PFT: Batterman lays out league’s options for March 4

[cowboyjoe]

Batterman lays out league’s options for March 4
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/19/batterman-lays-out-leagues-options-for-march-4/
Posted by Mike Florio on January 19, 2011, 2:12 PM EST
Veteran labor lawyer Bob Batterman, who is working for the NFL in connection with the current labor negotiations, appeared on today’s PFT Live and discussed various topics relating to the ongoing labor dispute.

The main question that we, and many of you, have is simple. What will happen on March 4, when the current labor agreement ends?

Though Batterman won’t tell (and we didn’t ask) the league’s strategy when the clock literally strikes 12, he laid out the league’s options.

First, the league can impose a lockout.

Second, the league can declare an impasse in the talks and impose its last offer as the new rules for 2011. (We explained last night that the league could indeed be planning to declare an impasse as of March 4.)

Third, the league can do nothing, continuing to operate under the terms of the current deal. This last option would mean that, come 12:01 a.m. ET on March 4, teams could begin to sign unrestricted free agents from other teams. If, for example, the Eagles don’t apply the franchise tag to Mike Vick, the Commanders could sign him before the imposition of a lockout.

 

[Sandyf]

If the owners know what they are going to set as the salary cap then option 3 becomes a very real alternative. Even though a new CBA would really determine a salary cap the the $ amount of it, the owners could institute what they believe it would be if there is even one.

This would allow teams to sign free agents and put the team together for 2011. Then they could proceed with the draft and just not sign any of the drafted players until a new CBA was reached which undoubtedly will have a rookie salary cap.

So really business as usual until say mid to late June when they could go to the lockout phase to try and force the issue. Probably would mean the loss of a couple of preseason games (like who cares) but yet every team would be ready for the season opener.

Should be interesting.

 

[JBS]

I was always under the impression that if there wasn't a cba then the lockout would begin immediately (midnight 3-4-11). Hmm, option 3 is an interesting situation.

 

[Nirvana]

Option 3 isn't likely as the owners want nothing to do with the current agreement. The owners will select option 2, the union will decertify, sue on anti-trust grounds, and strike. Sometime in September there will be enough players disgruntled that it forces the owner's demands to be agreed to.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Option 3 isn't likely as the owners want nothing to do with the current agreement. The owners will select option 2, the union will decertify, sue on anti-trust grounds, and strike. Sometime in September there will be enough players disgruntled that it forces the owner's demands to be agreed to.

If the union decertifies, expect the owners to file an injunction in federal court.

Option 3 is really the best solution while things get worked out. I think it gives the NFL the best chance to keep faith with the fans that they're committed to playing football in 2011. If the NFLPA decertifies with the NFL having an operating plan in place while attempting negotiations, then the players come out looking like the biggest group of ******** on the planet.

 

[LatinMind]

Option 3 isn't likely as the owners want nothing to do with the current agreement. The owners will select option 2, the union will decertify, sue on anti-trust grounds, and strike. Sometime in September there will be enough players disgruntled that it forces the owner's demands to be agreed to.

forces? the owners will be making tens of millions still because of tv deals. Players have no chance to win this. ZERO

 

[cowboyjoe]

forces? the owners will be making tens of millions still because of tv deals. Players have no chance to win this. ZERO

right, the players made a deal last time, and made some money; now its time to give alittle back to the owners and the fans;

 

[Hoofbite]

right, the players made a deal last time, and made some money; now its time to give alittle back to the owners and the fans;

Fans will get nothing out of this deal.

 

[btcutter]

Fans will get nothing out of this deal.

higher ticket prices and Sunday ticket price.

 

[Ashwynn]

Have a question about the union decertifying?

Lets say that happens, can the League say "alrighty, All contracts are void since they were written under a union agreement and that union no longer exists, every player is a free agent, You can sign with anybody you want".

If I were Goodell, that would be my answer to this move. Just dont know if they can legally do that.

 

[Nirvana]

Originally Posted by Nirvana
Option 3 isn't likely as the owners want nothing to do with the current agreement. The owners will select option 2, the union will decertify, sue on anti-trust grounds, and strike. Sometime in September there will be enough players disgruntled that it forces the owner's demands to be agreed to.

forces? the owners will be making tens of millions still because of tv deals. Players have no chance to win this. ZERO

Right. I think you misread what I said. Forces the demands of the owners to be agreed to. Once the players start missing out on some paychecks, the union leaders will receive intense internal pressure to make a deal. Until then, the union will try to use the leverage of missed revenues from games to get the owners to act, litigation, Congress, public opinion, etc. but it won't work.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Right. I think you misread what I said. Forces the demands of the owners to be agreed to. Once the players start missing out on some paychecks, the union leaders will receive intense internal pressure to make a deal. Until then, the union will try to use the leverage of missed revenues from games to get the owners to act, litigation, Congress, public opinion, etc. but it won't work.

