Buffalo judge to decide fate of NFL,

DanInUticaTampa · April 12, 2011

Every media outlet has been reporting that the players want to negotiate in a courtroom setting where any agreement could/would be binding. The owners want a mediator that is non-binding. I'm not sure why you keep refuting this.

Just because the players want binding mediation, doesn't mean this is binding mediation. There is no credible news outlet in the world that has said that the mediation that starts on thursday is going to be binding or not.

Edited April 12, 2011 by DanInUticaTampa

Ramius · April 12, 2011

Just because the players want binding mediation, doesn't mean this is binding mediation. There is no credible news outlet in the world that has said that the mediation that starts on thursday is going to be binding or not.

No, and that was my point. The players want binding mediation (which is what papazoid is arguing against), the owners don't. I've not seen anywhere that this is binding mediation, so this round goes to the owners.

I dont have a link for the players requests, because it was said on total access on NFLN.

papazoid · April 12, 2011

No, and that was my point. The players want binding mediation (which is what papazoid is arguing against), the owners don't. I've not seen anywhere that this is binding mediation, so this round goes to the owners.

I dont have a link for the players requests, because it was said on total access on NFLN.

there is no link.....because the players have NEVER asked for "binding" mediation.

Mr. WEO · April 12, 2011

lol.....so you have no source.......stop using the word BINDING.....the players are NOT going to give up their collective bargaining rights by submitting to BINDING mediation. they are looking for the most advantagious venue to discuss the issues. that is thru the anti-trust Tom Brady et al litigation in a minnesota court thru NON-binding mediation....just like last time, those negotiations led to a settlement. there is no agreement ENFORCED by the courts....Nelson's involvement won't be binding, but she would have more ability to control talks than Cohen could, while overseeing an appointed mediator. First, with Nelson overseeing the talks, only she and Boylan could declare an impasse. Second, as the sides agreed on individual issues, she or the appointed mediator could move each one off the table, making for a more efficient process, without allowing one side or the other to go back on something that was already agreed upon. In any case, if mediation fails and Nelson rules, no matter which way that ruling goes, an appeal would be a near certainty, taking this case to the eighth circuit.

The players gave up their collective bargaining rights by decertifying their union......

Anyway, the players want any agreement to be enforced by the court. I'll stop using the word binding if it hurts you. But you have to stop pretending that widely reported media stories on this very topic have no player source for an undisputed (well, almost) and obvious point.

papazoid · April 12, 2011

The players gave up their collective bargaining rights by decertifying their union......

Anyway, the players want any agreement to be enforced by the court. I'll stop using the word binding if it hurts you. But you have to stop pretending that widely reported media stories on this very topic have no player source for an undisputed (well, almost) and obvious point.

not one single player or union leader has uttered on or off the record they want BINDING MEDIATION.....you keep ignoring this FACT. your assertion the NFLPA or current trade association wants binding mediation is FALSE.

the court can not FORCE an agreement. once an agreement is reached a court can "enforce" it, like any other contract between two parties. both the owners and players would want a court to "enforce" a contract. neither party would want a court to decide the parameters of an agreement.

Ramius · April 12, 2011

not one single player or union leader has uttered on or off the record they want BINDING MEDIATION.....you keep ignoring this FACT. your assertion the NFLPA or current trade association wants binding mediation is FALSE.

the court can not FORCE an agreement. once an agreement is reached a court can "enforce" it, like any other contract between two parties. both the owners and players would want a court to "enforce" a contract. neither party would want a court to decide the parameters of an agreement.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6304671

The NFL wants mediation to continue in Washington with federal mediator George Cohen, who led three weeks of talks between the two sides. The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington.

Seems like the players want a more binding mediation in front of a court that would have some power. Currently, they are engaged in a non-binding mediation. Seems like the owners win this round.

papazoid · April 12, 2011

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6304671

Seems like the players want a more binding mediation in front of a court that would have some power. Currently, they are engaged in a non-binding mediation. Seems like the owners win this round.

NOWHERE in your link does it say the players want BINDING mediation.....NOWHERE !!!

ADAM SHEFTER SAYS: The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota(WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT)in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. (don't see how you call that a victory for the owners).

again, there is no such thing as potentially "more binding" it either is fully binding or it's non-binding....there is no middle ground.

Mr. WEO · April 12, 2011

NOWHERE in your link does it say the players want BINDING mediation.....NOWHERE !!!

ADAM SHEFTER SAYS: The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota(WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT)in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. (don't see how you call that a victory for the owners).

again, there is no such thing as potentially "more binding" it either is fully binding or it's non-binding....there is no middle ground.

