PFT: Players ask judge to force owners to start league year

[WoodysGirl]

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on April 26, 2011, 12:52 PM EDT

NFL players had until Wednesday morning to respond to the owner’s request for a stay following Monday’s court ruling, but the players didn’t wait that long.

ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports that players sent a letter (http://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/62911605305913344) to Judge Susan Nelson on Tuesday asking for clarification regarding what it means when she says the lockout is “enjoined.” (I guess I wasn’t the only one confused with that word.)


Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/players-ask-judge-to-force-owners-to-start-league-year/

[ShiningStar]

Talk about showing the fact you know this judge is owned by you. I might be reaching here, but this is just saying, hey who cares how the rest of this pans out, give us what we want right now.

[clutch88]

The Owners LOCKED the players out, because of greed and i have a sneaking suspicion Jerry Jones was firmly in favor of it and tried to impose his will on the process as some players have stated. This could end up being a huge loss for the owner's because of a few owner's GREED.

[Sam I Am]

The Owners LOCKED the players out, because of greed and i have a sneaking suspicion Jerry Jones was firmly in favor of it and tried to impose his will on the process as some players have stated. This could end up being a huge loss for the owner's because of a few owner's GREED.

:laugh2: The players aren't greedy? :lmao2:

[Doomsday101]

:laugh2: The players aren't greedy? :lmao2:

of course not. :lmao2:

[Primetime42]

The timing of that is VERY interesting. Wonder what it would mean as far as free agency and the draft if so imposed.

[Joe Rod]

:laugh2: The players aren't greedy? :lmao2:

They are fighting for justice, which has not monetary value. All that bling is just a by-product.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on April 26, 2011, 12:52 PM EDT

NFL players had until Wednesday morning to respond to the owner’s request for a stay following Monday’s court ruling, but the players didn’t wait that long.

ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports that players sent a letter (http://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/62911605305913344) to Judge Susan Nelson on Tuesday asking for clarification regarding what it means when she says the lockout is “enjoined.” (I guess I wasn’t the only one confused with that word.)


Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/players-ask-judge-to-force-owners-to-start-league-year/

I wonder if a few of the players through in some glamor shots of themselves to speed along the process. :p:

[pjtoadie]

I wonder if a few of the players through in some glamor shots of themselves to speed along the process. :p:

:lmao2:

[Manwiththeplan]

:laugh2: The players aren't greedy? :lmao2:
the lauable part is, he never said both parties aren't greedy. And let me say for the record, both sides are, but you seem to think that the owners aren't motivated by greed either.

[Manwiththeplan]

The judge should "stay" her ruiling for no other reason than to let the draft happen and then give the owners a chance to figure out exactly how everything is gonna work. 30 days seems fair, no?

[clutch88]

of course not. :lmao2:WHO LOCKED OUT WHO WITH A CURRENT CONTRACT IN PLACE...... THANKS.

[InmanRoshi]

Wow, that was certainly a sensational title for what was actually contained in the article.

My Gods !! The players asked the judge to clarify a term they deemed vague !!!!1111ONEZZZ

[Doomsday101]

The judge should "stay" her ruiling for no other reason than to let the draft happen and then give the owners a chance to figure out exactly how everything is gonna work. 30 days seems fair, no?

I think the owners need to have some guild line to work under which seems to be murky right now. In the meantime both sided need to be back at the table because in the end some type of CBA needs to be worked out.

[Reality]

WHO LOCKED OUT WHO WITH A CURRENT CONTRACT IN PLACE...... THANKS.

There is no "contract" .. the CBA expired .. also, typing in all caps makes you seem 1) really old or 2) new to computers or 3) both. Just a thought.

-Reality

[Sam I Am]

the lauable part is, he never said both parties aren't greedy. And let me say for the record, both sides are, but you seem to think that the owners aren't motivated by greed either.

You clearly do not know what I think. I am well aware of who is and who isn't greedy. I also know that the NFLPA are being lead by a baffoon who has self-interest in mind. I know the only reason this hasn't been settled yet (ie after the Judge blocked the lockout insurance) is because D. Smith isn't done making a name for himself. He wants to be the next Gene Upshaw. The problem is, he is going to start burning some serious bridges within the NFL and I have ZERO doubt that there will be repercussion down the road if the NFLPA doesn't hurry up and put an end to this mess.

The league is ready to deal and Smith and the NFLPA are continuing to drag this through the mud. Someone is going to get hurt. The more damage to the NFL, the more damage the players will get in turn.

[Doomsday101]

WHO LOCKED OUT WHO WITH A CURRENT CONTRACT IN PLACE...... THANKS.

They opted out over 2 years ago in accordance with the agreement that was part of the CBA. Owners did not lock out until the union decertified. I agree owners are greedy but so are the players. Owner’s big mistake was agreeing to the CBA under Tags

[Sam I Am]

There is no "contract" .. the CBA expired .. also, typing in all caps makes you seem 1) really old or 2) new to computers or 3) both. Just a thought.

-Reality

What happen to the filter for that?

[bracey]

You clearly do not know what I think. I am well aware of who is and who isn't greedy. I also know that the NFLPA are being lead by a baffoon who has self-interest in mind. I know the only reason this hasn't been settled yet (ie after the Judge blocked the lockout insurance) is because D. Smith isn't done making a name for himself. He wants to be the next Gene Upshaw. The problem is, he is going to start burning some serious bridges within the NFL and I have ZERO doubt that there will be repercussion down the road if the NFLPA doesn't hurry up and put an end to this mess.

The league is ready to deal and Smith and the NFLPA are continuing to drag this through the mud. Someone is going to get hurt. The more damage to the NFL, the more damage the players will get in turn.

So you can read Smith's mind. Awesome.

