NFL's Response To Players' Injunction Request

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

It's hard to keep up with all of the info posted on TSW, but to the best of my knowledge the two links below have not been posted here:

 

1. http://www.antitrusttoday.com/2011/03/22/players-hope-to-score-a-touchdown-in-brady-v-nfl/

 

Although I haven't been able to find a link to the court papers filed by the plaintiffs in the Brady suit, this antitrust law-oriented blog provides a short description of several things that the players are actually alleging in their suit.

 

2. http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/patriots/OppositionBrieffiled.pdf

 

This second link apparently contains a legal brief filed by the NFL in opposition to the players' currently pending request for a preliminary injunction - - it's from a link embedded in #1 above.

 

My apologies if either of these two links were previously posted. Anybody have a link to any of the actual court papers filed by the players?

[Hplarrm]

It's hard to keep up with all of the info posted on TSW, but to the best of my knowledge the two links below have not been posted here:

 

1. http://www.antitrusttoday.com/2011/03/22/players-hope-to-score-a-touchdown-in-brady-v-nfl/

 

Although I haven't been able to find a link to the court papers filed by the plaintiffs in the Brady suit, this antitrust law-oriented blog provides a short description of several things that the players are actually alleging in their suit.

 

2. http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/patriots/OppositionBrieffiled.pdf

 

This second link apparently contains a legal brief filed by the NFL in opposition to the players' currently pending request for a preliminary injunction - - it's from a link embedded in #1 above.

 

My apologies if either of these two links were previously posted. Anybody have a link to any of the actual court papers filed by the players?

Thanks for the links to actual primary sources for the issues in dispute rather than simply supplying the fact-free opinions which are totally legit on a bulletin board but really have little to do with reality.

 

It does amuse me when some seem to claim that the practices of the NFL and the NFLPA are simply the same as any employer/employee negotiation and in these cases no boss has any duty to reveal economic data about their business.

 

I think your primary information documents actually make it relatively clear that:

 

1. The NFL is like any normal business argument falls apart as an example based on what he NFL actually does. Think of it this way for folks who are trapped in the "what would a normal business do" the NFL through the lockout and most of all the draft in no way operates like a normal business. Lets say that in college you got a degree in computer science and decided to make that your career. Under normal business practices you might send your resume to Microsoft if you wanted to live in Oregon, to IBM if you wanted to live in Armonk, NY or to Hewlett-Packard of you wanted to live in Silicon Valley.

 

However, lets instead think if these competing companies instead operated like the NFL. These three companies )or choose steel manufacture, pharmaceuticals or virtually any market sector you want) instead all get together and hold a draft and inform you that if you want to do computer stuff you will have to work for and only work for whichever company (IBM, Microsoft, or Hewlett drafted you.

 

Sure computers (steel, pharma or whatever) industries are different than football so maybe to allow the league to exist you want to allow a draft even though it forces basic decisions on employees like where to live. However, the courts in their role in our society of protecting the individual has ruled that the un-American restraint of individual trade inherent in a draft is allowable as long as the individual players are allowed to designate a bargaining agent to negotiate rules with the NFL.

 

Without the fig leaf of the NFLPA providing a fig leaf to allow the teams to simply assign players where they will play this seems quite clearly to be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

In fact even with the collusion of the NFLPA the partnership between the team owners and the union seems to be likely to agree to some rookie salary cap which unilaterally takes away the ability for adults to negotiate with whatever team will give them the best deal.

 

For those who refuse to view the world this way this simply ask yourself why has the decert threat proved to be such a potent tactic for the players that after the NFL simply kick the butts of the old AFL-CIO types who managed the NFLPA in the mid -80s lockout that the threat to decertify caused the owners to run kicking and screaming to sign the CBA which in essence made the players partners with the team owners and then in the last CBA allowed Gene Upshaw to publicly dictate that the salary cap would be calculated based on total revenues and that the players share would have to start with a 6.

 

The team owners simply NEED the players to be their partners if in our America they are going to be allowed to dictate to the individual who there employer will be.