You're hopeless.

Ramius · April 12, 2011

NOWHERE in your link does it say the players want BINDING mediation.....NOWHERE !!!

ADAM SHEFTER SAYS: The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota(WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT)in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. (don't see how you call that a victory for the owners).

again, there is no such thing as potentially "more binding" it either is fully binding or it's non-binding....there is no middle ground.

Easy there spaz. Go ahead and keep on ignoring whats right in front of your eyes.

CosmicBills · April 12, 2011

It doesn't matter who won this round or who didn't (let's just call it what it was: a draw). The judge made the right decision NOT to interfere. Force the parties back to the table. If they still screw around and drag their feet THEN step in and force a solution.

End of the day what matters is that they're going to resume negotiations which means we're possibly one step closer to a solution that will bring Football back.

Ramius · April 12, 2011

It doesn't matter who won this round or who didn't (let's just call it what it was: a draw). The judge made the right decision NOT to interfere. Force the parties back to the table. If they still screw around and drag their feet THEN step in and force a solution.

End of the day what matters is that they're going to resume negotiations which means we're possibly one step closer to a solution that will bring Football back.

We finally agree on one thing in this dispute.

The judge needs to lay the old parental law with "figure it out yourselves, because neither side is going to like it if i have to step in."

Hplarrm · April 12, 2011

The players gave up their collective bargaining rights by decertifying their union......

Not exactly.

The NFLPA still exists as an entity (I think it is a not for profit entity incorporated under IRS regulations- likely an entity known as a 501c3 but I am not sure of the exact subsection). It has chosen under US Labor law and consistent with the CBA which bars NFLPA members from filing individual lawsuits as long as the CBA is operational to decertfy itself as the bargaining agent for the players to agree to and operate the CBA.

However, the NFLPA still exists as an entity but now that the the CBA is not operational because the NFLPA hs decertified itself it is still operating to organize actions like the individual lawsuits filed by Brady et al.

In fact the NFL is arguing in court that the decertification is a sham and the NFLPA is still acting as an agent for all the players despite decertidication on the specific point of the CBA.

By decertifying the players have actually gained more rights and abilities as individuals since it was through the CBA that they agreed to give up rights afforded to all Americans (such as the ability to petition in court against the NFL) through the CBA. By locking out the players, they have decided to pursue other avenues to reach settlement as the owners exercised their ability to reopen the deal and then declared an impasse allowing them to impose their current offer on the players.

The right to collectively bargain is not one laid out in specific language in the constitution. However, individual rights such as those to petition the courts and the right to free association which gathering together to form a workers' union is based upon are constitutional rights. The mere act of the NFLPA decertifying itself as a bargaining agent with the NFL does not abridge the rights of an individual player to take constitutional actions like petition the courts(in fact it increases those) nor does it abridge the right of individuals to freely associate or take legal actions as a trade union.

In fact, by decertifying itself, my sense is that the real beneficiaries might well be the draftees if they choose to sue the NFL for abridging the rights of individuals to sign personal services contracts with NFL teams. In other professional sports individual sign contracts with teams not only once they become adults but actually sign contracts at the age of 16 with their parents permission.

The NFL has hidden behind the fig leaf of agreement with the NFLPA to bar teams from signing contracts not only with kids with their parents consent but in fact bars adults from signing legal contracts until their age group turns 21.

It interests me that clearly the NFLPA is talking with young likely draftees such as Von Miller as it strikes me that if one of these individuals filed suit against the NFL after the draft that without the figleaf of the NFLPA this individual would win this lawsuit against the owners for colluding with each other to force him to sign only with the team which drafted him.

All other Americans get to assess the country and all the potential employers who are competing with each other in our free market. Instead, the reality is that if the athlete wants to play pro football at the highest level he can he is forced to sign with one and only one team without regard to who bids highest or where he wants to live.

This abridgement of the fundamental rights of the individual might fly in Cuba where Fidel tells you where to live but is simply un-American. My guess is the courts do not stand up for the individual when their is a certified union negotiating the CBA, but after the decert we will see.

ICanSleepWhenI'mDead · April 12, 2011

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Judge Nelson specifically stated that she was ordering the parties to particpate in mediation as a form of "Alternative Dispute Resolution."

Courts have "local" court rules governing lots of things, including the procedures that will be followed to try to resolve court cases without time consuming and expensive full-blown trials of whatever the litigants are fighting about.

