Antitrust Hearing Post 2pm CDT Break Updates *Hearing Complete*

[InmanRoshi]

There's a difference between not attending workouts or minicamps that are being held and not holding workouts or minicamps at all. If all of the teams are prohibited from holding workouts, then -- all other things being equal -- the effect is the same on every team. If everyone is working out or attending minicamp except you, then you are falling behind.

If players are "irreparably harmed" by missing workouts and minicamps in March and April, should they be made mandatory in the next CBA?

It's not just the effect of competition among teams for trophies, but competition among players for jobs. I think the -- all things being equal -- is the trip up. Not all things are equal. Peyton Manning may not need mini-camps or the offseason, but the end of the roster guys. The undrafted free agents. The raw projects. The injured. The guys from the outside looking in. The 7th rounder or undrafted free agent who currently won't be able to attend rookie minicamps or receive any other NFL coaching who will be competing against 3rd and 4th year veterans for the 53rd roster spot in training camp. The guys who need every bit of training, coaching, conditioning they can get in order to compete for an NFL job in 2011 are being irrevocably harmed by being denied access to team facilities and coaches during the lockout. It's one thing when a player chooses to not seek any avenue available in order better his chances of landing a job in the NFL, it's another to even deprive him of the opportunities.

As to whether the minicamps should be mandatory in the next CBA ... might as well be. It's pretty much already an unspoken rule that not participating in them might lead to some *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* unforeseen consequences down the road. If I were the players, I would gladly offer up that bargaining chip for something in return in some negotiation quid pro quo.

 

[AdamJT13]

I don't think the point that it harms everyone equally will fly with the judge.

I wasn't referring to the legal argument. I was referring to his claim that the not holding workouts/minicamps and players holding out from them were the same. In terms of how it applies to football (not the law), they're very different.

It's one thing to say that I'm harmed by being disallowed from doing something I choose and another thing to force me to do it.

In other words, the "irreparable harm" has to be shown as being caused by not having the choice to work out, rather than not working out per se. If this aspect is even being considered by the judge, that is -- and to me, it would seem almost inconsequential compared to the other arguments.

 

[theogt]

I wasn't referring to the legal argument. I was referring to his claim that the not holding workouts/minicamps and players holding out from them were the same. In terms of how it applies to football (not the law), they're very different.

Okay, well I believe the people you were replying to were discussing the legal argument.

In other words, the "irreparable harm" has to be shown as being caused by not having the choice to work out, rather than not working out per se. If this aspect is even being considered by the judge, that is -- and to me, it would seem almost inconsequential compared to the other arguments.

That's quite the leap of logic there. The point is, the owners cannot force a harm on the players, but the players can agree to a harm by contract. Simple distinction, I think.

 

[AdamJT13]

Okay, well I believe the people you were replying to were discussing the legal argument.

The post to which I responded had nothing to do with the legal argument, it had to do with fans' reaction to players skipping workouts/minicamp, etc.

That's quite the leap of logic there. The point is, the owners cannot force a harm on the players, but the players can agree to a harm by contract. Simple distinction, I think.

The players aren't agreeing to a harm by contract when they skip workouts, they're simply harming themselves of their own volition. No player has a contract telling him that he can't attend workouts while everyone else can.

 

[CooterBrown]

..... but the end of the roster guys. The undrafted free agents. The raw projects. The injured. The guys from the outside looking in. The 7th rounder or undrafted free agent who currently won't be able to attend rookie minicamps or receive any other NFL coaching who will be competing against 3rd and 4th year veterans for the 53rd roster spot in training camp.

This is my complaint against the NFLPA. These guys are the ones shafted by the whole process (excluding fans and stadium employees). The players don't really want what they are asking for. (Complete freedom from the draft and total free agency and freedom from any other aspects designed to keep the competitve balance.) A small minority of players would temporarily benefit from that total free agency, the majority would suffer. Peyton Manning might make a lot more money than he has been making, but Sam Hurd would make a lot less. If I were Jerry Jones I'd tell Sam Hurd, "I'll pay you $70,000 per year. I know that's a big pay cut, but if you don't like it, go somewhere else. I can find plenty of college guys that will be happy to play in the NFL for that money. Oh, and while you're walking through the locker room, ask Tony Romo why he has to have so much money that you struggle to pay your bills." The players do not want that scenario, but, neither do the owners.