[jwhardin]

The judge should "stay" her ruiling for no other reason than to let the draft happen and then give the owners a chance to figure out exactly how everything is gonna work. 30 days seems fair, no?
So if the lock out is ended, does this mean the have's (players with contracts are ok, but those without are screwed. What would happen if those without contracts formed their own union.assoc. and made a deal with the NFL?

[zrinkill]

So you can read Smith's mind. Awesome.

Let me try.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/carnac-the-magnificent.jpg

Answer is

He's a ****** bag.

[bracey]

Let me try.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/carnac-the-magnificent.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/carnac-the-magnificent.jpg)

Answer is

He's a ****** bag.

:lmao:

[DallasEast]

They opted out over 2 years ago in accordance with the agreement that was part of the CBA. Owners did not lock out until the union decertified. I agree owners are greedy but so are the players. Owner’s big mistake was agreeing to the CBA under Tags
:hammer:

[RW Hitman]

WHO LOCKED OUT WHO WITH A CURRENT CONTRACT IN PLACE...... THANKS.

current contract in place???

CBA was annulled when the owners opted out some time back before any of the negotiation process even happened

what is up with the caps anyways? you feel like your words don't mean all that much that you feel the need to scream them with capitalization? :cool:

[jterrell]

They opted out over 2 years ago in accordance with the agreement that was part of the CBA. Owners did not lock out until the union decertified. I agree owners are greedy but so are the players. Owner’s big mistake was agreeing to the CBA under Tags

Players de-certified to sue to end the lockout.
The owners admitted they were going to lock them out so they de-certified.
Had the owners been willing to NOT lock out players there would still be a Union.

It's entire purpose was to combat being locked out legally as they have now done.

[Doomsday101]

current contract in place???

CBA was annulled when the owners opted out some time back before any of the negotiation process even happened

what is up with the caps anyways? you feel like your words don't mean all that much that you feel the need to scream them with capitalization? :cool:

Frankly I was intimidated the way he was hollering at me. :lmao2:

[RW Hitman]

There is no "contract" .. the CBA expired .. also, typing in all caps makes you seem 1) really old or 2) new to computers or 3) both. Just a thought.

-Reality

I did not see your post when I wrote mine (below), but thanks for the comfirmation

current contract in place???

CBA was annulled when the owners opted out some time back before any of the negotiation process even happened

what is up with the caps anyways? you feel like your words don't mean all that much that you feel the need to scream them with capitalization? :cool:

[DallasEast]

Players de-certified to sue to end the lockout.
The owners admitted they were going to lock them out so they de-certified.
Had the owners been willing to NOT lock out players there would still be a Union.

It's entire purpose was to combat being locked out legally as they have now done.Why did the NFLPA* not decertify on or before March 3rd? That was the original lockout deadline imposed after the owners opted out of the last collective bargaining agreement.

[InmanRoshi]

Why did the NFLPA* not decertify on or before March 3rd? That was the original lockout deadline imposed after the owners opted out of the last collective bargaining agreement.

Because they had some hope that the owners were negotiating in good faith. That hope was dashed with the owners refused to disclose their financials, after crying financial hardships. Of course, the trust barrier is also eroded when courts also find you've been making illegal TV contracts in which to bludgeon the players with during a lockout.

If the players were really deadset on decertifying and "winning through litigation" as people claim over and over and over again, they would have decertified on March 3rd (or long before). We would be a lot further along in this process if they had and maybe we could be talking about some free agency news this week instead of this nonsense.

[RW Hitman]

the players are attempting to get everything through the courts and so far have been successful, but the players are going to have to work out a CBA with the owners at some point at the table because one thing the courts cannot do is force the owners into a CBA, only to keep them legal with US law.

If the Brady lawsuit goes as expected, the NFL would have to remove all restrictions on free agency, remove salary cap, remove the authority of profit sharing (owners would have to collaborate together to do profit sharing so I believe that would be in violation of antitrust laws), remove the NFL Draft, maybe other things in order to be legal under antitrust laws.

Do you think the players want that? Do you think the owners want that? No, so both parties will have to finally come to the realization that God forbid they actually have to work something out at the table rather than the courts.

[Doomsday101]

Players de-certified to sue to end the lockout.
The owners admitted they were going to lock them out so they de-certified.
Had the owners been willing to NOT lock out players there would still be a Union.

It's entire purpose was to combat being locked out legally as they have now done.

the Players decertified and once they did the following day the owners voted for the lockout. Players knew before the meeting with the mediator that they were going to decertify

As Talks Collapse, NFL Players Decertify Union. Lockout Almost Certain

After spending seven-plus hours negotiating in Washington, D.C., in a 17th day of mediation, leaders of the NFL and the players union said late Friday afternoon that talks had stalled and blamed the other side for the meltdown.

Shortly thereafter the union filed paperwork to decertify and 10 players, including stars Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, filed an antitrust lawsuit against the league. The suit seeks to prevent the owners from locking out the players. But the league locked out players as of midnight Saturday.....



The lockout had not happend and owners asked player to give it more time and Smith then demands they only way they will extend the deadline is to see the books for the last 10 years. Players had the choice to continue they choose not to then the owners voted for the lockout. Players filed to decertify Friday the owners voted for the lockout midnight sat.

[DallasEast]

Because they had some hope that the owners were negotiating in good faith. That hope was dashed with the owners refused to disclose their financials, after crying financial hardships. Of course, the trust barrier is also eroded when courts also find you've been making illegal TV contracts in which to bludgeon the players with during a lockout.

If the players were really deadset on decertifying and "winning through litigation" as people claim over and over and over again, they would have decertified on March 3rd (or long before). We would be a lot further along in this process if they had and maybe we could be talking about some free agency news this week instead of this nonsense.
I respectfully disagree totally. One of the pre-March 3rd demands made by the NFLPA* was for the owners to hand over full financial disclosures of all 32 teams to validate the owners' demands for the union to surrender monies stipulated by the last CBA. Ownership repeatedly stated under no uncertain terms that would never happen voluntarily.