Here's a link to the publicly available local court rules for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the players' antitrust case is pending:

http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/index.shtml#

The specific local Minnesota federal district court rule about alternative dispute resolution is Local Rule 16.5, the text of which is found here:

http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/LR-16-5.html

I don't have any inside information about what Judge Nelson did - - I only know what I've read in the media. But the reports I've read seem to fit the description in Local Rule 16.5(b)(1), which reads (bolding added by me):

"(1) In the discretion of the Court, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to participate in other non-binding dispute resolution methods before a Judge or Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to, summary jury trials, non-binding arbitration and mediation."

While the court-ordered mediation here is technically non-binding, each side knows that if they take unreasonable positions, they may anger the magistrate judge acting as the mediator, and in the likely event that any such anger is communicated to Judge Nelson, the offending side will face a more uphill fight in winning future court battles that ARE binding.

The mediation itself is non-binding, because if the lawyer representing a party has the stones to stand up to the opinions of the magistrate judge about how the case should be settled, the magistrate judge presiding over the mediation lacks the power to force that lawyer to accept his settlement views.

Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html :

"The mediation ... is non-binding."

papazoid · April 12, 2011

Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html :

"The mediation ... is non-binding."

that is correct.....and the players NEVER requested "binding" mediation......

LINK SAYS:

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Nelson, who is presiding in St. Paul over the players' antitrust suit against the league, issued an order forcing the two sides to resume mediation beginning on Thursday in Minnesota and appointed Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan to preside over the talks. The move was something of a win for the players' side since they wanted the talks to resume in federal court.

papazoid · April 13, 2011

If the parties would rather take their shot for litigation, you could make them sit there forever and there still won't be an outcome," said Seth Borden, a labor law expert at McKenna, Long and Aldridge in New York.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6336516

Mr. WEO · April 13, 2011

Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html :

"The mediation ... is non-binding."

Correct, non-binding.

Mickey · April 13, 2011

Being a successful lawyer does not mean she will get to decide the fate of the NFL. In fact, there is strong evidence that she doesn't have authority to rule on an injunction. The arrogant comments of the union representatives are going to hurt them in this case. It's obvious they are going to pull the same bad faith move they did the last time: decertify, file lawsuits, then recertify. This is not something you can get away with more than once. They are on shakey ground.

So are the owners. I have to believe that this is simply strategy working on both sides so as to improve their position in negotiations. A lockout means that the players don't cash their much needed paychecks and I don't care how much $ the union has put aside to help players make ends meet until a deal is done. That puts a limit on just how long the players can mess around with litigation. I believe that no lockout means that football and the players paychecks will go on as before while either litigation or a negotiated settlement brings the impasse to an end. I am not sure of the mechanics of what happens if the league is enjoined from imposing a lockout but that is my understanding. As a lifelong litigator, that is my guess based on what little we know. One thing is for certain, every single public statement made by either side is not for the purpose of keeping the fans informed with up to date, accurate information. Every public word they utter is for the purpose of advancing their position at the bargaining table and for no other.

If the parties would rather take their shot for litigation, you could make them sit there forever and there still won't be an outcome," said Seth Borden, a labor law expert at McKenna, Long and Aldridge in New York.

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6336516

Time is an element of litigation strategy. The reason so many disputes settle is that when you let a case go the jury or, in a bench trial, to the judge, you are rolling the dice. Uncertainty = fear, fear = settlement.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Mickey

papazoid · April 13, 2011

Players not in any hurry....

For veteran players, Ross Tucker says missing training camp is “the dream”.

“People talk about it all the time: What is the hard and fast deadline?” Tucker asked. “Well, when a vast majority of your membership doesn’t really even want to go to training camp, they don’t want to go to two-a-days, ideally for them it would get resolved, I don’t know, August 10th. We have a week of free agency. Then August 17th we have two or three weeks of preseason and then play the season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/13/for-veteran-players-ross-tucker-says-missing-training-camp-is-the-dream/

Mr. WEO · April 13, 2011

Players not in any hurry....

For veteran players, Ross Tucker says missing training camp is “the dream”.

“People talk about it all the time: What is the hard and fast deadline?” Tucker asked. “Well, when a vast majority of your membership doesn’t really even want to go to training camp, they don’t want to go to two-a-days, ideally for them it would get resolved, I don’t know, August 10th. We have a week of free agency. Then August 17th we have two or three weeks of preseason and then play the season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/13/for-veteran-players-ross-tucker-says-missing-training-camp-is-the-dream/

That article doesn't quote a single NFL player.

papazoid · April 14, 2011

very good summary:

N.F.L. and Players See Same Forest, Different Trees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sports/football/15nfl.html

CosmicBills · April 15, 2011

very good summary:

N.F.L. and Players See Same Forest, Different Trees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sports/football/15nfl.html

It is an excellent summary and shows that the players have a momentary edge -- but it's one the owners expected and planned for even before the union decertified. Then again, it's the NYT, a very pro-labor paper.