This whole thing is almost funny. It reminds me of the 60's "mutual assured destruction" of the cold war. Both side know they can almost unilaterally destroy the whole world. Neither side wants to destroy the world, but if they admit it to the other side, they might lose some "upper hand" in the negotiations towards a long-lasting peace and in the view of world opinion. So, they constantly threaten to destroy the world, as if either of them is really willing to do so.

This injunction that the players seek really doesn't change that at all. Ending the lockout does not assure "football as usual". Regardless of what Judge Nelson says when she makes her decision, this is a marathon not a sprint and its a race both sides should carefully examine before taking the next step down the cinder lanes towards "mutual assured destruction".

 

[BrassCowboy]

Again.. the players arn't the ones asking for more here. Some of us are having a difficult time remembering that.

I dont remember details, but I do believe the players are in fact asking for more, or atkleast knowing they will.

things like retirement benefits, contract insurance in case of injury, higher salary cap, higher vet minimum, and i do believe they want more guarantees of % in future in case nfl gets even bigger

so dont believe the hype that players are not asking for more

 

[BrassCowboy]

I'll be sure to tell Mike Woicik that his offseason strength and conditioning program is all just a bunch of "lawyer BS", and skipping it doesn't really hurt the players.

I'll also be sure to remind people the next time a player skips offseason team workouts, minicamps and training camps in a contract dispute that practice and preperation is just a bunch of "lawyer BS" that doesn't really effect anything.

guess i got lazy and didnt go into details on why...

because players can hire trainers and do all pretty much the same in their own offseason workouts, plus all teams equal will face same dilemma equally

the whole i need to be at team facilities offseason talk just sounds like legal bs

 

[InmanRoshi]

guess i got lazy and didnt go into details on why...

because players can hire trainers and do all pretty much the same in their own offseason workouts, plus all teams equal will face same dilemma equally

the whole i need to be at team facilities offseason talk just sounds like legal bs

No, I know your argument ... that the trainer at the local YMCA is every bit as good as Mike Woicik, so it's no big loss. I just disagree with the premise, and apparently NFL teams do as well since they've been pressuring the players to work out in their offseason program at their facilities, under their supervision, under their staff every offseason before this one. I would also note that Jerry pays Mike Woicik a hell of a lot more than the trainer at the local YMCA for a reason.

And you also fail to address how players also don't just compete as collective teams for Ws and Ls, but also compete individually within the same organization for jobs. A undrafted free agent rookie competing in training camp for a 53rd roster spot against a 2nd, 3rd or 4th year veteran absolutely needs minicamps and an legit NFL offseason to overcome the difference in experience and several years head start in the full time training of being a professional athlete. To deny him that is causing irreperable harm to his potential NFL career.

 

[InmanRoshi]

This is my complaint against the NFLPA. These guys are the ones shafted by the whole process (excluding fans and stadium employees). The players don't really want what they are asking for. (Complete freedom from the draft and total free agency and freedom from any other aspects designed to keep the competitve balance.) A small minority of players would temporarily benefit from that total free agency, the majority would suffer.

I always find this sudden concern for the Sam Hurds for people sympathic to the owners dubious, at best. For one thing, and the most important thing, the owners are the ones that needlessly cancelled out the existing CBA that was making them all filthy rich, simply because they wanted to be more filthy rich. It's the owners that infliced the lockout and the work stoppage on fans and players, not the NFLPA. So it's hard for me to see how the NFLPA are the ones preventing Sam Hurd from working out, when they're the ones standing in front of the judge seeking an injunction so that Sam Hurd can workout and compete.

Secondly, if fans were really concerned about the well being of the Sam Hurds, they would be crying for bigger roster sizes. Want to see the Sam Hurds succeeed in the NFL? Create more jobs for them. Expand the roster size to 65 players, so there could be more room to keep special team aces and backups and raw projects. I never hear these arguments made by the sympathizers of the Sam Hurds, which leads me to believe they use the Sam Hurds as a point of attack against the NFLPA, which is all they really care about anyway.

As to how much Tom Brady cares about Sam Hurd? I imagine it's not unlike the way I, or most people, feel about my co-workers. It falls somewhere between the spectrum of a hell of a lot less than I care about my immediate family and close loved ones, and a hell of a lot more than ownership or outsiders looking in care about them.

