If Lockout Lifted, Do The 2010 Rules Apply.

[Beast_from_East]

Since it looks like the players are going to get their injunction and the lockout will be lifted, will the owners just implement the 2010 rules for 2011?

One problem I see with that is the franchise tags. Without a CBA, franchise tags are as about as illegal as can be. So will Peyton Manning be an unrestricted free agent and free to sign with any team in the league? How would the Colts stop him if the tags are not valid.

And if the teams all agreed not to sign a player that was tagged, then wouldnt that be collusion?

What about drug testing, what about the personal conduct policy, ect......all of this was covered under the last CBA but since that CBA expired the league cannot do this anymore.


So I guess I am asking what the NFL is going to look like if the lockout is lifted but a new CBA has net yet been agreed to???

 

[CCBoy]

Franchise tags are really a detriment to a player's career. If teams want that ace in the whole, they better pay for it in the negotiation process before the next CBA. It is a valid contention...but previous standards are usually the starting point during an arbitration process. But this could well be chisseled out in the process as well. But to the player's benefits for top level mobility. It does little for the bottom run players to begin with. Those top contracts dictate even more roster movement in special team contributors and part-time Sunday players.

Players had best be smart when considering directions around these aspects...

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Since it looks like the players are going to get their injunction and the lockout will be lifted, will the owners just implement the 2010 rules for 2011?

One problem I see with that is the franchise tags. Without a CBA, franchise tags are as about as illegal as can be. So will Peyton Manning be an unrestricted free agent and free to sign with any team in the league? How would the Colts stop him if the tags are not valid.

And if the teams all agreed not to sign a player that was tagged, then wouldnt that be collusion?

What about drug testing, what about the personal conduct policy, ect......all of this was covered under the last CBA but since that CBA expired the league cannot do this anymore.


So I guess I am asking what the NFL is going to look like if the lockout is lifted but a new CBA has net yet been agreed to???

Well, if the lockout is lifted the NFLPA* would need to recertify for the owners to have an entity to negotiate an extension of the rules that governed the 2010 season.

Given they've balked at negotiating with the NFLPA* as a trade association up to this point, and the fact that the NFL still has a pending complaint with the NLRB, you might not see anything happen for a few weeks yet, even in the face of the fact that the old CBA prohibited the NFL from pursuing the sham complaint against a decertified NFLPA*.

I've grown a tad pessimistic that the injunction lifting the lockout is going to cause a great flurry of activity by both sides to get a new CBA in place. I think it's going to move us from one situation where the game was in limbo to another place where the game is in limbo with the players having access to team facilities.

Both sides could start negotiating again, but it doesn't mean either side is going to be any more amicable to getting a deal done than it was before. Smith is still going to be the same Smith that pissed off the federal mediator.

I'm curious if the owners, if they end up reaching a stalemate again with the NFLPA*, could declare the negotiations at an impasse and head back to the NLRB and/or federal court?

 

[bracey]

I don't think anyone knows the answer. The NFL hasn't given any hints because they have to publicly act like them winning is the only possibility. If the lockout is lifted, then the owners will have to set up whatever rules they want for the next season. The catch is the players would be able to challenge any rules in court. Many normal aspects of the NFL such as the draft, franchise tag, and restricted free agency are questionable under normal labor laws.

The owners would be under a lot of pressure to come to an agreement with the players that would force them to reform the union and make them unable to challenge these practices. So most likely, we'd end up with both sides agreeing to a deal similar to the previous CBA. No guarantees though. The owners could choose to impose anything they want and further test out the courts, a process that could take years. We'd have football in the meantime though.

 

[DallasEast]

The entire motivation behind the current mess centers on 1) the owners wanting to augment conditions of the collective bargaining agreement, which has not evolved enough over the past 16 years to their financial satisfaction and 2) the players do not. The key here will be both how much and how quickly will the trade association capitulate to certain concessions offered by the owners once the courts force both parties back to the negotiating table.

If the CBA cannot be changed to a degree which the owners find acceptable, it will be deemed a stalemate in their eyes. If football is played in 2011, it will be played under the 2010 rules.

All of the players and probably most fans will be happy and content once the games have resumed, but the owners will not. They will have, in effect, accomplished none of their long-term goals which they initially began seeking once they opted out of the old CBA.

That's what troubles me most. That's why I posed the question in another thread of, "Who is really in charge of the National Football League"? In all forms of business, it is customarily the owners. Owners are generally more receptive towards establishing labor peace whenever actual day-to-day business operations are harmonious with their expectations.

A return to "business as usual" ain't gonna cut it for them and they will eventually consider doing whatever it takes in having their conditions met. The sooner that happens, the quicker I will breathe more easily with the knowledge that future lockouts, threatened by the owners, will not be answered with decertification and litigation in 2012 and beyond, because all such actions will be unnecessary.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Since it looks like the players are going to get their injunction and the lockout will be lifted, will the owners just implement the 2010 rules for 2011?