This was understood by the trade association beforehand. I sincerely doubt that Maurice Smith and/or any of the nine plaintiffs ever thought that would change weeks (if not months) before March 3rd hit. Well, maybe Von Miller did, but he's just a kid after all.

[jterrell]

the Players decertified and once they did the following day the owners voted for the lockout. Players knew before the meeting with the mediator that they were going to decertify

As Talks Collapse, NFL Players Decertify Union. Lockout Almost Certain

After spending seven-plus hours negotiating in Washington, D.C., in a 17th day of mediation, leaders of the NFL and the players union said late Friday afternoon that talks had stalled and blamed the other side for the meltdown.

Shortly thereafter the union filed paperwork to decertify and 10 players, including stars Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, filed an antitrust lawsuit against the league. The suit seeks to prevent the owners from locking out the players. But the league locked out players as of midnight Saturday.....



The lockout had not happend and owners asked player to give it more time and Smith then demands they only way they will extend the deadline is to see the books for the last 10 years. Players had the choice to continue they choose not to then the owners voted for the lockout

The owners knew 2 years ago they were going to lock players out.

Bottom line is very simple: Players want to continue to play football under the current rules forever without any stoppage.

Owners wanted to halt play to force players to accept a lesser deal than they got under Tags.

There is zero doubt who halted play or who wanted to halt play and it is impossible to pretend basic intelligence and yet suggest there is.

EVERYTHING the players have done is a result of responding to a strategy by the owners to opt out of the CBA then have a lockout when that CBA expired.

The NFLPA is required by law to de-certify in order to seek legal remedy and the day they needed to do so they did. The NFL owners could have taken the Lock out option off the table but chose to not do so.

[RW Hitman]

Because they had some hope that the owners were negotiating in good faith. That hope was dashed with the owners refused to disclose their financials, after crying financial hardships. Of course, the trust barrier is also eroded when courts also find you've been making illegal TV contracts in which to bludgeon the players with during a lockout.

If the players were really deadset on decertifying and "winning through litigation" as people claim over and over and over again, they would have decertified on March 3rd (or long before). We would be a lot further along in this process if they had and maybe we could be talking about some free agency news this week instead of this nonsense.

Be honest with yourself, do you really think the NFLPA did not decertify so that they could get the legal ruling on the lockout that benefitted them knowing that with a union they would not get the lift of the lockout they knew was coming?

You say the owners didn't negotiate in good faith? From what i hear, it was only the owners that seemed to have any negotiating and budging in demands going on. from going from 900+ million to only asking for 100+ million put aside, more retirement benefits that was not there before, more guaranteed salary cap usage, insurance guarantees for injured, etc.... you talk about opening the books, who does that? besides the fact that they did to a degree, it is not done anywhere else in business. It is no business of the employees what the financial details of the owners, but yet they did

[Doomsday101]

The owners knew 2 years ago they were going to lock players out.

Bottom line is very simple: Players want to continue to play football under the current rules forever without any stoppage.

Owners wanted to halt play to force players to accept a lesser deal than they got under Tags.

There is zero doubt who halted play or who wanted to halt play and it is impossible to pretend basic intelligence and yet suggest there is.

EVERYTHING the players have done is a result of responding to a strategy by the owners to opt out of the CBA then have a lockout when that CBA expired.

The NFLPA is required by law to de-certify in order to seek legal remedy and the day they needed to do so they did. The NFL owners could have taken the Lock out option off the table but chose to not do so.

Owner did not vote for the lockout until March 12 the Players filed to decertify on March 11. Owners asked them to continue with the neg. and push the deadline back and Smith said they would only if owners handed over the 10 years worth of financial records. So no the owners had not locked the players out. Yes they opted out 2 years ago but there was no lockout in place until after the players filed to decertify

[Hostile]

WHO LOCKED OUT WHO WITH A CURRENT CONTRACT IN PLACE...... THANKS.No one actually. Thanks for paying attention.

[Hoofbite]

They are fighting for justice, which has not monetary value. All that bling is just a by-product.

Justice. What type of justice are you referring to?

[zrinkill]

Justice. What type of justice are you referring to?

Slave Justice

[InmanRoshi]

Be honest with yourself, do you really think the NFLPA did not decertify so that they could get the legal ruling on the lockout that benefitted them knowing that with a union they would not get the lift of the lockout they knew was coming?

I'm honest with myself that if the players really wanted to decertify and win through the courts they would have done so long before March 11th.

Now you be honest with yourself. You mean the owners haven't been planning to lock out the players for the last 2 years, when they've been found guilty of illegally negotiating TV contracts to pay them money during a lockout?

[Hoofbite]

No one actually. Thanks for paying attention.

Hahaha

That quote is 10X better all caps than it would have been non-caps locked.

[birdwells1]

You clearly do not know what I think. I am well aware of who is and who isn't greedy. I also know that the NFLPA are being lead by a baffoon who has self-interest in mind. I know the only reason this hasn't been settled yet (ie after the Judge blocked the lockout insurance) is because D. Smith isn't done making a name for himself. He wants to be the next Gene Upshaw. The problem is, he is going to start burning some serious bridges within the NFL and I have ZERO doubt that there will be repercussion down the road if the NFLPA doesn't hurry up and put an end to this mess.

The league is ready to deal and Smith and the NFLPA are continuing to drag this through the mud. Someone is going to get hurt. The more damage to the NFL, the more damage the players will get in turn.

He works for the players not the owners, he doesn't want to be the next Upshaw nor do the players want him to. Like it or not Upshaw was to buddy buddy with Tagliabue, he's representing his clients well as of now.:laugh2:

[birdwells1]

No one actually. Thanks for paying attention.

Hos, footballs back we all should be happy right? Unless of course we wanted the owners to win to put the players in there places. Not gonna happen buddy. Owners and anyone siding with them took a BIG L.