 

The pieces you lay out show fairly clearly to me that as long as the NFLPA sticks to their guns and as long as they get a judge like Doty who comes down in favor of individual rights the NFL is gonna get killed on this one.

[2003Contenders]

Hplarrm, the NFL is indeed a unique entity -- as is all of professional sports. There are many distinctions between the manner in which the NFL operates and, say, the IT industry that you allude to. I won't even touch on the money situation -- that is to say that I doubt very many people graduating with a BS degree in Computer Science with no experience are going to command a salary in excess of $200K from day one.

 

While all 32 teams represent a separate franchise and business unto themselves -- and indeed compete against one another -- the league itself is a singular entity. That makes it very unlike IBM vs. HP vs. Microsoft, etc. all of which are very different entities. You won't find a singular payscale, for example across each of these companies -- although the market drives competitive wages -- whereas, a payscale may exist within the confines of each company. Moreover, each player that enters the NFL draft fully understands the rules that he must abide by. If he chooses not to conform, he does have other options including the CFL, USFL, Arena League, etc. Or he could just choose another means of making a living. Obviously, it would be absurd to choose one of these options over the NFL for financial reasons.

[Mr. WEO]

Thanks for the links to actual primary sources for the issues in dispute rather than simply supplying the fact-free opinions which are totally legit on a bulletin board but really have little to do with reality.

 

It does amuse me when some seem to claim that the practices of the NFL and the NFLPA are simply the same as any employer/employee negotiation and in these cases no boss has any duty to reveal economic data about their business.

 

I think your primary information documents actually make it relatively clear that:

 

1. The NFL is like any normal business argument falls apart as an example based on what he NFL actually does. Think of it this way for folks who are trapped in the "what would a normal business do" the NFL through the lockout and most of all the draft in no way operates like a normal business. Lets say that in college you got a degree in computer science and decided to make that your career. Under normal business practices you might send your resume to Microsoft if you wanted to live in Oregon, to IBM if you wanted to live in Armonk, NY or to Hewlett-Packard of you wanted to live in Silicon Valley.

 

However, lets instead think if these competing companies instead operated like the NFL. These three companies )or choose steel manufacture, pharmaceuticals or virtually any market sector you want) instead all get together and hold a draft and inform you that if you want to do computer stuff you will have to work for and only work for whichever company (IBM, Microsoft, or Hewlett drafted you.

 

Sure computers (steel, pharma or whatever) industries are different than football so maybe to allow the league to exist you want to allow a draft even though it forces basic decisions on employees like where to live. However, the courts in their role in our society of protecting the individual has ruled that the un-American restraint of individual trade inherent in a draft is allowable as long as the individual players are allowed to designate a bargaining agent to negotiate rules with the NFL.

 

Without the fig leaf of the NFLPA providing a fig leaf to allow the teams to simply assign players where they will play this seems quite clearly to be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

In fact even with the collusion of the NFLPA the partnership between the team owners and the union seems to be likely to agree to some rookie salary cap which unilaterally takes away the ability for adults to negotiate with whatever team will give them the best deal.

 

For those who refuse to view the world this way this simply ask yourself why has the decert threat proved to be such a potent tactic for the players that after the NFL simply kick the butts of the old AFL-CIO types who managed the NFLPA in the mid -80s lockout that the threat to decertify caused the owners to run kicking and screaming to sign the CBA which in essence made the players partners with the team owners and then in the last CBA allowed Gene Upshaw to publicly dictate that the salary cap would be calculated based on total revenues and that the players share would have to start with a 6.

 

The team owners simply NEED the players to be their partners if in our America they are going to be allowed to dictate to the individual who there employer will be.

 

The pieces you lay out show fairly clearly to me that as long as the NFLPA sticks to their guns and as long as they get a judge like Doty who comes down in favor of individual rights the NFL is gonna get killed on this one.

The NBA, NHL and MLB all have drafts. Nothing unique about the NFL there. Also, the NFL does act as one "company". Also, steel and auto companies "need" skilled and experienced employees. They collectively bargain with the union that those skilled employees. Both sides sign a negotiated contract that lasts for a specified amount of time, after which a new contract needs to be renegotiated. The same terms of agrrement are unlikely when renegotiation takes place. Is any of this sounding familiar?

