1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Goodell calls for more urgency in labor talks; PFT

Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by cowboyjoe, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. cowboyjoe

    cowboyjoe Well-Known Member

    28,092 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    Goodell calls for more urgency in labor talks
    Posted by Mike Florio on June 28, 2010 8:20 AM ET
    After making his opening address to the first-year players assembled at the Rookie Symposium in L.A., Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke to reporters regarding a variety of topics.

    And one of the topics he addressed was the plodding pace of negotiations on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    "There is talk," Goodell said, per Vic Carucci of NFL.com. "We had a meeting just last week. There'll be an agreement at some point. Everyone would like it sooner rather than later, whether it's the players, the owners or the fans. So I think it's important for us all to get down and get more productive dialogue. Sometimes these things don't happen until you get a little closer to the end. That's just the reality."

    But when is the end? Carucci (or his editors) assumed via a parenthetical that the end comes at the conclusion of the current labor deal, in March 2011. And while that's a fair assumption, no one has said when the end actually comes.

    It's a point we raised last week, after the NFL published a comprehensive 2010-11 calendar that doesn't mention the date on which the CBA expires or, more importantly, the moment at which the Duke transmogrifies into a pumpkin.

    We tried to make some progress on that specific topic when interviewing Goodell for our Season Preview magazine. We'd post it here, but we're hoping to sell a few of these mags before we start giving the stuff away for free.
  2. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    Just my gut feeling but I do think they will work out a deal before any work stoppage takes place. I hope it is done soon but in the end I think some thing will get done because a work stoppage will not benefit either side.
  3. cowboyjoe

    cowboyjoe Well-Known Member

    28,092 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    i dont think they will, why? This reason, as i understand it, if there is no season next year, the NFL owners only get a 5 billion contract from tv services. The players as i understand it, dont get a cent, only owners. So, the owners want that money big time, would get alot of them out of red ink, while they haggle over a new cba the following year.

    I dont know how much 5 billioin divides into 32 teams, but maybe someone can figure it out, thats still a ton of money, the owners get free and dont have to play the players or coaches any money.

    So, what do you think would happen if the owners dont get their way with the players in a new cba? .
  4. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    I think the owners have the upper hand but I still think these owners know that a work stoppage does not benefit them in the long haul.
  5. cowboyjoe

    cowboyjoe Well-Known Member

    28,092 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    thats true, but see what owners could do, is hold out, get that money for themselves, and have the players not get any money next year and suffer, then the players would be willing to sit down and work out a deal the following year. Or do something like happened in 83 i think, when the nfl had a strike, and some teams had part time players cross the picket line and play.

    while the redskins got together and played together at joe theisman's home to keep sharp till rest of season resumed. And they won a super bowl over that strike season in the nfl,while the owners saved money by not playing the players so many games that year.
  6. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    Players also have some weapons to turn to especially in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that went against the NFL


    The NFL disagrees, but experts say the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling today in the American Needle case could bolster the NFL Players Association in its ongoing labor negotiations with the league.
    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously the league could not be considered a single entity, but rather must be treated as 32 separate competing businesses when it comes to the licensing of branded products, such as caps and jerseys. The court agreed with American Needle, an Illinois hat maker and former NFL licensee, which sued the NFL claiming the league violated antitrust laws when it gave Reebok an exclusive 10-year license for hats in 2000.
    “Although NFL teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate, profit-maximizing entities, and their interests in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the decision.
    The Supreme Court’s decision sends the case back to the district court.
    The NFL downplayed the decision.
    “The decision will simply result in American Needle’s claim being sent back to the federal district court in Chicago, where the case will resume in its early stages,” the league said in a statement. “We remain confident we will ultimately prevail because the league decision about how best to promote the NFL was reasonable, pro-competitive, and entirely lawful. The Supreme Court’s decision has no bearing on collective bargaining, which is governed by labor law.”
    The Players Association, however, lauded the ruling. In a statement, NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith called it, “not only a win for the players past, present and future, but a win for the fans.”
    While the league says the decision has no bearing on labor negotiations, experts disagree.
    Barry University law professor Marc Edelman said while bargaining is governed by labor laws not antitrust laws – if workers are represented by a union – the ruling strengthens the players' argument, if the union were to decertify and challenge the league under antitrust laws.
    “If they decertify, they can’t be a union. If they decertified, the NFL would be allowed to put in place any terms they wanted,” Edelman said.
    If the union decertified, and the league set wage and draft rules players didn’t like, players could challenge the league under antitrust laws. “The Players Association now has this sitting in their back pocket, the threat of decertification,” Edelman said.
    Some observers suggest the decision may increase the pace of labor negotiations, which the players association says have been going slowly.
    Gary I. Blackman, a partner in the sports law practice at Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC in Chicago, said in a statement that the ruling affects “all dealing by the NFL and leaves open the possibility of an antitrust claims and the scrutiny that follows in whatever it does, including in its dealings with its players. Antitrust laws have been a tool for the unions. The players union has always had the threat, for example, that it would disband and sue the league if ever it was locked out. Now, that tool is still in the toolbox."
  7. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,464 Messages
    1,590 Likes Received
    Yes, please. I have lived through 2 players strikes already. I don't want Washington to win another Super Bowl.
  8. Phoenix

    Phoenix Well-Known Member

    4,854 Messages
    336 Likes Received
    Looks like:

    $156,250,000.
  9. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    Tim English, NFLPA staff counsel, said the motive behind decertification is explained in player meetings like this: “There are two rooms. One is the labor room, and one is the antitrust room. When you have a CBA, you’re in the labor room. After the CBA expires, your economic weapon against the owner is to go on strike, and their weapon is to lockout players. But it’s more advantageous for professional athletes to get into the antitrust room, and the way to do that is to decertify.”