[Doomsday101]

I'm honest with myself that if the players really wanted to decertify and win through the courts they would have done so long before March 11th.

Now you be honest with yourself. You mean the owners haven't been planning to lock out the players for the last 2 years, when they've been found guilty of illegally negotiating TV contracts to pay them money during a lockout?

No doubt that the threat of a lockout was there and there was no doubt that players would decertify.

On March 11 the owners asked them to extend the deadline and the players response:

The head of the NFL Players Association, DeMaurice Smith, just spoke to the media on the NFL Network and said that 10 years of financial records would need to be turned over for an extension on the Collective Bargaining Agreement discussion to occur:

"We informed the owners that significant differences remained, that if there was going to be a request for an extension that we asked for 10 years of audited financial records to accompany any extension. We told them please let us know by 5 pm [ET] today. We're gonna head back to the office. I'm sure we'll have further comment later on."

http://denver.sbnation.com/denver-broncos/2011/3/11/2044975/nfl-lockout-2011-nflpa-financial-records-cba-negotiations-extension

[birdwells1]

The owners knew 2 years ago they were going to lock players out.

Bottom line is very simple: Players want to continue to play football under the current rules forever without any stoppage.

Owners wanted to halt play to force players to accept a lesser deal than they got under Tags.

There is zero doubt who halted play or who wanted to halt play and it is impossible to pretend basic intelligence and yet suggest there is.

EVERYTHING the players have done is a result of responding to a strategy by the owners to opt out of the CBA then have a lockout when that CBA expired.

The NFLPA is required by law to de-certify in order to seek legal remedy and the day they needed to do so they did. The NFL owners could have taken the Lock out option off the table but chose to not do so.

Well said but you know they (they ones that side with the owners) will try to spin it like the players initiated this. Boy, what they really want is to some how turn this into a strike but it's not.

[Doomsday101]

Well said but you know they (they ones that side with the owners) will try to spin it like the players initiated this. Boy, what they really want is to some how turn this into a strike but it's not.

What I really wanted was both sides to sit down and work this out the NFLPA was not interested. Owners asked that they extend the deadline and players choose not to.

[InmanRoshi]

Well said but you know they (they ones that side with the owners) will try to spin it like the players initiated this. Boy, what they really want is to some how turn this into a strike but it's not.

Oh, they've been desperately trying to spin this as the equivalent of a strike. The great yogis in India would be amazed at those contortions.

[Doomsday101]

Oh, they've been desperately trying to spin this as the equivalent of a strike. The great yogis in India would be amazed at those contortions.

Not a strike the owners had the right to opt out of a bad deal they did so.

[InmanRoshi]

Of course the owners wanted to perpetually negotiate forever with no progress being made. Why do you think they go 3 weeks under a federal mediator with only a 11th hour offer made at the last minute.

Perpetual negotiation with no progress ultimately serves the owners goal of a delaying tactic and puts the pressure on the players and their families so that they'll buckle under financial stress. The longer the owners could put off the court process and the injunctions, the longer they could keep the pressure on the players. Everything the owners do from the stays to the demands to wait until the NLRB rubber stamps the players decertification is nothing but a big, long stall tactic because the owners believe that time is on their side. Unfortunately for them, the law is not.

[RW Hitman]

The owners knew 2 years ago they were going to lock players out.

Bottom line is very simple: Players want to continue to play football under the current rules forever without any stoppage.

Owners wanted to halt play to force players to accept a lesser deal than they got under Tags.

There is zero doubt who halted play or who wanted to halt play and it is impossible to pretend basic intelligence and yet suggest there is.

EVERYTHING the players have done is a result of responding to a strategy by the owners to opt out of the CBA then have a lockout when that CBA expired.

The NFLPA is required by law to de-certify in order to seek legal remedy and the day they needed to do so they did. The NFL owners could have taken the Lock out option off the table but chose to not do so.

assuming the owners knew way ahead of time they were going to lockout is just that - an assumption.

The union was not under law to decertify, they only did so because they would not have gotten a favorable ruling while still a union. That is the truth.

of course the players want to play under the old CBA that the owners opted out of because it gave them alot more, owners opted out because they were legally allowed to as the CBA gave them the opt-out clause. So now because the owners actually used the opt out clause to get a better deal, they are guilty of something wrong? it is part of the negotiation process, if the players did not want the owners to use the clause then they should of not put it in there.

owners only had the lockout as a bargaining chip, tell me the players union did not have a gameplan ironed out ahead of time to strong arm the owners into giving the players possibly more into a new CBA.

well the players still have to negotiate with the owners, owners do not have to reinstate the old plan even if it is to use it as a bargaining chip to get the players negotiate in good faith

[Manwiththeplan]

He works for the players not the owners, he doesn't want to be the next Upshaw nor do the players want him to. Like it or not Upshaw was to buddy buddy with Tagliabue, he's representing his clients well as of now.:laugh2:
Yeah Upshaw was so much in Tags' back pocket that he got the owners to agree to the CBA they all opted out of :facepalm:

[RW Hitman]

Of course the owners wanted to perpetually negotiate forever with no progress being made. Why do you think they go 3 weeks under a federal mediator with only a 11th hour offer made at the last minute.

Perpetual negotiation with no progress ultimately serves the owners goal of a delaying tactic and puts the pressure on the players and their families so that they'll buckle under financial stress. The longer the owners could put off the court process and the injunctions, the longer they could keep the pressure on the players.

so now what then, think the players will negotiate in good faith? the same way they have been?? :lmao2:they had this all planned out and it is going as they planned. To say otherwise is foolish and blind.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

so now what then, think the players will negotiate in good faith? the same way they have been?? :lmao2:they had this all planned out and it is going as they planned. To say otherwise is foolish and blind.

Are people really going to keep ignoring the fact the players made a legit first offer? Manwiththeplan laid it all out like 4 times already. They put it out there, nothing came back so they went to court and saved the season.