 

[theogt]

The post to which I responded had nothing to do with the legal argument, it had to do with fans' reaction to players skipping workouts/minicamp, etc.

No, the post you quoted was making a point to show the harmful effects of the lockout as a response to the claim that the poster's prior statements were just "lawyer BS".

You simply misread the post or missed the context entirely.

The players aren't agreeing to a harm by contract when they skip workouts, they're simply harming themselves of their own volition. No player has a contract telling him that he can't attend workouts while everyone else can.

The following is what some people call "logic." Try it some time.

1. The owners and players agree to voluntary workouts by contract.
2. Voluntary workouts harm players as compared to mandatory workouts.
3. Therefore, the players are agree to a harm by contract.

 

[peplaw06]

I always find this sudden concern for the Sam Hurds for people sympathic to the owners dubious, at best. For one thing, and the most important thing, the owners are the ones that needlessly cancelled out the existing CBA that was making them all filthy rich, simply because they wanted to be more filthy rich. It's the owners that infliced the lockout and the work stoppage on fans and players, not the NFLPA. So it's hard for me to see how the NFLPA are the ones preventing Sam Hurd from working out, when they're the ones standing in front of the judge seeking an injunction so that Sam Hurd can workout and compete.

Secondly, if fans were really concerned about the well being of the Sam Hurds, they would be crying for bigger roster sizes. Want to see the Sam Hurds succeeed in the NFL? Create more jobs for them. Expand the roster size to 65 players, so there could be more room to keep special team aces and backups and raw projects. I never hear these arguments made by the sympathizers of the Sam Hurds, which leads me to believe they use the Sam Hurds as a point of attack against the NFLPA, which is all they really care about anyway.

As to how much Tom Brady cares about Sam Hurd? I imagine it's not unlike the way I, or most people, feel about my co-workers. It falls somewhere between the spectrum of a hell of a lot less than I care about my immediate family and close loved ones, and a hell of a lot more than ownership or outsiders looking in care about them.

That, sir, is a great post.

It's like people think that the players should just kowtow to the owners demands just so the Sam Hurds have a job. The owners take that job away, and the players should just jump at the first opportunity to get him his job back. And if they don't, it's the players fault -- specifically the top 10% because they're the only ones that benefit from this whole mess.

 

[AdamJT13]

No, the post you quoted was making a point to show the harmful effects of the lockout as a response to the claim that the poster's prior statements were just "lawyer BS".

And that "point" had nothing to do with the legal aspects, it had to do with fans' reactions to certain things. I was explaining why fans would react differently to one thing than another.

The following is what some people call "logic." Try it some time.

1. The owners and players agree to voluntary workouts by contract.
2. Voluntary workouts harm players as compared to mandatory workouts.
3. Therefore, the players are agree to a harm by contract.

Voluntary workouts do not harm players. It's the players skipping voluntary workouts that would harm them. Sheesh.

If you sign a contract with your employer saying that you'll receive a small stipend if you attend a workshop to improve your skills in whatever it is that you do, did you "agree to a harm" because it's not mandatory? Nobody in their right mind would claim that.

 

[Hostile]

That, sir, is a great post.

It's like people think that the players should just kowtow to the owners demands just so the Sam Hurds have a job. The owners take that job away, and the players should just jump at the first opportunity to get him his job back. And if they don't, it's the players fault -- specifically the top 10% because they're the only ones that benefit from this whole mess.

That is not what I feel at all. It is barely even in the same area code.

 

[AdamJT13]

I always find this sudden concern for the Sam Hurds for people sympathic to the owners dubious, at best. For one thing, and the most important thing, the owners are the ones that needlessly cancelled out the existing CBA that was making them all filthy rich, simply because they wanted to be more filthy rich. It's the owners that infliced the lockout and the work stoppage on fans and players, not the NFLPA. So it's hard for me to see how the NFLPA are the ones preventing Sam Hurd from working out, when they're the ones standing in front of the judge seeking an injunction so that Sam Hurd can workout and compete.

Nobody said the NFLPA is keeping Sam Hurd from working out. They're saying that in a total free-market system, there would be less money available to pay the Sam Hurds of the world because teams would have to pay more for the Miles Austins and Dez Bryants. If there's a limited amount of money to be spent and the best players get more of it, it stands to reason that the fringe players will get less.

