPA and the players were short-sighted and got one-upped this time.

 

As far as the deal between the owners and the network, again I understand the judge's ruling about unjust enrichment and negotiating in bad faith. But if that is the judge's ruling, then the decertification by the players is negotiating in just as similar bad faith, since they will ressurect the union afterwards as they have done in the past. That goes both ways.

 

This is hard ball in a hugh business. Both sides look for edges, and there are some places where each side is completely vulnerable to the other. Don't expect the players to have decertification as their ace-in-the-hole that the owners can do nothing about and not expect owners to look for some ace themselves that the players have no control over. Of course, that doesn't fit into your evil-corporation/saintly-working-man fairy tale, does it?

So, let me get this straight. If you strike a deal with someone that involves compensation based on total revenue, you are under no obligation to not purposefully skew that revenue as much as you can to avoid sharing it in the spirit of the agreement?

 

Back to my key employees and offering them profit sharing. So, the understanding is that these key employees don't take a raise and, in turn, they take a % of the profits. We have all these off-site gigs. Off-site gigs that are staffed from the restaurant using food from the restaurant. Only, I tell the customers to go ahead and write the check out to me and I deposit those checks into another side business that I've set up for myself.

 

So, the end of the year comes around and I go to my guys, "Hey guys, we worked our asses off, but there just wasn't as much money as I hoped, so there's no profits to share. Then, they discover about my little side deal that I negotiated with the customer because I'm the OWNER and, according to you, I can do whatever the hell I want. Do they have the right to be pissed? Or is that just some "evil-corporation-working-man fairy tale and they should just shut up and fall in line?

[sundaynfl]

CBA extended 24 hours... players delay decertifying.

 

NFL Network

Edited March 3, 2011 by sundaynfl

[tazinib1]

CBA extended 24 hours... players delay decertifying.

 

NFL Network

 

This is about as good an outcome it could have been without an agreement. They could have extended it 48 hours but 24 hours tells me they are hammering out language. I like it.