[InmanRoshi]

so now what then, think the players will negotiate in good faith? the same way they have been?? :lmao2:they had this all planned out and it is going as they planned. To say otherwise is foolish and blind.

Both sides had their gameplans and contingency plans worked out years ago. Each and every one of them paid a lot of high salary specialists a ton of money to figure out their attacks and counter attacks in a game of chicken to see which side blinks first.


Owners 100% wanted to lock out the players, and the players 100% were going to decertify in order to rule an injunction over the lockout. Anything else was delaying the inevitable.


It should be pretty easy for fans to know which one wants for football to be played in 20011. It will the side in front of the judge tomorrow demanding that football return to normal effective immediately, not the side demanding that they be given the right to drag their feet and deprive fans of the game.

[Doomsday101]

Of course the owners wanted to perpetually negotiate forever with no progress being made. Why do you think they go 3 weeks under a federal mediator with only a 11th hour offer made at the last minute.

Perpetual negotiation with no progress ultimately serves the owners goal of a delaying tactic and puts the pressure on the players and their families so that they'll buckle under financial stress. The longer the owners could put off the court process and the injunctions, the longer they could keep the pressure on the players. Everything the owners do from the stays to the demands to wait until the NLRB rubber stamps the players decertification is nothing but a big, long stall tactic because the owners believe that time is on their side. Unfortunately for them, the law is not.

Owner continued to put up good offers to the players up to the last min. Was not a matter of not trying to work with the players

maximum salary and benefits per team of $141 million per club in 2011, with maximum salary and benefits per team of $161 million in 2014; free agency for players with four or more accrued season; reduced draft-choice compensation for restricted free agents; extensive changes in offseason workouts; reduction of preseason and regular-season padded practices; increased days off; retention of the 16-game season through 2012 with no change to 18 games without the players’ agreement; expanded injury guarantees, with up to $1 million in the year after an injury occurs; continuing medical coverage for life; immediate increases in pension for pre-1993 players; a new rookie wage scale that would make $300 million per draft class available for veteran pay and player benefits; abd external arbitration of all drug and steroids appeals.

[jterrell]

assuming the owners knew way ahead of time they were going to lockout is just that - an assumption.

The union was not under law to decertify, they only did so because they would not have gotten a favorable ruling while still a union. That is the truth.

of course the players want to play under the old CBA that the owners opted out of because it gave them alot more, owners opted out because they were legally allowed to as the CBA gave them the opt-out clause. So now because the owners actually used the opt out clause to get a better deal, they are guilty of something wrong? it is part of the negotiation process, if the players did not want the owners to use the clause then they should of not put it in there.

owners only had the lockout as a bargaining chip, tell me the players union did not have a gameplan ironed out ahead of time to strong arm the owners into giving the players possibly more into a new CBA.

well the players still have to negotiate with the owners, owners do not have to reinstate the old plan even if it is to use it as a bargaining chip to get the players negotiate in good faith

You really should read more before posting on this subject.

The NFL got an agreement from the tv networks to pay them less money overall but cover them in case of a strike. That is all the proof you need as to their plans. FWIW, the NFL owners have NEVER denied planning to lock players out. They were consistent in saying they were going to do so even on the day the NFLPA de-certified.

The NFLPA didn't de-certify to "get a more favorable ruling"... they de-certified to get a ruling period. Had they not de-certified they would have been locked out for 1 year before they could take this to court.

You can talk all you want about leverage but it is a two way street.

The NFLPA would have been criminally stupid to not de-certify and end this lock out as they have now done.

[Hoofbite]

Are people really going to keep ignoring the fact the players made a legit first offer? Manwiththeplan laid it all out like 4 times already. They put it out there, nothing came back so they went to court and saved the season.

I don't think he had all the info.

Adam posted something in the other thread that sounds like the owners dropped some of the requests for skimming off the top.

I don't think anyone know for sure.

[jterrell]

Owner continued to put up good offers to the players up to the last min. Was not a matter of not trying to work with the players

maximum salary and benefits per team of $141 million per club in 2011, with maximum salary and benefits per team of $161 million in 2014; free agency for players with four or more accrued season; reduced draft-choice compensation for restricted free agents; extensive changes in offseason workouts; reduction of preseason and regular-season padded practices; increased days off; retention of the 16-game season through 2012 with no change to 18 games without the players’ agreement; expanded injury guarantees, with up to $1 million in the year after an injury occurs; continuing medical coverage for life; immediate increases in pension for pre-1993 players; a new rookie wage scale that would make $300 million per draft class available for veteran pay and player benefits; abd external arbitration of all drug and steroids appeals.

Again, this is not true.
The owners themselves admitted their last offer omitted things they had previously agreed to.

Stop believing everything you read on NFLlabor.com. Neither side had any real intention of ending this thing before a court battle. That has been made clear time and time again. It is also clear the owners haven't won anything.

Right now there is disagreement in their camps about how this is shaking out. The owners have been insanely cocky where even a bit of legal knowledge would tell they should be otherwise.

BOTH sides have VERY valid points. But you have to give to take and the NFL does not want to give at all. In that scenario they will very likely lose big-time.

[DallasEast]

March 11th. March 11th. March 11th. March 11th. March 11th. March 11th.

Can we not dismiss what was common knowledge a whole month before the second lockout extension ended?

Smith and Mawae continued to stress the need for "financial transparency" from owners. The desire to have NFL teams open their financial records has been met by league officials saying the NFLPA has all the financial information it needs to strike a deal that would be fair to both sides. - link (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e1ac13/article/union-brings-difference-in-tone-opinion-to-cba-discussions)

February 3rd.

The NFLPA* knew that the owners were not going to volunteer those financials when it was mutually agreed to extend the first lockout deadline on March 3rd.

If you're making an all-for-nothing demand before entering into negotiations (March 3rd) and you already fully comprehend that it will not come to fruition ...