 

At no time does the auto industry consider it's employees business "partners".

 

As for "dictating to the individual who [their] employer will be"--that's known as the "draft". If you are advocating doing away with the draft (I don't believe the players want this), then the NFL as we have known it will cease to exist.

[Ramius]

The NBA, NHL and MLB all have drafts. Nothing unique about the NFL there. Also, the NFL does act as one "company". Also, steel and auto companies "need" skilled and experienced employees. They collectively bargain with the union that those skilled employees. Both sides sign a negotiated contract that lasts for a specified amount of time, after which a new contract needs to be renegotiated. The same terms of agrrement are unlikely when renegotiation takes place. Is any of this sounding familiar?

 

At no time does the auto industry consider it's employees business "partners".

 

As for "dictating to the individual who [their] employer will be"--that's known as the "draft". If you are advocating doing away with the draft (I don't believe the players want this), then the NFL as we have known it will cease to exist.

 

I'm shocked you actually take the time to read Hplarrm's middling, mindless, meandering drivel.

[Jeffery Lester]

By my very nature I am not a union "Guy". This situation just re-affirms to me why I am not. I feel the players in this are totally out of line and from the very beginning were just going to take this to court. The players got a great deal I mean great deal in the last CBA. The players want nothing else. They will be very happy to continue to play under the very favorable terms of the last CBA. In case the players do not realize the cost of living has gone up tremendously in the last 5 years. The price of Gasoline in 2006 on the west coast average was $2.38 on the gulf coast it was $2.08. Today prices on the west coast are $3.84 and the gulf coast $3.43. That is more than a 33% rise in cost over the last 5 years. This is just in one example. Nothing is cheaper today. This current group of players are not special. They are just the current group of players. They come and go every year. The league and teams remain. This is the important thing. Not how much can the individual player make in the next 1 or 2 years. The owners are looking out for there bottom line and there own wallets. NO doubt! The 32 teams/franchise are the back bone of this league. Not the players. The average career of a player is 3.5 years. Most teams have been owned for decades by the same person or family. This is the strength of the league. If you are a exceptional player in this league you are exceptionaly compensated for it. If you are a bad player in the league you are still compensated very well for it. I wish the Owners well in this dispute. These are the people I really on to keep the league healthy and functioning year in and year out not the transient players.

[Ramius]

By my very nature I am not a union "Guy". This situation just re-affirms to me why I am not. I feel the players in this are totally out of line and from the very beginning were just going to take this to court. The players got a great deal I mean great deal in the last CBA. The players want nothing else. They will be very happy to continue to play under the very favorable terms of the last CBA. In case the players do not realize the cost of living has gone up tremendously in the last 5 years. The price of Gasoline in 2006 on the west coast average was $2.38 on the gulf coast it was $2.08. Today prices on the west coast are $3.84 and the gulf coast $3.43. That is more than a 33% rise in cost over the last 5 years. This is just in one example. Nothing is cheaper today. This current group of players are not special. They are just the current group of players. They come and go every year. The league and teams remain. This is the important thing. Not how much can the individual player make in the next 1 or 2 years. The owners are looking out for there bottom line and there own wallets. NO doubt! The 32 teams/franchise are the back bone of this league. Not the players. The average career of a player is 3.5 years. Most teams have been owned for decades by the same person or family. This is the strength of the league. If you are a exceptional player in this league you are exceptionaly compensated for it. If you are a bad player in the league you are still compensated very well for it. I wish the Owners well in this dispute. These are the people I really on to keep the league healthy and functioning year in and year out not the transient players.

 

good post. In 10 years from now, the league won't be any worse because Manning and Brady are no longer playing. We'll be following the next set of superstars. The players are replaceable. The owners/league aren't.

[Mickey]

The NBA, NHL and MLB all have drafts. Nothing unique about the NFL there. Also, the NFL does act as one "company". Also, steel and auto companies "need" skilled and experienced employees. They collectively bargain with the union that those skilled employees. Both sides sign a negotiated contract that lasts for a specified amount of time, after which a new contract needs to be renegotiated. The same terms of agrrement are unlikely when renegotiation takes place. Is any of this sounding familiar?

