8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

They played under the 2006 CBA with the knowledge, since 2008, that if no new agreement was reached prior to this March the CBA they had agreed to would be void since the owners chose to opt out.

And the owners have rejected proposals from the players since last spring

N.F.L. Owners Reject Players’ Bid to Extend Current Agreement - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/sports/football/03nfl.html)

NFLPA Made Proposals To NFL On How To Split Revenues - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/01/Jan-18/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFLPA.aspx)

NFLPA's Proven Performance Plan Would Shorten Rookie Contracts, Distribute Savings - SBNation.com (http://www.sbnation.com/2010/7/1/1547574/rookie-salary-cap-nfl-nflpa-proven-performance-plan)

And as far as the owners showing up at all meetings

Business matter became personal for union - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-disrespectedunion031111)

Yet from the players’ perspective, control is very much at the heart of this fight, and it has been since the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the CBA in 2008, a mere two years after they’d agreed to an extension.

From that point on, owners embarked upon a not-so-subtle strategy to “take back our league,” as enunciated by the Carolina Panthers’ Jerry Richardson to his peers last March. They were fully prepared to lock out the players until a decision by U.S. District Court Judge David Doty imperiled the uninterrupted television payments on which they’d been counting derailed their plans.

That was last Tuesday, two days before the CBA was set to expire. And while Doty’s ruling motivated the owners to try to cut a deal – and the union twice agreed to short-term extensions in an effort to come to terms – Smith and his fellow negotiators continued to chafe over what they believed was a pattern of disrespect from the other side.

First, there was Richardson’s condescending treatment of Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning(notes), former NFL player Sean Morey(notes) and other union negotiators during a Feb. 5 bargaining session. Shortly thereafter, owners abruptly canceled a planned five-hour bargaining session, apparently because they were angry over the union’s characterization of a hypothetical economic model.

Even after federal mediator George Cohen began presiding over the sessions, union negotiators thought they were being shined on by the league, as most or all of the owners were absent from the bulk of the meetings. Finally, last Wednesday – the day after Doty’s decision – 10 executives from the league’s labor management committee showed up for the talks at the FMCS building. They left to join the rest of the league’s owners at a meeting 25 miles away in Chantilly, Va., and Smith and other union negotiators were under the impression that those owners would return for the next round of discussions.

Instead, the union leaders learned that those owners, including the Dallas Cowboys’ Jerry Jones and the New England Patriots’ Robert Kraft, had flown home on private planes, leaving only two members of the league’s labor committee (New York Giants owner John Mara and Green Bay Packers president Mark Murphy) to attend Thursday’s crucial session.

Even after negotiating a pair of extensions, the league’s negotiating team showed up this past Monday without displaying a sense of urgency. On Thursday afternoon – with Friday’s deadline looming – Smith and other union negotiators left the FMCS building and walked back to NFLPA headquarters. They were told by Cohen to expect a call before 4:30 p.m., at which point they’d be summoned to return for another session of talks.

The union officials waited as 4:30 arrived, then 5, but the call never came. Finally, Atallah learned via a reporter’s post on Twitter that the owners who’d been in attendance were on a conference call with the rest of the league’s owners.

Said Atallah: “I turned to De and said, ‘Oh, that’s funny – we were supposed to be over there right now. “He said, ‘Are you serious?’ At 6:15 we called the mediator’s office, and he told us, ‘Well, they’re packing up to go, so we’re not doing anything tonight.’ And then we heard they all went to dinner.”

Let me ask this and perhaps NC will be happy after....

Both side have a contract. In 2006 both sides could opt out if they didn't like the contract. The owners opted out because they didn't like a specific part or perhaps a couple specific parts of the contract. BUT.... both sides agreed to keep working under the very contract until a new one could be agreed upon.

So if I've supposedly seen the light, what should the owners have done if they didn't like parts of the contract? over look it and sign the deal and keep working under a contract they don't like? This would have made the owners saints? Instead they chose to opt out of the contract in order to work out a new deal which would be more to their liking (which by the way is not illegal) and now it's all their fault? I presume had the players done this in 06 we would be pointing fingers at the players right?

The owners opted out but agreed to keep working under the very agreement they didn't like in order to facilitate a new agreement. Shame on the owners. Yet the players who are finally frustrated that they are getting money taken away decided to not sit at the table for the final 6 hrs, decided to not extend the 06 agreement in order to keep business as usual, and chose to decertify early in order to "have leverage" (as D.Smith put it) illegally.

