8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

Wow, great counter offer players. Way to go, you sure you guys have never negotiated before because you guys are awesome at it, and by awesome I mean down right horrible, so bad that a 4th grader could do better, so bad that the Players would be better off sending a giraffe to negotiate on their behalf, or a Saint Bernard, everyone likes Saint Bernards.

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.

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, at the risk of sounding like Roger Goodell, the only meaningful issue at play here is the principle of collective bargaining. If the player's decertification was anything more than a leverage tactic, this would be be debatable. However, it isn't. One side is delaying the process of collective bargaining in deference to attempting to change the puzzle as to where the leverage lies.

It's going to come back to collective bargaining at the end, whether the players get more of, or give up a greater share of the leverage. We're spending months of the offseason using the legal system to change the negotiating environment, instead of hammering this deal out in March as both sides could have. This is not disputable. The players didn't accept the owners deal back in March because they knew/thought/believed they could get a better one in July, after the courts decided on specific points.

Which is completely in their right as the players. But the desire to then spin the lockout as the action of the owners is nothing more than intellectually dishonest posturing by the NFLPA. And I think Goodell, and the owners, are going to eventually win the war of public opinion because De Smith is trying to do what's best for the players (and I think he's succeeding on that point), but he's also lying to NFL fans in the process about who is responsible for what. I mean, his job is only to hold out long enough to get the best deal possible for the players. So if he has to lie to do his job and say the NFL is suing to not play games, then he has to lie. But we live in the information age. And he's underestimating, in my opinion, the ease of the ability of NFL fans to get information that contradicts what he's saying.

De Smith may ultimately be win in the end, but I don't think he'll ever be viewed favorably by NFL fans.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The whole "open the books" point has been vastly overstated. Look, the players should have known that they had no chance of seeing the books because that's what US labor law says. As my mom always says, it doesn't hurt to ask, or demand under the leverage of decertification, but making public the financials was never the sticking point the NFLPA made it.

It would have been a huge win for the NFLPA if they had leveraged the owners into showing the numbers...as far as I know, that may have been an unprecedented labor negotiation victory. But it was also a shot in the dark. And what would have been accomplished by the owners showing the numbers anyway? Are the players going to give up money if the owners are actually losing? No, of course not. The players are going to work off of the last labor deal either way. The financials are irrelevant in this negotiation. The strongest point of leverage that the players have is the public assumption that every NFL franchise is profitable. They don't want any sort of numbers to get in the way of that leverage.

Furthermore, the NFLPA's own website isn't exactly "showing all the data" either:

NFLLockout.com » What Is This Lockout NOT About? (http://www.nfllockout.com/what-is-this-lockout-not-about/)

Their point is in the capped years, players received between 50% and 53% of the NFL revenues (with a salary cap max between 56% and 59% over the same timeframe). Conveniently not listed, the 2010 (or uncapped) figures. Because that information hasn't come in yet. Or doesn't fit the argument they are making. Or something.

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/in-nfl-owners-enterprise-nothings-free/2011/05/16/AFW4gD5G_story.html)

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.

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.

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 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148712424300234.html)

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.

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.

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu242/laurennopenz/NuteGunray.jpg

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.

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.