Protecting the NFL Draft

[theogt]

So you completely discount what the players have asked for within their legal text, and yet maintain that that text is not fraudulent? Perhaps the players may agree to keep the draft in some final agreement, but to say that they are not threatening the draft, or that neither side has suggested it, seems to be either incorrect, or naively disregarding the exact language of the underlying brief.

Absolutely I am. The litigation is merely a tool, not an end game. The players do not want to get rid of the draft and free agency, as indicated by their statements to the contrary and by their multiple offers which included a draft and free agency. No statement otherwise has been made by the players.

You have to understand the role that the litigation is playing in this negotiation. Once you do, you'll recognize this.

 

[theogt]

Not so. The claim filed by Brady et al on March 11 identifies the draft, among other things, as an antitrust violation.

C'mon. You know better than this.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

C'mon. You know better than this.

If by know better, you mean that I don't believe that Brady v. NFL will get so far as to threaten the draft, yes I do. But Hos was dealing with the hypothetical case in which we don't have a CBA and football is still operating. In that context, Brady v. NFL is a real threat to the draft.

 

[Hostile]

If by know better, you mean that I don't believe that Brady v. NFL will get so far as to threaten the draft, yes I do. But Hos was dealing with the hypothetical case in which we don't have a CBA and football is still operating. In that context, Brady v. NFL is a real threat to the draft.

Exactly. His attempts to paint the players side of negotiations and tactics as only of the purest nature are hollow. The fact is he said this topic has not even been discussed by either side. He was proven to be wrong, but he is incapable of admitting that. It will simply be spun off by semantics. A common tactic that fools no one.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Only thing about the OP that I disagree with is the part about college ball taking a hit. Maybe I read it too quickly and misunderstood.

College has no draft. Kids go where they want to go.

 

[theogt]

If by know better, you mean that I don't believe that Brady v. NFL will get so far as to threaten the draft, yes I do. But Hos was dealing with the hypothetical case in which we don't have a CBA and football is still operating. In that context, Brady v. NFL is a real threat to the draft.

If we're noting it as a "real threat" only because it's a mere legal possibility, then there's also the hypothetical threat of a BCS-style championship being adopted in place of playoffs. Both are as likely to occur.

 

[theogt]

Exactly. His attempts to paint the players side of negotiations and tactics as only of the purest nature are hollow. The fact is he said this topic has not even been discussed by either side. He was proven to be wrong, but he is incapable of admitting that. It will simply be spun off by semantics. A common tactic that fools no one.

Do you think I'm ignorant? Do you think I haven't read every complaint and brief filed in this case? I know quite well what has been discussed and argued in the courts.

That discussion has ZERO -- can I say that more clearly? -- NOTHING, NADA, ZIP -- to do with what's on the table in negotiations.

This is purely the way it works. You can ask for the moon in litigation as a strategy. It does not mean that is what you want or even think you can get it. It does not mean that you're even asking for it in negotiations. The two have nothing to do with each other. I hope you can distinguish between a means and an end. As a means of getting what they want, the players are suing for something else. That something else isn't on the table in negotiations.

This is all purely a bogeyman dreamed up by the owners' PR machine.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Exactly. His attempts to paint the players side of negotiations and tactics as only of the purest nature are hollow. The fact is he said this topic has not even been discussed by either side. He was proven to be wrong, but he is incapable of admitting that. It will simply be spun off by semantics. A common tactic that fools no one.

Well good luck trying to argue otherwise

 

[burmafrd]

lawyers.

 

[sonnyboy]

Do you think I'm ignorant? Do you think I haven't read every complaint and brief filed in this case? I know quite well what has been discussed and argued in the courts.

That discussion has ZERO -- can I say that more clearly? -- NOTHING, NADA, ZIP -- to do with what's on the table in negotiations.

This is purely the way it works. You can ask for the moon in litigation as a strategy. It does not mean that is what you want or even think you can get it. It does not mean that you're even asking for it in negotiations. The two have nothing to do with each other. I hope you can distinguish between a means and an end. As a means of getting what they want, the players are suing for something else. That something else isn't on the table in negotiations.

This is all purely a bogeyman dreamed up by the owners' PR machine.

You said it yourself, "It's their nuclear option". It's at the core of the lawsuit they are using for leverage.

The problem with such a deterent is you have to be willing to push the botton. If things go the wrong way and it looks as if the 2011 will be lost, you better believe the players will be forced into a position where they have no choice but to push the botton.


This is why I started a thread last month to discuss a future NFL with no draft.

 

[theogt]

You said it yourself, "It's their nuclear option". It's at the core of the lawsuit they are using for leverage.

The problem with such a deterent is you have to be willing to push the botton. If things go the wrong way and it looks as if the 2011 will be lost, you better believe the players will be forced into a position where they have no choice but to push the botton.


This is why I started a thread last month to discuss a future NFL with no draft.

Let's look at the worst case scenario. Assume the owners and players do not come to an agreement and we miss all of the 2011 season and the players are forced to see the litigation to the end -- even then, in that worst case scenario, the players wouldn't require an NFL without a draft and free agency. Both the players and the owners would have to agree to that being the case. If the owners and the players agree to not having a draft, then we won't have one. Otherwise, there will always be a draft.