 

At no time does the auto industry consider it's employees business "partners".

 

As for "dictating to the individual who [their] employer will be"--that's known as the "draft". If you are advocating doing away with the draft (I don't believe the players want this), then the NFL as we have known it will cease to exist.

 

The NBA and the NHL both have unions that are certified to serve as agents for its members in collective bargaining. No such union or collective bargaining agent exists with regard to professional football hence the comparison with those leagues is without merit. Baseball has an implied anti-trust exemption, the NFL does not so that comparison is also without merit.

 

You are correct that the current model of professional football would be unsustainable if the draft were done away with. That is not the same as saying that there will be no professional football. Players and the league have all recognized that they each have a compelling interest in perpetuating the status quo and that has been where the minds have met in the past resulting in the CBA that has governed the sport for years now and underwhich the game and the league have thrived and prospered. The owners want to change that status quo and the players are not willing to do so without either proof that change is necessary or a sweetening of the pot for them, or both. Hence the stand off.

 

The best way for the "NFL as we have known it" to continue is for the players to be successful enough in court that it forces the owners to work out a deal the players can live with. If the players don't get the injunction then the lockout is in effect, meaning no football. Losing the argument for an injunction has little relevance to the outcome of the suit as a whole.

 

The current argument on the injunction, from the standpoint of a fan, has the following possible outcomes:

 

1. Players win: no lockout, football continues as before while the litigation and negotiations proceed, the disupte will end when they finally agree or when somebody wins the case.

 

2. Owners win: lockout in force, no football until the parties reach a negotiated settlement or the litigation concludes.

 

Being a fan, I want the players to win this round because it means I get to keep my football while they argue over who gets the most quatloos.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Mickey

[Ramius]

The NBA and the NHL both have unions that are certified to serve as agents for its members in collective bargaining. No such union or collective bargaining agent exists with regard to professional football hence the comparison with those leagues is without merit. Baseball has an implied anti-trust exemption, the NFL does not so that comparison is also without merit.

 

You are correct that the current model of professional football would be unsustainable if the draft were done away with. That is not the same as saying that there will be no professional football. Players and the league have all recognized that they each have a compelling interest in perpetuating the status quo and that has been where the minds have met in the past resulting in the CBA that has governed the sport for years now and underwhich the game and the league have thrived and prospered. The owners want to change that status quo and the players are not willing to do so without either proof that change is necessary or a sweetening of the pot for them, or both. Hence the stand off.

 

The best way for the "NFL as we have known it" to continue is for the players to be successful enough in court that it forces the owners to work out a deal the players can live with. If the players don't get the injunction then the lockout is in effect, meaning no football. Losing the argument for an injunction has little relevance to the outcome of the suit as a whole.

 

The current argument on the injunction, from the standpoint of a fan, has the following possible outcomes:

 

1. Players win: no lockout, football continues as before while the litigation and negotiations proceed, the disupte will end when they finally agree or when somebody wins the case.

 

2. Owners win: lockout in force, no football until the parties reach a negotiated settlement or the litigation concludes.

 

Being a fan, I want the players to win this round because it means I get to keep my football while they argue over who gets the most quatloos.

 

Why do people believe that having the injunction is good for football? They claim that it will force the owners back to the table, but if the players win, why would they be more likely to negotiate? They'll rest on their laurels and push for more court wins instead of returning to the table.

 

Conversely, if the judge upholds the injunction, won't that effectively force the players back to the table? This is preferrable, since it was the players that left negotiations in the first place. De Smith wants this settled in court, so the best case scenario is for the courts to uphold the injunction, declare decertification a sham, and force the players back to the negotiating table.