Still, the facts aren't in dispute: the Nelson ruling probably won't affect much. It's the ruling in the Court of Appeals in St. Louis that will probably decide how quickly a deal is struck.

:wallbash:

Edited April 15, 2011 by tgreg99

papazoid · April 21, 2011

UPDATE:

Report: Ruling from Judge Nelson expected on Monday

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/21/report-antitrust-ruling-expected-on-monday/

Ramius · April 21, 2011

So essentially, nothing is going to get resolved after her ruling. She's going to rule the injuction should be lifted, but keep it in place pending an appeal.

Now we're on to waiting for the appeal.

CosmicBills · April 21, 2011

So essentially, nothing is going to get resolved after her ruling. She's going to rule the injuction should be lifted, but keep it in place pending an appeal.

Now we're on to waiting for the appeal.

Which is what most people expected to happen from the beginning. St. Louis Appellate will be the primary battle ground.

Ramius · April 21, 2011

Which is what most people expected to happen from the beginning. St. Louis Appellate will be the primary battle ground.

It alrewady seems like the owners (thankfully) are the favorites there. Vrabel's foot-in-mouth disease will come back to haunt the players. I'd love nothing more than to see this splinter group of players return to the table and negotiate with the owners and say the hell with the "superstars" and de smith.

papazoid · April 26, 2011

In an 89-page ruling issued Monday, a federal judge in St. Paul, Minn., ordered an end to the NFL lockout. The ruling from Judge Susan Richard Nelson raises significant legal questions about the lockout, the relationship between the owners and the players, and the 2011 season. Here are some of the questions and their answers:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110425

K Gun Special · April 26, 2011

It alrewady seems like the owners (thankfully) are the favorites there. Vrabel's foot-in-mouth disease will come back to haunt the players. I'd love nothing more than to see this splinter group of players return to the table and negotiate with the owners and say the hell with the "superstars" and de smith.

The owners are not favorites there, i cant believe you are even saying such a thing. The Court is looking at her ruling for an abuse of discretion, a relatively high standard. I suggest you read up on her decision, particularly the article on SI written by a sports law professor.

The owners have the cards stacked against them. Vrabel's statement has no bearing whatsoever.

papazoid · April 26, 2011

Is the ruling to end the lockout a surprise?

Yes, it is a bit of a surprise. It certainly is a surprise for the owners. Injunctions are granted only in the most compelling of circumstances. The players were required to show the irreparable harm already described. They were required to show that they would prevail in a full trial later on the issues raised by the lockout. And they were required to show that their plea was in the public interest. It was a tough case to make, but the players managed to do it.

advantage players.....

Mr. WEO · April 26, 2011

The owners are not favorites there, i cant believe you are even saying such a thing. The Court is looking at her ruling for an abuse of discretion, a relatively high standard. I suggest you read up on her decision, particularly the article on SI written by a sports law professor.

The owners have the cards stacked against them. Vrabel's statement has no bearing whatsoever.

Actually, the league is arguing that she did not have jurisdition to lift the blackout due to the pending decision on league's complaint filed with the NLRB regarding the decertification of the union.

K Gun Special · April 26, 2011

Actually, the league is arguing that she did not have jurisdition to lift the blackout due to the pending decision on league's complaint filed with the NLRB regarding the decertification of the union.

WEO,

Actually, that is one of their underlying arguments. But on appeal its really about abuse of discretion in hearing the NFL's argument about jurisdiction.

"""Tom Brady and the other plaintiffs will go into the appeal with a big advantage: the Eight Circuit will review Judge Nelson's order under the deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. Under this standard, the Eight Circuit will first evaluate whether Judge Nelson correctly enunciated the proper standard for a preliminary injunction"""

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/04/25/nfl.lockout/index.html#ixzz1KddCWVZd

papazoid · April 26, 2011

The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110425

K Gun Special · April 26, 2011

The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110425

Its the Court's way of forcing them back to the table. The owner's dont have a strong case in court and have treble damages awaiting.

The players need paychecks.

There is incentive to get a deal done so there is a 2011 season.

papazoid · April 26, 2011

“I’m not the commissioner of the National Football League,” Smith said. “He’s the commissioner of the league. And we’re in a world where the owners of the National Football League opted out of a contract that was fine. They went to the Supreme Court to try to stick it to the players and they lost. They tried to keep revenue sharing from happening in 2010 and they lost. A judge ruled that they gamed the TV contracts to lock the players out and they lost. And then they lock the players out and took football from our fans, and yesterday they lost.”

http://profootballta...chaos-to-occur/

advantage players.....

