The new CBA

adrian522

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Up until today I was on the players side in this dispute but going by some of the reports emerging at the moment it appears that the owners were willing to make many concessions to get a deal done and the NFLPA were not budging from their position as they felt they could get a better deal through the courts. Basically the NFLPA had no interest in doing a deal at this stage and was set to decertify all along.

On the shortened season question.. I'm under the impression that play would resume/continue while the whole process goes through the courts?? I'm unclear as to how free agency is affected by this whole litigation process.. does the old CBA stay in place until a new agreement is reached or are those FA's in limbo?

Edit: PFT reporting that free agency could start tonight!!

No, The current CBA expires at mid night tonight. I don't think that any games can take place until there is a new agreement unless the players win their court case and get an injunction against a lockout.

On a side note, I am also unbelievably pissed off at both sides for not being able to come to an agreement.

18 of the top 20 shows on us tv the last season were football games and these guys cant get together to figure out how to divvy up $9 billion per year

Itssoeasy

The last CBA expired in 2008 but there was an opt out clause and they had at least two years to get a deal done and these selfish pricks on BOTH SIDES seems to have decided to deprive all fans of a full football season this year. I mean how fair is this to Indy if it is an extended work stoppage.

raven136

who is more to blame.

If you are the union and the owners want you to have less money and not show you their books then surely you would be seriously pissed off?

Sad they couldnt come to an agreement.

eagle eye

There is no side right. Greed on both sides will rob us of football in 2011. The fans are big losers here.

Both sides are big losers too, so stupid when you think about it. They can't come to an agreement and both sides loses huge money as a result.

Mr. Guappa

Some thoughts on what all this means from some people more informed than I: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

Now that the union has decertified, many of you are wondering what it all means and what will happen next. As one league source put it moments after the NFLPA went out of business, no one knows — and anyone who says they know is lying.
For now, let’s at least try to make sense of what has happened, and what could occur in the future.
What is decertification?
“Decertification” refers to the union’s decision to cease operations as the collective bargaining representative of the players. The NFLPA has now become merely a trade association with no power to talk on behalf of the players. The players are now all non-union workers.
The term “disclaimer of interest” has been used by folks like NFL outside counsel Bob Batterman to characterize the move. NFLPA spokesman George Atallah tells PFT that, in the NFLPA’s opinion, decertification and “disclaimer of interest” mean the same thing.
Why did the union decertify?
The most immediate goal of decertification is to prevent a lockout, since the owners of 32 separate businesses can’t shut the doors on a non-union workforce without violating antitrust laws. The league fears that the union will move very quickly to prevent a lockout, possibly seeking (and possibly obtaining) an order forcing the NFL teams to continue to operate — and thus to commence the new league year — by 12:01 a.m. Saturday.
Will the NFL oppose decertification?
Presumably, yes. But the process could be complicated.
Last month, the league filed an unfair labor practices charge with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that the union was simply going through the motions in the hopes of unleashing the decertification-and-litigation strategy. The NFL will surely try to get the NLRB to determine whether the decertification is a “sham” aimed merely at building leverage (which, frankly, it is), and the players will try to have that issue resolved by Judge David Doty.
As we pointed out earlier today, the Collective Bargaining Agreement contains language indicating that, under certain circumstances, the NFL will have waived the “sham” argument making the union’s strategy far more likely to succeed.
When will the players try to block a lockout?
They could move quickly. Already, an antitrust lawsuit has been filed. The lawsuit possibly requests an immediate order preventing a lockout.
The specific dynamics and timetable of the litigation currently remain unknown. As we suggested last night, Judge David Doty could prevent a lockout while the litigation proceeds. The lockout also could be blocked while any appeals are pursued by the league or the NFLPA.
As we’ve reported, teams are bracing for the possibility that Judge Doty will issue an order as soon as tonight that a lockout may not occur, setting the stage for free agency to begin at 12:01 a.m. ET Saturday. At this point, no one knows what will happen.
What happens if the attempt to block a lockout fails?
If the NFL successfully prevents decertification or beats back a lawsuit aimed at stopping a lockout after decertification, the league would have the ability to shut down the sport as leverage against the players, in the hopes that the players eventually will decide to do a deal that allows them to get back on the field.
Make no mistake about it — the NFL will try to implement a lockout. Preventing players from playing, and thus from getting paid, is the league’s ultimate leverage toward a favorable labor deal. Conversely, letting them play while antitrust litigation unfolds would essentially fund the lawsuit and allow the players to see the case through to a favorable outcome, maximizing their leverage every step of the way.
What happens if the lockout is blocked?
At that point, the league will have to decide on the rules to be applied in 2011. Any rules used will expose the league to antitrust liability based on the argument that 32 separate businesses can’t come together and agree to rules for “drafting” employees and holding them in place after their individual contracts expire, via RFA tenders or the franchise tag. Also, a salary cap would potential violate antitrust laws.
The lawsuit could linger for years, but football would also continue. That’s precisely what happened the last time the union decertified, after the 1987 strike. The league continued, the players sued, the players eventually won a preliminary judgment, and the two sides struck a deal that became the first Collective Bargaining Agreement to include real free agency rights and a salary cap.
Will there still be a draft?
The only thing we know at this point is that a draft will still occur, from April 28 though April 30. Even in a lockout, the 2011 draft will happen.
What does it all mean to the fans?
Most immediately, free agency won’t happen until a court order is entered blocking a lockout, or until a lockout is resolved via a new labor deal. To the extent that fans are rooting for an outcome, they should be rooting for the players’ strategy to succeed, quickly.
If it does, we’ll have a full offseason and football while the fight shifts to the courtroom.
All that said, don’t believe for a second that the NFLPA launched this strategy for the fans. It was the best move aimed at getting the best deal; the fact that it entails football continuing is coincidental. Nearly 25 years ago, the NFLPA decided that going on strike was in the players’ best interests. That time around, they surely didn’t pick a course of action that time aimed at helping the fans.
Frankly, no one really cares about the fans right now. They pretend they do, but they don’t. Each side wants to cut its best deal, and none of this is being done for our benefit.
If any other sport was even remotely interesting to me, I’d tell both sides to shove it right now and go find something else to cover. But those of us who love the sport have no choice but to wait. Eventually, plenty of us who love the sport could wake up one day and decide they don’t love it any more.