Had the players not decertified and agreed to an extention there might not have been raised tickets prices, raised jersey prices, employees having pay cuts, etc. etc.

Forget it. Whatever. Still goes back to there's not counter offers and the players keep talking about June 3rd or June 6th. Not about sitting down this week and trying to hammer something out.

Wow, I miss football more than ever right about now.

Wow, I miss football more than ever right about now.

You and me both

NC_Skins, without getting into it too far, since 2 big guys here are sick of it :cheeky-sm

if the owners hadn't opted out, we would be at this same place just 2 years later. Opting out was legal and in the spirit of the CBA. Leaving bargaining 6 hours early to disclaim interest and avoid the constructs written into the CBA in case it expires. I see a difference if you don't nothing I say will change it.

One other point, and I think this is fair, but also certainly speculative. Shortly after the owners opted out, Gene Upshaw died, and the whole system got thrown into a bit of a chaotic state for a while, and by the time it resolved both sides were set in their strategies. Had he not been taken away as he was, even if he retired, perhaps the transitions and plans may have been more steadied. The owners couldn't un-opt out to give more time to DSmith et al to get some ground under their feet and get a feel for NFL labor relations.

Oh well, we are where we are, and all sides are pretty unyielding (IMO)

Interesting:
NFLLabor.com If it’s a history lesson you want… « (http://nfllabor.com/2011/05/09/if-it%e2%80%99s-a-history-lesson-you-want%e2%80%a6/)

NFLLabor.com FACT CHECK: DeMaurice Smith at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business « (http://nfllabor.com/2011/04/05/fact-check-demaurice-smith-at-the-university-of-virginia%e2%80%99s-darden-school-of-business/)

^FACT: The NFL publicly released its proposal to the players on March 11. We offered to show the union five years (2005-2009) of year-by-year league-wide operating profits based on audited club reports reviewed and confirmed by Deloitte & Touche. We offered to show the union the number of clubs that had declines in operating profits from 2005-2009, and by how much on a cumulative basis, again based on audited financial statements. We offered the NFLPA the ability to review Deloitte’s work. We also offered to give five years (2005-2009) of audited individual club financial statements to a third-party accounting firm to verify for the union the profitability data provided to the union. And there were no conditions put on the information offered, meaning that they could have asked for more. But the union’s concern was giving up its public relations position. As linebacker Hunter Hillenmeyer wrote in an NBC Chicago blog post on April 1, “It’s true, the NFL did offer some financial info towards the end of mediation. We rejected it, not because nothing is better than something, which it is not, but because the perception would then be that we got what we needed.”

Whats with the lies? Is it a strategy for court?

NFLLabor.com FACT CHECK: The NFL is not suing anybody « (http://nfllabor.com/2011/05/18/fact-check-the-nfl-is-not-suing-anybody/)

About time this happened...

"RT @judybattista NFL coaches association filed amicus brief in support of players, asking 8th Circuit to affirm injunction and lift lockout."

I'm curious how the owners will fell about this.

Interesting note in this article that Kubiak and Del Rio have apparently been given ultimatums to make the playoffs. I mean, we've all speculated it but never really had an inclination that it was official

NFL Coaches Association brief: 'End the lockout' - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29569952)

In other related news: One team (maybe the only team) whose coaches chose to side with the owners and not associated themselves with the amicus brief was the Redskins

Interesting note in this article that Kubiak and Del Rio have apparently been given ultimatums to make the playoffs. I mean, we've all speculated it but never really had an inclination that it was official

NFL Coaches Association brief: 'End the lockout' - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29569952)

In other related news: One team (maybe the only team) whose coaches chose to side with the owners and not associated themselves with the amicus brief was the Redskins

Ironically, we are one of the teams that is significantly affected by the lockout. If there is a season next year, I wonder if the owners will take this lockout in consideration as they decide to fire coaches of teams that haven't performed well.

Interesting note in this article that Kubiak and Del Rio have apparently been given ultimatums to make the playoffs. I mean, we've all speculated it but never really had an inclination that it was official

NFL Coaches Association brief: 'End the lockout' - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29569952)

In other related news: One team (maybe the only team) whose coaches chose to side with the owners and not associated themselves with the amicus brief was the RedskinsI understand that it's more important now than before for the owners to do everything they can to conserve money, but if you have to make an ultimatum to your head coach to make the playoffs or lose his job, he probably shouldn't start the season as coach.