There will be a CBA agreement before Free Agency

[Galian Beast]

They will simply continue to delay free agency until the deal gets done.

Why do you think no teams really cut big name players...

Why the Commanders haven't cut a single player yet...

No team is actually worried about any of these deadlines.

 

[Avery]

I agree. No CBA, no FA.

Pathetic. These deadlines are meaningless when they just get 'extended'. I think I'm going to propose to my credit card companies to 'extend' my due dates.

 

[Galian Beast]

I don't think they even care how badly this makes them look.

Why don't they argue about making cheaper apparel and lower ticket prices.

I honestly hate the nfl now. Love the cowboys, hate the nfl.

 

[Alexander]

They will simply continue to delay free agency until the deal gets done.

Why do you think no teams really cut big name players...

Why the Commanders haven't cut a single player yet...

No team is actually worried about any of these deadlines.

This would not shock me.

It was a bit strange now in retrospect that there was little to no sense of desperation in any of the cuts made to date.

You had a few right there before the first delay.

But once the league said it would "undo" those, not much.

Most of these players were gone anyways.

 

[Galian Beast]

What I want to see is a big market player who is trying to get into free agency with or without a cba, simply sue the hell out of the nfl and nflpa.

I don't know the legal technicalities, but I'm pretty sure you can't just extend someone's contract without their say so... while the nflpa represents the players, i don't really think they have the right to do this.

 

[peplaw06]

What I want to see is a big market player who is trying to get into free agency with or without a cba, simply sue the hell out of the nfl and nflpa.

I don't know the legal technicalities, but I'm pretty sure you can't just extend someone's contract without their say so... while the nflpa represents the players, i don't really think they have the right to do this.

Well, the players aren't under contract at the moment, they're still free agents. The only thing is teams can't sign them yet. It isn't a restriction on the players, it's a restriction on the teams.

However, there may be a legal suit possibility, though probably frivolous. With the extension and postponement of the free agency deadline, there is a loss of wages to the players. By the time Thursday comes, they could have been signed for almost a week. And who knows, it may be postponed again. The players could have received their first portion of their signing bonuses and could have been investing, etc. But there's probably a clause in the current CBA saying the commissioner may postpone the deadline, and absolving him and the league of liability.

 

[Galian Beast]

That isn't the case. The players are still under contract. Dan Campbell said it himself.

And it is essentially the same thing. It's barring players from getting work. Which violates antitrust law.

It would be like the Eagles getting all the teams in the nfl to avoid T.O. You can't do that.

And reading the CBA, it would appear that the NFLPA have already violated the current CBA. It says that players can't sue the NFL, but im sure they can sue the NFLPA.

But Im not reading this whole thing so who knows what I'm missing.

 

[peplaw06]

That isn't the case. The players are still under contract. Dan Campbell said it himself.

And it is essentially the same thing. It's barring players from getting work. Which violates antitrust law.

It would be like the Eagles getting all the teams in the nfl to avoid T.O. You can't do that.

And reading the CBA, it would appear that the NFLPA have already violated the current CBA. It says that players can't sue the NFL, but im sure they can sue the NFLPA.

But Im not reading this whole thing so who knows what I'm missing.

No no no, the free agents aren't under contract... They're not collecting a salary or performing any duties for their team. Free agents... restricted or no, became free agents as soon as the season ended. That's what the term Free Agent means... they aren't under contract.

There's a designated free agent signing period, but that has nothing to do with when the player's contract ends. How do you think Bentley has been able to negotiate with the Eagles for example?? If he's under contract, then that's tampering. TO is a different situation, because right now he's under contract. The Eagles have to release him before anyone can negotiate directly with him without involving the Eagles in trade negotiations.

You may be able to make an anti-trust claim for the delay in free agency periods, but since you said the CBA prevents suits against the NFL per the CBA (if that's even true, which I doubt), they have no suit. It's pointless anyway, because why sue your employer if you want to have a good relationship with them? You may then become "blackballed" and never play in the NFL again. That's not anti-trust if teams refuse to sign you. If TO wasn't that great of a player, no one would sign him with his troubles. Marcus Vick is going to run into the same problems, but his talent may not make up for it. Now if the NFL tells the teams not to negotiate with certain players, that's a different story. Players also probably can't sue the NFLPA, because they're not making the decision to postpone the beginning of free agency, Tagliabue and the NFL are.

 

[RiggoForever]

Well, the players aren't under contract at the moment, they're still free agents. The only thing is teams can't sign them yet. It isn't a restriction on the players, it's a restriction on the teams.

However, there may be a legal suit possibility, though probably frivolous. With the extension and postponement of the free agency deadline, there is a loss of wages to the players. By the time Thursday comes, they could have been signed for almost a week. And who knows, it may be postponed again. The players could have received their first portion of their signing bonuses and could have been investing, etc. But there's probably a clause in the current CBA saying the commissioner may postpone the deadline, and absolving him and the league of liability.

How do they lose wages? The contracts are still the same amount of $$$ valid from when the league year starts, no?

 

[AdamJT13]

That isn't the case. The players are still under contract. Dan Campbell said it himself.

And it is essentially the same thing. It's barring players from getting work. Which violates antitrust law.

Anything that's collectively bargained -- ie., agreed upon by the NFL and the NFLPA -- does not violate antitrust law. If the NFL and the NFLPA agree to push back the start of the new league year, that's perfectly legal. And yes, players still are under contract until the end of the 2005 league year. Players whose contracts will exppire -- such as LeCharles Bentley -- can't talk to any other teams until the free agency period begins.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

I agree. No CBA, no FA.

Pathetic. These deadlines are meaningless when they just get 'extended'. I think I'm going to propose to my credit card companies to 'extend' my due dates.

I disagree, the NFL gave teams more time to get under the cap, this CBA deal is all but History for 06', imo.

 

[Qwickdraw]

I agree. No CBA, no FA.

Pathetic. These deadlines are meaningless when they just get 'extended'. I think I'm going to propose to my credit card companies to 'extend' my due dates.

I tried that.
My CC company then put me on a "Lock Out".

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I just hope something gets done......

 

[burmafrd]

this makes the NFL and Players look like the Keystone Kops. Actually- that is an insult to the Kops.

 

[Chuck 54]

actually, this makes them look like smart business men...to start free agency before the deal is done, having teams throughout the league throwing out their high priced veterans and changing the entire face of the league one day, while making the deal in the next couple of days, would look far worse.

They are doing what needs to be done to keep teams together...I agree with that.

Most of the players cut would simply be waiting for their teams to resign them after the deal anyway....most of them are making far more money now than any of the other teams, including those under the cap like the cowboys, could afford to pay them.

Most of you guys just want to see other teams implode and release their best players in hopes of the Cowboys looking better...that's not good for the league.

Once the final CBA deal is signed, it will be business as usual, and the Cowboys need to build their team the same way everyone else has to.

 

[kingwhicker]

this makes the NFL and Players look like the Keystone Kops. Actually- that is an insult to the Kops.

Yes, I agree. I also agree that they will keep pushing the deadline back until a deal is done, even if it means going past the draft or even pushing it back. This is one of the most wheels off things I have ever seen and it's turning the league into a laughingstock.