ReacherCreature

So, in sum, clusterfcuk?

Itssoeasy

To be fair seeing as I posted the league's statement, I'll post the players association's statement.
NFL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION STATEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The NFL Players Association announced today it has informed the NFL, NFL clubs and other necessary parties that it has renounced its status as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the players of the National Football League.

The NFLPA will move forward as a professional trade association with the mission of supporting the interests and rights of current and former professional football players.

As a football fan both the league and union ****ed this up and are both greedy
parties.

mikemac

Wonder if we can get Shane Falco out of retirement....again



His services might be needed

bruschi

feelingstressed wrote: »

Big losers here are the free agents the fans

IMO

mikemac

Well yes, I'd agree with that and posted that earlier in the thread

adrian522

feelingstressed wrote: »

Well yes, I'd agree with that and posted that earlier in the thread

The big losers here are people who make a living off football but are not directly involved i.e caterers, medical staff, stadium workers etc.

From what I understand the best case scenario for us fans would be for the players to win their court case and have this season continue under the old CBA terms and let the court cases proceed alongside the football season.

Worst case scenario the NFL wins their case and forces a lockout in which case no football until all the legal issues are resolved.

irishbucsfan

The NFLPA have misled the players. They are the real fools here.

The owners offered deals that had them come much closer to the NFLPA, but the NFLPA refused to budge on a ridiculous request for 10 years of financials from the owners.

I have little sympathy for the players here, but in fairness to them it seems they were completely misrepresented.



Goodell:

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

PeakOutput

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The NFLPA have misled the players. They are the real fools here.

The owners offered deals that had them come much closer to the NFLPA, but the NFLPA refused to budge on a ridiculous request for 10 years of financials from the owners.

I have little sympathy for the players here, but in fairness to them it seems they were completely misrepresented.



Goodell:

the owners want 1BILLION dollars extra off the top because they are saying they arent earning enough, you dont think its reasonable for the players to ask them to prove how much they are or arent making before agreeing to hand over 1BILLION dollars?

GoldFour4

Letter emailed from nfl to everyone on nfl.com


Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.