 

[sonnyboy]

Let's look at the worst case scenario. Assume the owners and players do not come to an agreement and we miss all of the 2011 season and the players are forced to see the litigation to the end -- even then, in that worst case scenario, the players wouldn't require an NFL without a draft and free agency. Both the players and the owners would have to agree to that being the case. If the owners and the players agree to not having a draft, then we won't have one. Otherwise, there will always be a draft.

I can't speak to this with any degree of expertise.

But I always thought continuing on with out a CBA was always an option.

The parties hit an impasse and the NFL says "puck it".

We're starting the the new league year and here are all the rules, non of which violate anti-trust laws. I.E. No Draft, No Salary Cap and No to a lot of other things the maintained the competitive balance.

 

[theogt]

I can't speak to this with any degree of expertise.

But I always thought continuing on with out a CBA was always an option.

The parties hit an impasse and the NFL says "puck it".

We're starting the the new league year and here are all the rules, non of which violate anti-trust laws. I.E. No Draft, No Salary Cap and No to a lot of other things the maintained the competitive balance.

You could simply carry on under 2010 rules, which the players would certainly agree to, while negotiating for a new CBA/resolution of the litigation.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Let's look at the worst case scenario. Assume the owners and players do not come to an agreement and we miss all of the 2011 season and the players are forced to see the litigation to the end -- even then, in that worst case scenario, the players wouldn't require an NFL without a draft and free agency. Both the players and the owners would have to agree to that being the case. If the owners and the players agree to not having a draft, then we won't have one. Otherwise, there will always be a draft.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but you seem to have things reversed. The truth is that the players and owners have to agree through collective bargaining that there can be a draft, failing which a draft is, on its face, in violation of antitrust law.

If the players and owners never reach agreement on another thing, and this litigation is resolved by final determination of a court, there is a very real chance that the draft will go the way of the Dodo bird on the basis that, absent a collective bargaining agreement, it is a violation of the Sherman Act.

 

[Plankton]

You could simply carry on under 2010 rules, which the players would certainly agree to, while negotiating for a new CBA/resolution of the litigation.

The owners would never agree to a situation that would create a slam dunk win in litigation for the players. Playing under the 2010 rules would do just that. This is one of the reasons why they locked the players out after they decertified. Implementing rules of any kind would leave them liable.

 

[Hostile]

Only thing about the OP that I disagree with is the part about college ball taking a hit. Maybe I read it too quickly and misunderstood.

College has no draft. Kids go where they want to go.

Colleges will not be able to make them stay. That is what I mean by them taking a hit.

 

[Hostile]

Do you think I'm ignorant? Do you think I haven't read every complaint and brief filed in this case? I know quite well what has been discussed and argued in the courts.

That discussion has ZERO -- can I say that more clearly? -- NOTHING, NADA, ZIP -- to do with what's on the table in negotiations.

This is purely the way it works. You can ask for the moon in litigation as a strategy. It does not mean that is what you want or even think you can get it. It does not mean that you're even asking for it in negotiations. The two have nothing to do with each other. I hope you can distinguish between a means and an end. As a means of getting what they want, the players are suing for something else. That something else isn't on the table in negotiations.

This is all purely a bogeyman dreamed up by the owners' PR machine.

No, I do not think you are ignorant. I have said as much on numerous occasions. However, I stand by my comment that you do not seem capable of admitting your comment was wrong. You plainly said the subject has not even been addressed and that is incorrect. There is no way to spin it yet you try with these semantics.

 

[Hostile]

The owners would never agree to a situation that would create a slam dunk win in litigation for the players. Playing under the 2010 rules would do just that. This is one of the reasons why they locked the players out after they decertified. Implementing rules of any kind would leave them liable.

Exactly and I addressed that in the OP.

 

[theogt]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but you seem to have things reversed. The truth is that the players and owners have to agree through collective bargaining that there can be a draft, failing which a draft is, on its face, in violation of antitrust law.

If the players and owners never reach agreement on another thing, and this litigation is resolved by final determination of a court, there is a very real chance that the draft will go the way of the Dodo bird on the basis that, absent a collective bargaining agreement, it is a violation of the Sherman Act.

No, I do not have anything backwards. The only way in which a draft is not in place is if the owners agree to take it to that end via choosing not to come to some agreement to settle the litigation. Even if the litigation was taken to its end and the draft declared in violation of antitrust law, on the very next day the players and owners could agree to have a draft. Thus, the only way in which a draft is not in place is if the owners choosing to not have one in place.

 

[Hostile]

No, I do not have anything backwards. The only way in which a draft is not in place is if the owners agree to take it to that end via choosing not to come to some agreement to settle the litigation. Even if the litigation was taken to its end and the draft declared in violation of antitrust law, on the very next day the players and owners could agree to have a draft. Thus, the only way in which a draft is not in place is if the owners choosing to not have one in place.

This is incorrect.