    When the union decertifies, it remains a professional association that assists its members in financing, litigation and other activities but does not participate in collective bargaining. “We do every single thing we can think of to emphasize the fact that we’re no longer a union, including the Board of Player Representatives saying we’re no longer a union,” said English. “We change our tax category to a trade association, and we stop doing all the things that a union does, like player grievances and pension board. You have to announce you’re no longer a union and then act like it.”

    Berthelsen said one of the conditions of the 1993 CBA was that the NFLPA could return to non-union status at the end of the agreement, and the NFL would not be able to challenge the legitimacy of it. “So the agreement we negotiated,” he said, “puts us right back to where we were—an organization whose players could not be locked out, and an organization that has the ability to sue.”

    Once the union is decertified, it can file lawsuits against the league. The NFL would be subject to lawsuits on any restrictions they would continue to enforce, such as limits on free agency, the draft and a salary cap. “Those are restrictions that could be attacked under antitrust laws, absent a union,” Berthelsen said. “These restrictions could be challenged under the antitrust laws, so the NFL would be reluctant to go forward without an agreement.” He said during the period from 1987 to 1993, 20 lawsuits were filed by the NFLPA against the NFL, such as the McNeil case, mentioned above. “We’ve proven that we are willing to decertify and that we can be successful in litigation,” Berthelsen said. “The owners should believe it could happen, because it’s happened before.”
  10. cowboyjoe

    cowboyjoe Well-Known Member

    28,092 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    thanks buddy, see thats a ton of money 156 million for each owner, and they wouldnt have to pay the players contracts if their is a strike or their coaches contracts, so figure it this way

    jerry jones gets 156 million or so, i think the NFL itself gets some
    then jerry doesnt have to pay like 9 million to roy williams, 8 or so to ware, etc, which totals to about 130 million for cowboys contracts next year jerry jones wouldnt have to pay if their is a strike

    then, on top of that jerry doesnt have to pay wade's or jason garrett's contract for a year, so that totals to about 295 million or so

    thats a ton of money where jerry jones can regroup his money for 2012
  11. cowboyjoe

    cowboyjoe Well-Known Member

    28,092 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    dont worry hostile, in my dream this is year 2 and we go to the superbowl, dont know if we win or not, but we go

    and i had another dream where we go the following year too, and win that one for sure, even if there is a strike,

    and possibly have a chance to be the first team not only play in your own stadium but by going to super bowl this year, and next, possibly go to the superbowl the 3rd year in a row, and possibly be the first team ever to win 2 superbowls in a row, while going to 3 superbowls in a row, and possibly winning 3 in a row

    that part of my dream wasnt clear, but we do go this year from my dream with the Lord, and we go next year too, but the 3rd year was on things we would have to do and i had to do too.
  12. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    It is allot of money but it is short term. The league owners do not want to deal with the consequences of seeing the players union decertified
  13. cowboyjoe

    cowboyjoe Well-Known Member

    28,092 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    true, but i still think they will have some kind of strike, like in 83, where players and the union has to give in alittle, by midseason, or something along those lines.

    unless goodell gets something worked out, but i dont think he can bull his way over the owners.
  14. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    Owners understand the problems they face should the union decertify and it is not a pretty picture for them or anyone. I think a deal will be done not because the Commissioner pushes it but because the owners know it is in their interest to find a deal both sides can live with. If all they are concerned about is the short term gains then enjoy it while it last because the longer term will be costly. As I mentioned in the end a work stoppage leaves no winners over the long haul.
  15. cowboyjoe

    cowboyjoe Well-Known Member

    28,092 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    true, but you have to remember, like some owners that hardly do anything to improve their club moneywise, but they want the top owners like giants, patriots, cowboys to foot the bill so to speak and share their money with them,

    so if those owners see they will get 156 million from tv contract, plus not having to play their players contracts for a year or half a year, i bet those owners will jump at that chance, while forcing the players to agree to a deal, when their contracts arent played due to a strike

    some of them are greedy owners and they dont care about the little guy, but money
  16. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    I think the owners would be stupid to do so. It would be extremely costly not just in dealing with antitrust law suites but in terms of the draft which would be gone, these deals that a player must have x number of years before being an UFA would be gone all the things the NFL has negotiated through collecting barging would be all for naught. It would hurt the league and would be very costly to the owners. I agree that the Owners have a slight upper hand but players are not without their own weapons in this labor dispute.
  17. RS12

    RS12 Well-Known Member

    14,045 Messages
    1,049 Likes Received
    Contractually the owners may be obligated to get the TV money. Do you really think the networks are gonna just gladly hand that money over without constantly pressuring them to get a deal done, and how favorably do the networks bargain the next TV deal if they pay all that money for nothing?
  18. Zaxor

    Zaxor Virtus Mille Scuta

    8,399 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    :lmao:
  19. DWhite Fan

    DWhite Fan It ain't over 'til it's over

    4,934 Messages
    286 Likes Received
    I know most poster in here have an optimistic outlook on this issue, but I do not share that view. I think there will be a work stoppage of some kind, which will frost me dearly. Having watched this nonsense in 1982 and 87, I do not hold a lot of hope that the two sides will use common sense working this thing out.
  20. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,881 Likes Received
    Both sides have worked together over the last few years to avoid a work stoppage so they have managed to work with each other before.

Share This Page