Yours,
Roger Goodell

adrian522

A lot of spin from both sides and neither of them are right. They need to.get it sorted and quickly so this season us not ruined.

mikemac

Jets put 96 staff on furlough which I suppose means unpaid leave

Here are the losers right here. Security, secretaries, personal assistants, IT people, etc
To hear of almost 100 staff affected is sad

Then multiply across all 32 teams
Then look at thousands employed at the stadiums

Get the CBA done godammit! :mad: There is plenty of blame on both sides

irishbucsfan

feelingstressed wrote: »

Jets put 96 staff on furlough which I suppose means unpaid leave

Here are the losers right here. Security, secretaries, personal assistants, IT people, etc
To hear of almost 100 staff affected is sad

Then multiply across all 32 teams
Then look at thousands employed at the stadiums

Get the CBA done godammit! :mad: There is plenty of blame on both sides

Not forgetting that no NFL in 2011 means a loss of $140 million to each city with an NFL team.

the owners want 1BILLION dollars extra off the top because they are saying they arent earning enough, you dont think its reasonable for the players to ask them to prove how much they are or arent making before agreeing to hand over 1BILLION dollars?

The owners have offered to show their details from 2006 to the NFLPA to prove that they're making less money. The NFLPA declined:

Doug Ellis wrote:

"The union didn't even want to look at it. They claimed the information was useless. But the fact is this: Since the agreement in 2006 was struck, players' costs have risen at double-digit percentages and owners' profits around the league essentially were at single-digit increases, if any. You get one line going one way and another line going the other way as you're trying to grow the game and make the game better. That's what the owners were putting on the table in a very genuine way."

Neither side is correct, but the owners are the only side that seems to be approaching the matter fairly and offering compromises. The NFLPA is hiding behind the court system.

frostie500

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Neither side is correct, but the owners are the only side that seems to be approaching the matter fairly and offering compromises. The NFLPA is hiding behind the court system.

No doubt that both sides are to blame but you would have to ask whether the NFLPA have been getting the best advice so far.

While the pair are fighting over a bigger slice of the best part of $10 billion it is terrible to see posts like feelingstressed's saying of 100 people being put on leave at just one team. There are likely to be at least 4000 staff in a similar situation throughout the league fighting to put food on their tables while players, with a minimum salary of $400,000 try and garner public support.

There are no winners in this battle but the teams and players know that once a deal is sorted we will all switch on the telly and watch a game, fans will still pack the stadiums and this will all be forgotten about quite quickly as focus shifts to the postseason and hopes of winning a superbowl

irishbucsfan

Its a shame that there couldn't be a system where they could extend last year's CBA again for this season and play whilst negotiating. That would save thousands of jobs.

Of course that's what the NFLPA were expected to do for the past two years, and thats why the original extension was added to the last CBA, but they refused to talk.

adrian522

The NFLPA are advising players not to attend the draft this year and they plan to hold a 'rival' event just down the street.

This could turn out to be a huge PR own goal if it goes ahead.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6216135

Itssoeasy

I would be more of the side of the NFL and teams because of two words DEMAURICE SMITH. I just don't think he is a good director of what was the NFLPA. I mean using the phrase "we are at war," was when I felt things were not going to end well for the CBA. I just think the guy has his own agenda and isn't in it to help the players.

bruschi

another bump to the first page.

not looking good really. predictions of a July 4th date to be met to get a season in.

http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29479613

also on the CBS site there, Mike Freeman disses Peyton for shying away from the camera and keeping away from the media. to be honest, I give Manning a load of abuse, but its not needed there. He is doing much the same as everyone else. Keeping quiet, and letting the heads of things get things sorted. and apart from anything, his wife just gave birth to his first children, twins, at the end of March. I'm sure he has other things on his mind rather than get in a bitch fight over money at this stage of negotiations.

mikemac

Jason La Canfora - Aug. 15

Vic Carucci - around the Fourth of July

Steve Wyche - no later than July 9

Charles Davis - Aug. 22, 2011

Pat Kirwan - July 15

Just some predictions from people in the media when this will be resolved

Mr. Guappa

mikemac wrote: »

Just some predictions from people in the media when this will be resolved

They are all nfl.com guys though. I've seen far worse predictions from most other media sources.

mikemac

Adam Schefter

Just to clarify: Any player with 4, 5 or 6 years of service -- whose contract is expired -- is expected to be an unrestricted free agent.

Pretty significant, the moment the lock out if lifted there will be a lot of free agents out there and teams struggling to sign their targets

me-skywalker

Update on Goodell and Smith having a 4 day love-in!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82085155/article/good-sign-goodell-smith-travel-together-to-rookie-seminar?module=HP_headlines

Last week, one team executive told NFL Network that owners and players were within "striking distance" of a deal, but that nothing was close or imminent. But another involved executive said: "There are enough legitimate issues to where it could all fall down still. They're dealing with that stuff."