[Mickey]

By my very nature I am not a union "Guy". This situation just re-affirms to me why I am not. I feel the players in this are totally out of line and from the very beginning were just going to take this to court. The players got a great deal I mean great deal in the last CBA. The players want nothing else. They will be very happy to continue to play under the very favorable terms of the last CBA. In case the players do not realize the cost of living has gone up tremendously in the last 5 years. The price of Gasoline in 2006 on the west coast average was $2.38 on the gulf coast it was $2.08. Today prices on the west coast are $3.84 and the gulf coast $3.43. That is more than a 33% rise in cost over the last 5 years. This is just in one example. Nothing is cheaper today. This current group of players are not special. They are just the current group of players. They come and go every year. The league and teams remain. This is the important thing. Not how much can the individual player make in the next 1 or 2 years. The owners are looking out for there bottom line and there own wallets. NO doubt! The 32 teams/franchise are the back bone of this league. Not the players. The average career of a player is 3.5 years. Most teams have been owned for decades by the same person or family. This is the strength of the league. If you are a exceptional player in this league you are exceptionaly compensated for it. If you are a bad player in the league you are still compensated very well for it. I wish the Owners well in this dispute. These are the people I really on to keep the league healthy and functioning year in and year out not the transient players.

 

Costs have gone up for sure, but so to has revenue. The players would be foolish to agree to a new deal based on the owner's claim that the current CBA isn't sustainable without making the owners prove that claim. Going to court is the only way to force that issue because in a law suit you have a little thing called "discovery". In discovery, each side gets to depose witnesses and demand documents.

 

The players know that wide open free agency would create bidding wars which would bankrupt teams leading to a pared down league of superteams which half the country would not care about. They have been willing to sacrifice their economic freedom to keep the machine humming, they just want to be compensated for the sacrifice. The owners are perfectly aware of the same realities and are willing to sacrifice a measure of their monetary sovreignty to keep the golden goose crapping golden eggs. Each side gives up something for the good of all. The players and the owners still accept the basic terms that have fostered labor peace and prosperity, they are fighting over just how their mutual sacrifices should be valued. The players are not on a free agency jihad and the owners are not out to turn the clock and player salaries back to 1964. Basically, they are haggling. The numbers are mind boggling to us mere mortals so it doesn't seem that way but in the end, that is what they are doing, haggling. The lawsuit is simply a tactical tool as is the lockout threat.

 

All that has to happen for a rival league to compete with the NFL to arise is for top tier talent to sign with a new league. It has happened twice before. Each time it was because the rival league was able to trigger bidding wars for the best players out of college forcing the NFL to eventually agree to a merger. I cheer for players, not guys in suits counting money. If there was a team in Buffalo that played well, that had good players and played against good teams, I'd root for them whether Ralph Wilson owned them or whether they played in the NFL or the GodKnowsWhatFL. I like football and if the NFL wants to give me a lockout instead of football, I'll gladly watch someone else.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Mickey

[KOKBILLS]

I'm shocked you actually take the time to read Hplarrm's middling, mindless, meandering drivel.

 

Thanks for the heads up!!! I'll remember for sure next time...

[Mickey]

Why do people believe that having the injunction is good for football? They claim that it will force the owners back to the table, but if the players win, why would they be more likely to negotiate? They'll rest on their laurels and push for more court wins instead of returning to the table.

 

Conversely, if the judge upholds the injunction, won't that effectively force the players back to the table? This is preferrable, since it was the players that left negotiations in the first place. De Smith wants this settled in court, so the best case scenario is for the courts to uphold the injunction, declare decertification a sham, and force the players back to the negotiating table.

 

The injunction is more likley to force the league to the table as well. The player's goal here isn't to win free agency or have the NFL declared to be in violation of the anti-trust laws. The suit is a tactic to get the league to show their cards which the players can then use to evaluate the offers the leauge is making.

 

At a simple level, without trying to predict the long term effect the injunction would have on future strategies, the league is locking out the players. That means no football, that is why they call it a lockout. If the injunction is granted, then there is no lockout, football goes on, regardless of the outcome of negotiations or the suit.

 

No lockout = football games on TV on Sunday

Lockout = no football games on Sunday

 

I don't really care who wins this struggle over $$. I just don't want it to result in there being no games. An injunction stopping the owner form locking out the player means football goes on. Thats good for me and I don't really care whose strategic position is improved. No injunction means no football setting up a game of revenue chicken to see which side can go the longest without $ before having to cave in and get a deal done. Players get paid per game so they don't start losing dollar one until late August, assuming they are willing to miss a few paychecks, that means no football in September.