Almost certainly, to my understanding. (That is, they'll almost certainly choose to run the league according to 2010 rules.)

 

[bracey]

Why do you all think 2010 rules would apply? To my knowledge, there's nothing in place that forces that. The 2010 rules were specific to the last year of the CBA and placed incentives on both sides (owners - no salary cap, players - extended year of RFA and limits on top 8 teams' FA signings). If there were to use a previous year's rules, I would think it would be 2009.

 

[dogberry]

For some of the owners having no salary bottom will be the key.

 

[supercowboy8]

Why do you all think 2010 rules would apply? To my knowledge, there's nothing in place that forces that. The 2010 rules were specific to the last year of the CBA and placed incentives on both sides (owners - no salary cap, players - extended year of RFA and limits on top 8 teams' FA signings). If there were to use a previous year's rules, I would think it would be 2009.

I heard on the radio last night, the great John Mclain said that they would go back to the 2010 rules, it says it in the last CBA that those are the rules until a new CBA is put in place. SO FA would start but your would have to be a 6 year vet to be URFA, any player with less then 6 years thats a FA will be a RFA. So Justin Blalock will be a RFA under the 2010 rules. The franchise tag would still be in place just like last year. But not many teams will do much due to that at one point a new CBA will be put in that will have a new salary cap so teams don't want to go out and sign a ton of players right now with out knowing what the new salary cap will be. Also Dallas will not cut players even though there would be no current salary cap because when the cap comes back it could still make those players big cap hits.

I don't think anything will happen if the lockout is lifted. All I think it willl do is maybe get a few players signed like Huff but not many. I think the major role would be for the owners to get a deal done quick.

 

[Sandyf]

Good points. We must remember the union decertified in 1987 after the failed strike and file anti-trust lawsuits which resulted in both sides coming together and forming a new CBA.

Several things. The NRLB is almost certain to rule against the owners that the decertification is legal although it could take months for that to happen. That is why the owners want the Judge to rule that they need to wait for the NRBL to make its ruling. It is nothing but the owners ploy to extend the lockout to get the players to get antsy and come back to the table with the owners having the upper hand because the players need money to survive.

It is a very high probability that Judge Nelson will rule in favor of the players on the injunction but what is not clear is how she will make that ruling. It is and will not be as cut and dried as the media is portraying. She does have many options such as 1) just end the lockout, 2) end the lockout and force mediation with herself as the mediator, 3) end the lockout and set the rules for the NFL year (yes, she can do that - not likely though), 4) rule for the owners and force mediation, 5) order a court order mediation with no ruling on the injunction, 6) defer to the NRLB - not likely, 7)lift the lockout by granting the injunction with stipulations and there are a multitude of what they could be.

The so called experts do not believe she will rule for several weeks, with two being the optimum number. Based on her questions yesterday especially those directed to Boies, the NFL attorney, I would say that she rules by next Monday or Tuesday. One thing that is clear from the questions and answers is that the NFL is operating as a monopoly which anyone with half a brain knew anyway. (Read Lester Munson question and answer on ESPN for clarification if you don't believe it)

The appeals process will most certainly begin after that with a fairly conservative 3 judge panel although in what Nelson has said it is highly doubtful they will overturn her. WHAT does all this mean is that there will be a new NFL year under some type of rules, just what rules is far from certain. Remember the owners do not want the 2010 rules especially from a draft standpoint so don't expect all the 2010 CBA rules to be implemented for the 2011 year if the lockout is lifted.

 

[bracey]

I heard on the radio last night, the great John Mclain said that they would go back to the 2010 rules, it says it in the last CBA that those are the rules until a new CBA is put in place. SO FA would start but your would have to be a 6 year vet to be URFA, any player with less then 6 years thats a FA will be a RFA. So Justin Blalock will be a RFA under the 2010 rules. The franchise tag would still be in place just like last year. But not many teams will do much due to that at one point a new CBA will be put in that will have a new salary cap so teams don't want to go out and sign a ton of players right now with out knowing what the new salary cap will be. Also Dallas will not cut players even though there would be no current salary cap because when the cap comes back it could still make those players big cap hits.

I don't think anything will happen if the lockout is lifted. All I think it willl do is maybe get a few players signed like Huff but not many. I think the major role would be for the owners to get a deal done quick.

Thanks for the good info.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Some good responses in this thread, really good stuff.


Thanks...........I agree that the judge is going to grant the injunction, but the key will be what she orders along with that. Mediation, her own set of rules, continuation of previous season rules, ect......


Stay tuned..........