... exactly what would anyone call that particular tactic?

[Doomsday101]

Again, this is not true.
The owners themselves admitted their last offer omitted things they had previously agreed to.

Stop believing everything you read on NFLlabor.com. Neither side had any real intention of ending this thing before a court battle. That has been made clear time and time again. It is also clear the owners haven't won anything.

Right now there is disagreement in their camps about how this is shaking out. The owners have been insanely cocky where even a bit of legal knowledge would tell they should be otherwise.

BOTH sides have VERY valid points. But you have to give to take and the NFL does not want to give at all. In that scenario they will very likely lose big-time.

I did not get that from NFLlabor.com

Let me guess you are the voice of reason? :lmao:

I have said time and again I want both sides to get back and work out a deal the players damn well could have extended the deadline they choose not to.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I did not get that from NFLlabor.com

Let me guess you are the voice of reason? :lmao:

I have said time and again I want both sides to get back and work out a deal the players damn well could have extended the deadline they choose not to.

AFAIK they had to do what they did at the time or they lose all their bargaining chips. That and as it stands now this can get pushed into September already w/ the way the court process is playing out

Which makes the owners offer that they made w/ 5 minutes to look though pretty silly and pointless and Im sure they knew it. It was probably just for P.R.'s sake b/c thats all they have going for them at this point. It certainly isnt the law

[jterrell]

March 11th. March 11th. March 11th. March 11th. March 11th. March 11th.

Can we not dismiss what was common knowledge a whole month before the second lockout extension ended?

Smith and Mawae continued to stress the need for "financial transparency" from owners. The desire to have NFL teams open their financial records has been met by league officials saying the NFLPA has all the financial information it needs to strike a deal that would be fair to both sides. - link (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e1ac13/article/union-brings-difference-in-tone-opinion-to-cba-discussions)

February 3rd.

The NFLPA* knew that the owners were not going to volunteer those financials when it was mutually agreed to extend the first lockout deadline on March 3rd.

If you're making an all-for-nothing demand before entering into negotiations (March 3rd) and you already fully comprehend that it will not come to fruition ...

... exactly what would anyone call that particular tactic?

It is truly a shame that you do not have a point because you really are so passionate here.

The NFL owners have known for years they wanted a better deal under the CBA. They asked for an additional 2 BILLION dollars off the top of the 9.5 Billion pie.

Anyone with a brain says if you are claiming I need to give you money because of financial distress prove to me the financial distress. The NFLPA agreed to know off an additional 800 Million off the top with NO financial transparency but wanted to see financials before going a cent higher. That is called basic common sense.

Neither side was willing to move on key issues and thus the impasse.

If the NFL merely wanted 800K off the top and a rookie cap they could have taken that and walked away to play football. They wanted a lot more.

[RW Hitman]

Both sides had their gameplans and contingency plans worked out years ago. Each and every one of them paid a lot of high salary specialists a ton of money to figure out their attacks and counter attacks in a game of chicken to see which side blinks first.


Owners 100% wanted to lock out the players, and the players 100% were going to decertify in order to rule an injunction over the lockout. Anything else was delaying the inevitable.


It should be pretty easy for fans to know which one wants for football to be played in 20011. It will the side in front of the judge tomorrow demanding that football return to normal effective immediately, not the side demanding that they be given the right to drag their feet and deprive fans of the game.

so your saying the owners should just accept whatever offer the players tell them to accept? sorry, no negotiating process works that way, if it takes football not to be played, then so be it. Both sides have stakes to lose if that happened so negotiating would have to happen and most people you talk to will tell you that football will be played in 2011.

as far as the courts go, they can only make the NFL be open for business, but they cannot make them agree to a CBA that is no more just like they cannot make the players do so.

there are still issues of what the game of football will look like without a CBA. the players are asking the courts to have the NFL announce the rules for 2011, what happens if the NFL gives them exactly what they are asking.

imagine if the owners say that because there is no CBA and we do not want any future court preceding to rule us in violation of US antitrust laws, we will:
* remove all restrictions on free agents, if a player is no longer under contract (regardless of time etc...), then they are free to sign with anyone.
* remove salary cap, sorry if this means that only the top three or four teams will be able to sign top players
* no more NFL Draft, teams will have to act as independent business' and sign college players as free agents
* owners will no longer be required to share profits as it was in the old CBA as this may appear to be collaberation and will just not be a part of the new NFL.

Does that sound like what the players want? Is that what the owners want? No, of course not, but nothing the players have gained so far in the courts says the owners and players do not have to work out a CBA if they want a game of football that us fans love. Like or not, the players and owners will have to get over this and work it out at the table.

[RW Hitman]

You really should read more before posting on this subject.

The NFL got an agreement from the tv networks to pay them less money overall but cover them in case of a strike. That is all the proof you need as to their plans. FWIW, the NFL owners have NEVER denied planning to lock players out. They were consistent in saying they were going to do so even on the day the NFLPA de-certified.

The NFLPA didn't de-certify to "get a more favorable ruling"... they de-certified to get a ruling period. Had they not de-certified they would have been locked out for 1 year before they could take this to court.

You can talk all you want about leverage but it is a two way street.

The NFLPA would have been criminally stupid to not de-certify and end this lock out as they have now done.

yeah, the lockout was apparent. more favorable or a ruling, - sorry, guess i should of reworded it to say that. nothing you said there changes my point.

as far as being two way street, i say exactly. you are right there.

yes, the NFLPA made the smartest moves here, no denying that.

my only point is, they both need to work this out and get a good CBA at the table

[jterrell]

I did not get that from NFLlabor.com

Let me guess you are the voice of reason? :lmao:

I have said time and again I want both sides to get back and work out a deal the players damn well could have extended the deadline they choose not to.

Extending the deadline would have been a stupid move.