[Mr. WEO]

The NBA and the NHL both have unions that are certified to serve as agents for its members in collective bargaining. No such union or collective bargaining agent exists with regard to professional football hence the comparison with those leagues is without merit. Baseball has an implied anti-trust exemption, the NFL does not so that comparison is also without merit.

 

You are correct that the current model of professional football would be unsustainable if the draft were done away with. That is not the same as saying that there will be no professional football. Players and the league have all recognized that they each have a compelling interest in perpetuating the status quo and that has been where the minds have met in the past resulting in the CBA that has governed the sport for years now and underwhich the game and the league have thrived and prospered. The owners want to change that status quo and the players are not willing to do so without either proof that change is necessary or a sweetening of the pot for them, or both. Hence the stand off.

 

The best way for the "NFL as we have known it" to continue is for the players to be successful enough in court that it forces the owners to work out a deal the players can live with. If the players don't get the injunction then the lockout is in effect, meaning no football. Losing the argument for an injunction has little relevance to the outcome of the suit as a whole.

 

The current argument on the injunction, from the standpoint of a fan, has the following possible outcomes:

 

1. Players win: no lockout, football continues as before while the litigation and negotiations proceed, the disupte will end when they finally agree or when somebody wins the case.

 

2. Owners win: lockout in force, no football until the parties reach a negotiated settlement or the litigation concludes.

 

Being a fan, I want the players to win this round because it means I get to keep my football while they argue over who gets the most quatloos.

A union representing the NFL players and colletively bargaining on their behalf existed until it "decertified" itself, so I don't get your point there. Since the merger of the NFL and AFL, the NFL has been exempt from antitrust action.

 

The lockout is not preventing the players from negotiating at all. In fact, the owners are essentially begging them to come back in their letter.

[Hplarrm]

The NBA, NHL and MLB all have drafts. Nothing unique about the NFL there.

 

 

 

Au contraire. The NFL draft is unique amongst these other drafts in that only it not only restricts individuals above the age of majority and in fact adults from being able to work in their chosen profession until the age 21. MLB and the NHL make a speculative arrangement and sign youngsters to minor league contracts and also maintain expensive minor league systems through contracts and ownership. The NBA enjoys much the same taxpayer subsidy of having state schools amongst others pay to train their workers, but again the NFL is unique in that at least in the NBA their are often utilized mechanisms where a talented individual can sell his services to the highest bidder once he becomes an adult,

 

This is part of the reason why I find it amusing when folks rail against the NFLPA that it has no case in claiming the NFL restricts individual market rights because actually it is the college players who have a far better case to be made that un-American practices which restrain the rights of commerce of individuals exist.

 

In fact it is the NFLPA which through its PARTNERSHIP with the team owners restricts the rights of individuals to sell their services. If one is going to try to base their argument on principles this is the biggest principle being abridged here.

 

Amusingly the NFL finds itself hoist on its own petard because though they gained the short-term benefit of acting like welfare queens profiting off of colleges paying for their training of workers, they now are paying the price of being outflanked by the talented tenth of adult players who handed them their head with the last two CBAs and I have not heard of any logical reason why there will not be the same result in this current dispute.

 

 

Also, the NFL does act as one "company". Also, steel and auto companies "need" skilled and experienced employees. They collectively bargain with the union that those skilled employees. Both sides sign a negotiated contract that lasts for a specified amount of time, after which a new contract needs to be renegotiated. The same terms of agrrement are unlikely when renegotiation takes place. Is any of this sounding familiar?

 

 

 

 

 

I refer you to the arguments made above (I think by ...Contenders) which lays out the case why the NFL is simply not like the auto, steel or industries but really is a case unto itself. I made my arguments mostly not because they are proof in and of themselves but actually to tease out the perspective that trying to use other examples of how industries operate with unions is actually foolhardy as this is such a unique case and business. One of the major departures from other examples is that in this entertainment business the mid 80s made the players partners with the owners when they forced agreement to a CBA with the decert threat (the owners realized that they simply could not operate without the players partnering with them to perform actions such as restraining young players through the salary cap(, In the current CBA, the players arguably became majority owners by dictating that they would receive over 60% of the total revenues.