I think it's going to be either option 2 or 3. Realistically, option 3 is the best because it allows the league to continue to operate via free agency and the draft while working on the new CBA with the players. Moreover, from a PR standpoint, Option 3 gives them the best marketing angle. They've extended an olive branch, albiet with thorns, to the NFLPA to continue working while negotiating.

If the NFLPA turns down option 3 and goes the other route, the court of public opinion, and that includes the players, will swing against the NFLPA.

 

[deadrody]

According to Batterman - who is working with the league - there is no chance of option 3. That is what the players want. Not going to happen.

I think it's going to be either option 2 or 3. Realistically, option 3 is the best because it allows the league to continue to operate via free agency and the draft while working on the new CBA with the players. Moreover, from a PR standpoint, Option 3 gives them the best marketing angle. They've extended an olive branch, albiet with thorns, to the NFLPA to continue working while negotiating.

If the NFLPA turns down option 3 and goes the other route, the court of public opinion, and that includes the players, will swing against the NFLPA.

 

[Nirvana]

I think it's going to be either option 2 or 3. Realistically, option 3 is the best because it allows the league to continue to operate via free agency and the draft while working on the new CBA with the players. Moreover, from a PR standpoint, Option 3 gives them the best marketing angle. They've extended an olive branch, albiet with thorns, to the NFLPA to continue working while negotiating.

If the NFLPA turns down option 3 and goes the other route, the court of public opinion, and that includes the players, will swing against the NFLPA.

Option 3 is exactly what the NFLPA wants-the status quo. The top earning owners want to re-do the CBA and not have to write checks to the lower profit. teams. The only way that gets done is to force the issue. No deal will ever get done with option 3.

 

[Nirvana]

I think it's going to be either option 2 or 3. Realistically, option 3 is the best because it allows the league to continue to operate via free agency and the draft while working on the new CBA with the players. Moreover, from a PR standpoint, Option 3 gives them the best marketing angle. They've extended an olive branch, albiet with thorns, to the NFLPA to continue working while negotiating.

If the NFLPA turns down option 3 and goes the other route, the court of public opinion, and that includes the players, will swing against the NFLPA.

Was just reading up on this some more and I think option 3 is better stated as the way things were in 2010, which didn't have a salary cap, a salary floor, or supplemental revenue sharing by the owners.

This could be the option the league takes after the union elects to decertify, as covered by Florio here:

If decertfication happens, the league then would be compelled to craft across-the-board rules regarding free agency, the draft, and player salaries. The union would likely respond by filing an antitrust lawsuit, arguing that the league consists of 32 separate businesses that cannot work together to place common limits on its workers. (This is why the American Needle case was viewed as being critical to the labor situation, even though the facts center on marketing deals. If the league had secured a ruling from the Supreme Court that it is one business, an antitrust claim based on labor rules may have been doomed from the start.)

A league source with knowledge of the labor dynamics recently told us that the NFL could respond to decertification by simply applying in 2011 the rules that applied in 2010: no salary cap, no salary floor, six years to unrestricted free agency, no rookie wage scale (Andrew Luck just peed a little), one franchise tag per team, continuation of drug and steroids policies. The league would adopt this approach in the hopes that it would survive an antitrust challenge; though the NFL lost the American Needle case as it relates to whether the league is one business, the Supreme Court’s written ruling strongly suggests that a pro sports league may have a valid, legal reason to apply across-the-board labor rules.

With no salary cap and no salary floor, teams would be permitted to spend as little or as much on players as they choose — a dynamic that didn’t hurt franchises like the Chiefs, Buccaneers, or Jaguars in 2010, each of whom were far more successful than big-spending teams like the Cowboys and Commanders.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/12/ten-things-to-know-about-the-labor-situation/

The bright spot with this option is it keeps football being played while the CBA issues get resolved.

Owners with lower profit margins would be tight on their wallets, while owners like Jerry Jones could open them wider and sign FAs like Nnamdi.