The NFL Owners can and have always been able to extend any offer they like. They refused to do so for a long while then had Judge ordered Mediation and the sides still could not agree.

Any extension that avoided court meant losing games as court rulings dragged on.

The Owners want to play this stall game where we miss games until players give in and take less money. The NFLPA wants to go the legal route where they are wiping the floor with owners who have had an easy path of making millions of dollars per year.

I really have a hard time following the fan logic that says, yea, let's just not have football for a while so players make less money....

Uhhh, that's a good idea??

[DallasEast]

It is truly a shame that you do not have a point because you really are so passionate here.

The NFL owners have known for years they wanted a better deal under the CBA. They asked for an additional 2 BILLION dollars off the top of the 9.5 Billion pie.

Anyone with a brain says if you are claiming I need to give you money because of financial distress prove to me the financial distress. The NFLPA agreed to know off an additional 800 Million off the top with NO financial transparency but wanted to see financials before going a cent higher. That is called basic common sense.

Neither side was willing to move on key issues and thus the impasse.

If the NFL merely wanted 800K off the top and a rookie cap they could have taken that and walked away to play football. They wanted a lot more.The point is sound and the impasse which you mention was broken by the NFLPA* when they decertified. Why wouldn't anyone agree to this fact?

[iceberg]

WHO LOCKED OUT WHO WITH A CURRENT CONTRACT IN PLACE...... THANKS.

and if you have no contract, what's to lock out really. no contract = no work.

[birdwells1]

Yeah Upshaw was so much in Tags' back pocket that he got the owners to agree to the CBA they all opted out of :facepalm:

Before this is over they (the owners) may be begging for the old CBA.:lmao:

[DallasEast]

Before this is over they (the owners) may be begging for the old CBA.
Quoted For Very Probable Truth (removed smiley since the entire situation isn't funny at all for true NFL owner/labor harmony).

[birdwells1]

Extending the deadline would have been a stupid move.

The NFL Owners can and have always been able to extend any offer they like. They refused to do so for a long while then had Judge ordered Mediation and the sides still could not agree.

Any extension that avoided court meant losing games as court rulings dragged on.

The Owners want to play this stall game where we miss games until players give in and take less money. The NFLPA wants to go the legal route where they are wiping the floor with owners who have had an easy path of making millions of dollars per year.

I really have a hard time following the fan logic that says, yea, let's just not have football for a while so players make less money....

Uhhh, that's a good idea??

This right here!!!! If anyone says this then it's not about football it's about politics and beliefs. I side with the players but if they caved in and gave the owners everything they wanted then I wouldn't be upset because that means football in 2011. It's not my money, I would say they were fools to do it but lets play some football. You have some upset that the players can have OTA's and minicamps.:bang2:

[satam55]

I really have a hard time following the fan logic that says, yea, let's just not have football for a while so players make less money....

Uhhh, that's a good idea??

It's Jealousy. People are jealous because of the money pro athletes make.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are some very big misrepresentation concerning a couple of issues here.

First on the issue of financial transparency.

The former CBA had a provision in it concerning stadium credits. The CBA used this notion of expenditures to deduct from revenues and then determine the remainder for the percentage split.

The NFL claimed additional stadium credits that the players rightfully contested.

This is the basis by which you hear from the NFL's press release that they need money to invest in infrastructure etc.

The CBA also has a provision to settle disputes concerning these credits if the dispute is over more than $10 million. The solution per the CBA is to hire an independent auditor to audit the situation and determine whether those credits are valid.

They agreed on hiring PriceWaterhouseCooper(PWC) mutually to audit those credits. PWC audited the information given and ruled in favor of the players. The owners then opted out of the CBA.

Since that time they continue to tout these credits crying to everyone willing to listen and the whole while their assertion was rejected by an auditor they helped select.

In response the players have asked for justification for these credits by financial transparency. The NFL as is their right has refused from the very get go. The NFLPA as is their right refuses to accept any new deal involving this notion of credits and expenditures without financial transparency.

The NFLPA's first offer was to ignore this notion of expenditures and just split revenues equally. With this deal the idea of financial transparency was moot as only revenues were to be considered. that the total is $9 billion to begin with has never been contested from the very beginning by either party.

The NFL has never altered their stance of wanting to expand this idea of credits without having to justify it through accounting.

As for who acted first, all of this began when the owners opted out of the CBA in 2008. it is their right of course to do so but that was the first act that ended up to where we are now.

Who did what first on March 11 is immaterial. The players have every right to decide they do not feel that the players union cannot negotiate successfully and take the matter into their individual hands.

Who does not have a right is the NFL to lockout unilaterally as evidenced by the ruling yesterday. The temporal order is immaterial. Judge Nelson's ruling makes that very clear as she addresses that issue for about 10 pages of her 90 page ruling.

This argument is completely pointless.

[DallasEast]

Who did what first on March 11 is immaterial. The players have every right to decide they do not feel that the players union cannot negotiate successfully and take the matter into their individual hands.You're 100% correct. The NFLPA* should have proceeded to decertify on or before March 3rd, not March 11th.

[birdwells1]

It's Jealousy. People are jealous because of the money pro athletes make.

Yeah, I know thats what's at the bottom of this. They see people playing a game that they may have played as a kid on some level so yes it's definately jealousy. They never get upset with the owners because they are suppose to have money it's their birth right.

I say this all the time, everyone has a talent, athletes talent just make them millions while others are stuck making 40k sitting in a cubicle or something. I'm happy with my life and where I'm at, I'm blessed, so I can be happy for others.

When my friends or relatives buy a house or car that's bigger and better than mine I'm happy for them, not jealous, because I have the house and car that I want.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's Jealousy. People are jealous because of the money pro athletes make.

I do not see it as jealousy in a lot of cases. For whatever reason, people identify themselves more with a multimillionaire owner moreso than a 20 something year old millionaire super athlete.

[Primetime42]

There are some very big misrepresentation concerning a couple of issues here.