 

Yes it looks familiar in that it demonstrates that the NFL/NFLPA partnership is a wholly different beast from the deals which gpvern other businesses.

 

At no time does the auto industry consider it's employees business "partners".

 

 

 

Auto workers do not operate in partnership with team owners the way the NFLPA does to restrict adults from being able to sign contracts. This is why decert has so terrified owners as it would deny them a partner and force them to actually compete for individual player services in a good ol American way. The NFL agreed to a partnership framewoek but negotiated an opt out and then exercised it claiming that the books drove them to do this. They then have refused to share the books with their partners in this deal.

 

As for "dictating to the individual who [their] employer will be"--that's known as the "draft". If you are advocating doing away with the draft (I don't believe the players want this), then the NFL as we have known it will cease to exist.

I also agree the players are not advocating giving up on the draft. In fact all they are advocating is maintain the current deal as agreed to (but the owners opted out as they were allowed to do). This is why the view which roots for the players to win the case against the lockout is correct for those who want football to return as it currently was.

 

It is the owners who have overturned the apple cart and the players are on record saying they would simply like things to continue on.

 

In addition, as amused as I would be to simply see the players deal out the owners as their are tons of sources of capital out there and the Packers demonstrate that a league could manage and operate without individual team owners, I do not think the players even want to get rid of the team owners. Instead, the move they seem to be headed toward is one where they weaken the owners by creating a new league (which I dubbed the (NewFL) which gives the NFLPA of adding members and increasind salaries as old leagues from the successful AFL to the unsuccessful USFL have done.

[spartacus]

In addition, as amused as I would be to simply see the players deal out the owners as their are tons of sources of capital out there and the Packers demonstrate that a league could manage and operate without individual team owners, I do not think the players even want to get rid of the team owners. Instead, the move they seem to be headed toward is one where they weaken the owners by creating a new league (which I dubbed the (NewFL) which gives the NFLPA of adding members and increasind salaries as old leagues from the successful AFL to the unsuccessful USFL have done.

 

This part is intriguing

 

 

Can't wait for the big name players to pool their resources to start a new league with all of the unsigned players to compete with the NFL. Peyton can lead the charge since he is unsigned.

 

All players should have to ante up bucks for their ownership interest in the team they will play for so they will have skin in the game. The players can be true "partners' with the owners of the league and share the real risk of ownership.

 

Any ownership will have to be as minority owners, since all of the teams in this new venture will need to be susidiaries of a single holding company to avoid anti-trust violations. This will also limit team individualism as all teams are subject to mandates by the league on all operating issues.

 

Since the players are owners of each team, their compensation for each year can be tied directly to the financial performance of each team with no salary guaranteed. if the team sucks and loses money, each player only gets a nominal paycheck reflective of the team's financial performance - audited statements will be freely available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JAMIEBUF12]

I say fire all the players and let the owners set their new rules and draft all new players....the decertification is a scam....the union was filing its decertification papers while still at the negotiating table.i also feel that when all this is over the head of the nflpa should not be allowed to be part of the new union.that should be the terms since they are technically not a union anymore...the players say the nfl locked them out,when in fact they caused

this by decertifying.when the last cba was signed the players knew there was a opt out clause.......in the modern nfl players change teams soooo much,that the fans root for the uniform more than the player anyways.....i could care less about the argument that we would be missing the tom bradys and peyton mannings.....if all the players are lesser talent it makes them even so you will still see lots of touchdowns and defense.no different than watching a good college game....

 

another thing.all this talk about the bills always on the list of leaving buffalo....maybe the nfl should consider moving the vikings to los angelous....it seems every weird nfl case goes to a favorable judge in minnesota.....like pat and kevin williams not allowed to be suspended by the nfl because of laws in minnesota,when the rest of the nfl players that tested positive had to serve their suspensions.the white case against the nfl was in minnesota and now this anti trust case...soooo if the nfl owners were smart they would just solve the l.a problem by eliminating the vikings residing in minnesota............go bills in'2011