Secondly, if fans were really concerned about the well being of the Sam Hurds, they would be crying for bigger roster sizes. Want to see the Sam Hurds succeeed in the NFL? Create more jobs for them. Expand the roster size to 65 players, so there could be more room to keep special team aces and backups and raw projects. I never hear these arguments made by the sympathizers of the Sam Hurds, which leads me to believe they use the Sam Hurds as a point of attack against the NFLPA, which is all they really care about anyway.

Do you really think the NFLPA wants roster sizes at 65 players? The effect of that would be about 20 percent less money per player. Again, there's a limited amount of money to go around, so dividing it among 23 percent more players is going to mean less for everyone, on average. The NFLPA will never agree to any significant changes in the roster size without a commensurate change in the total amount of money available to the players.

 

[theogt]

And that "point" had nothing to do with the legal aspects, it had to do with fans' reactions to certain things. I was explaining why fans would react differently to one thing than another.

If the point was to expand upon the relevance of the legal argument, it most certainly has SOMETHING to do with the legal aspects. You simply missed it.

Voluntary workouts do not harm players. It's the players skipping voluntary workouts that would harm them. Sheesh.

1. Players skipping voluntary workouts harms players.
2. Voluntary workouts lead to players skipping workouts.
3. Therefore, voluntary workouts harm players.

If you sign a contract with your employer saying that you'll receive a small stipend if you attend a workshop to improve your skills in whatever it is that you do, did you "agree to a harm" because it's not mandatory? Nobody in their right mind would claim that.

Yes, I would be agreeing to a harm. I would also be agreeing to a benefit -- the benefit of choice. Nobody in their right mind would claim that the harm outweighs the benefit in your specific scenario. That is because there are facts specific to your scenario that make such a determination reasonable. However, when you change the facts, the same determination may not be reasonable.

 

[CooterBrown]

This mess is the owners fault, but only in one regard: they gave away too much in 2006. This lockout is the owners doing. They canceled the CBA. But, in reality all they did was speed up the inevitable. When the CBA expired, both sides would be right where they are right now. And, most of us would be right where we are now, arguing over somebody else's argument.

As for arguing that the players only want what they already had, I've never seen a Union say, "everything is fine with us the way it is. Let's make the same contract we did last time." Had the CBA expired without the owners opting out early, the players would have increased their contract demands and said, "if that contract was such a bad deal, why didn't the owners opt-out when they had the chance? Not only are they doing fine, they can give more."

My point is: blame the owners for the lockout if you want, but the opt-out was something they had to do.

 

[theogt]

This mess is the owners fault, but only in one regard: they gave away too much in 2006. This lockout is the owners doing. They canceled the CBA. But, in reality all they did was speed up the inevitable. When the CBA expired, both sides would be right where they are right now. And, most of us would be right where we are now, arguing over somebody else's argument.

As for arguing that the players only want what they already had, I've never seen a Union say, "everything is fine with us the way it is. Let's make the same contract we did last time." Had the CBA expired without the owners opting out early, the players would have increased their contract demands and said, "if that contract was such a bad deal, why didn't the owners opt-out when they had the chance? Not only are they doing fine, they can give more."

My point is: blame the owners for the lockout if you want, but the opt-out was something they had to do.

The players' initial offer was less than what they "already had." The players conceded that the last deal was too player friendly.

 

[YosemiteSam]

This mess is the owners fault, but only in one regard: they gave away too much in 2006. This lockout is the owners doing. They canceled the CBA. But, in reality all they did was speed up the inevitable. When the CBA expired, both sides would be right where they are right now. And, most of us would be right where we are now, arguing over somebody else's argument.

As for arguing that the players only want what they already had, I've never seen a Union say, "everything is fine with us the way it is. Let's make the same contract we did last time." Had the CBA expired without the owners opting out early, the players would have increased their contract demands and said, "if that contract was such a bad deal, why didn't the owners opt-out when they had the chance? Not only are they doing fine, they can give more."

My point is: blame the owners for the lockout if you want, but the opt-out was something they had to do.

I agree. KILL THE NFLPA!

 

[peplaw06]

That is not what I feel at all. It is barely even in the same area code.

I don't know if it's intentional or just naivety, but sometimes you take things way to seriously.

 

[Nightshade]

If it takes the owners getting their arse handed to them to get it done fine.

I'm done taking sides, I could care less at this point. I dont see how anyone can take either side anymore. They are both greedy diva's.