First on the issue of financial transparency.

The former CBA had a provision in it concerning stadium credits. The CBA used this notion of expenditures to deduct from revenues and then determine the remainder for the percentage split.

The NFL claimed additional stadium credits that the players rightfully contested.

This is the basis by which you hear from the NFL's press release that they need money to invest in infrastructure etc.

The CBA also has a provision to settle disputes concerning these credits if the dispute is over more than $10 million. The solution per the CBA is to hire an independent auditor to audit the situation and determine whether those credits are valid.

They agreed on hiring PriceWaterhouseCooper(PWC) mutually to audit those credits. PWC audited the information given and ruled in favor of the players. The owners then opted out of the CBA.

Since that time they continue to tout these credits crying to everyone willing to listen and the whole while their assertion was rejected by an auditor they helped select.

In response the players have asked for justification for these credits by financial transparency. The NFL as is their right has refused from the very get go. The NFLPA as is their right refuses to accept any new deal involving this notion of credits and expenditures without financial transparency.

The NFLPA's first offer was to ignore this notion of expenditures and just split revenues equally. With this deal the idea of financial transparency was moot as only revenues were to be considered. that the total is $9 billion to begin with has never been contested from the very beginning by either party.

The NFL has never altered their stance of wanting to expand this idea of credits without having to justify it through accounting.

As for who acted first, all of this began when the owners opted out of the CBA in 2008. it is their right of course to do so but that was the first act that ended up to where we are now.

Who did what first on March 11 is immaterial. The players have every right to decide they do not feel that the players union cannot negotiate successfully and take the matter into their individual hands.

Who does not have a right is the NFL to lockout unilaterally as evidenced by the ruling yesterday. The temporal order is immaterial. Judge Nelson's ruling makes that very clear as she addresses that issue for about 10 pages of her 90 page ruling.

This argument is completely pointless.
Excellent post. Thanks.

[zrinkill]

I do not see it as jealousy in a lot of cases. For whatever reason, people identify themselves more with a multimillionaire owner moreso than a 20 something year old millionaire super athlete.

Not at all ..... Some of us own businesses and have employees ...... and what the players are trying to do is bull hockey.

They are employees ...... not partners.

If the owners should have to share their TV and jersey money ..... the players should have to share their endorsement money.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Excellent post. Thanks.

I just want to point out facts. I am glad if it helped you understand the situation because that is what my goal is.

There is a ton of misinformation out there and if I have any factual errors please point them out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not at all ..... Some of us own businesses and have employees ...... and what the players are trying to do is bull hockey.

They are employees ...... not partners.

If the owners should have to share their TV and jersey money ..... the players should have to share their endorsement money.

So as a business owner you identify with the owners moreso right? Thats all I am saying.

You can call them whatever you want. I just see them as multiple groups and individuals negotiating a labor contract.

The market is a seller's market. Thats why prices go up. it is what it is.

[Dallas]

It's Jealousy. People are jealous because of the money pro athletes make.

:laugh2: :laugh2: ^^^ this guy.

Guy found us out. We are just jealous cuz they have the racks on racks on racks on racks.


Oi!!

[Beast_from_East]

Talk about showing the fact you know this judge is owned by you. I might be reaching here, but this is just saying, hey who cares how the rest of this pans out, give us what we want right now.

Funny how all the judges are either biased against the owners (Judge Doty) or they are owned by the players (Judge Nelson).


When you keep getting lauged out of the courtroom maybe the problem is not the judges.............you think?

[jimnabby]

Funny how all the judges are either biased against the owners (Judge Doty) or they are owned by the players (Judge Nelson).

When you keep getting lauged out of the courtroom maybe the problem is not the judges.............you think?It is funny. It's also funny how, when these suits happen, lots of independent legal experts take a look at them and say, "The NFL will probably lose this case." Then the NFL loses the case, usually through an opinion that tears their arguments to shreds, occasionally by a 9-0 margin in the Supreme Court. And then the judges get accused of anti-owner bias.

I mean, did anybody anywhere think the owners would prevail here?

[ZeroClub]

Beyond determining which party (players v owners) is mostly right or wrong in the moral or legal sense, I wonder if certain owners will be caught with their pants down if the ultimate agreement favors the players more than the owners anticipated.

Take Jerry's stadium, for example. Did he make assumptions about the financing that will ultimately turn out to be incorrect?

You gotta figure that he figured to make a hefty sum for the naming rights, but that didn't really work out.

You gotta figure that Jerry figured the next CBA would net him extra funding for his Taj Mahal.

And then there's that generally unanticipated national economic downturn ....

If he ends up making millions less instead of the millions more that he anticipated, is Jerry still solvent?

With Jerry's boom or bust optimistic streak, it wouldn't surprise me if he took some calculated risks based on rosey assumptions that might come back to bite him....

I don't know the answers to these questions and I'm not pushing a particular agenda. I'm just curious.

[67CowboysFan]

The Owners LOCKED the players out, because of greed and i have a sneaking suspicion Jerry Jones was firmly in favor of it and tried to impose his will on the process as some players have stated. This could end up being a huge loss for the owner's because of a few owner's GREED.
Do you come up with this stuff on your own or does somebody help you?

[RW Hitman]

:laugh2: :laugh2: ^^^ this guy.

Guy found us out. We are just jealous cuz they have the racks on racks on racks on racks.


Oi!!
:laugh1:

[Manwiththeplan]

If the owners should have to share their TV and jersey money ..... the players should have to share their endorsement money.

:confused: apples and oranges, that would be like me countering with the owners should then share their non football, but stadium related income (concerts and other stadium rentals).

[Manwiththeplan]

Before this is over they (the owners) may be begging for the old CBA.:lmao:
possibly, I still don't believe there will be huge changes. The players were already getting 60% of the revenue after the 1 Billion of the top, which was more than 50%.