Hplarrm · April 26, 2011

“I’m not the commissioner of the National Football League,” Smith said. “He’s the commissioner of the league. And we’re in a world where the owners of the National Football League opted out of a contract that was fine. They went to the Supreme Court to try to stick it to the players and they lost. They tried to keep revenue sharing from happening in 2010 and they lost. A judge ruled that they gamed the TV contracts to lock the players out and they lost. And then they lock the players out and took football from our fans, and yesterday they lost.”

http://profootballta...chaos-to-occur/

advantage players.....

I think one of the funniest things about this is that without regard whether the players win before Doty, Nelson, or whomever, there are folks who want to simply insist the owners have the upper hand here and that this win means nothing.

They are wrong.

These wins do not mean everything but it is simply non-sensical to claim they mean nothing.

What they do is simply add to a higher hill that the owners must push out of the way if they ultimately are going to win. The default going into the draft where the broader public begins to pay attention to the NFL again is that the season is on but the next move in play is that the owners are trying to appeal to kill it.

This further brings into light that the original dispute was triggered by the owners opting out of the deal early as they were contractually able to do.

Any "win" by the owners now MIGHT still happen but to do so simply means that they and the power that orders it will be rocking the ship of state even more.

In the face of this, the NFLPA is undoubtedly not sitting still, and my GUESS is that just like occurred with the mid-80s dispute the players will try to reach their goals (more money) with a tactic that minimizes the owners take of the pie.

To me this would seem to be a goal of not killing the NFL but doing anything possible to increase competition bt fostering a new league.

Whether the NewFL fails miserably as the USFL did or succeeds as the AFL did in both cases it jacked up player salaries due to that old American standby competition.

My GUESS as to an end product:

The NewFL led by players such as Brady, et al.

I doubt such an effort succeeds but what would come from this increased competition is higher high profile salaries and increased NFLPA membership as it represents players in both the current NFL and the NewFL.

Mr. WEO · April 26, 2011

I think one of the funniest things about this is that without regard whether the players win before Doty, Nelson, or whomever, there are folks who want to simply insist the owners have the upper hand here and that this win means nothing.

They are wrong.

These wins do not mean everything but it is simply non-sensical to claim they mean nothing.

What they do is simply add to a higher hill that the owners must push out of the way if they ultimately are going to win. The default going into the draft where the broader public begins to pay attention to the NFL again is that the season is on but the next move in play is that the owners are trying to appeal to kill it.

This further brings into light that the original dispute was triggered by the owners opting out of the deal early as they were contractually able to do.

Any "win" by the owners now MIGHT still happen but to do so simply means that they and the power that orders it will be rocking the ship of state even more.

In the face of this, the NFLPA is undoubtedly not sitting still, and my GUESS is that just like occurred with the mid-80s dispute the players will try to reach their goals (more money) with a tactic that minimizes the owners take of the pie.

To me this would seem to be a goal of not killing the NFL but doing anything possible to increase competition bt fostering a new league.

Whether the NewFL fails miserably as the USFL did or succeeds as the AFL did in both cases it jacked up player salaries due to that old American standby competition.

My GUESS as to an end product:

The NewFL led by players such as Brady, et al.

I doubt such an effort succeeds but what would come from this increased competition is higher high profile salaries and increased NFLPA membership as it represents players in both the current NFL and the NewFL.

Each post loses a bit more connection with reality. But I'll play along...

What leads you to believe a guy like Brady, who already has the amongst the highest of "high profile salaries", would be interested in owning or leading, or whatever you are suggesting, a new league?

Hplarrm · April 27, 2011

Each post loses a bit more connection with reality. But I'll play along...

What leads you to believe a guy like Brady, who already has the amongst the highest of "high profile salaries", would be interested in owning or leading, or whatever you are suggesting, a new league?

I do not know him so I really do not know.

However, four things which I would guess are inherently Brady which might impact his decisions:

1. He is a leader who loves to lead. Perhaps leading his fellow players to an even greater position of control has some appeal to him,

2. He is proud and competitive man and the NFL owners have directly challenged all the players and responding in a manner that takes them on pretty directly would seem to be consistent with the character he has shown.

3. Having the respect of his teammates and leading them into battle is what he has done successfully and well throughout his career. Perhaps he has just learned to fake sincerity well and he does not care about his fellow players. Yet, I doubt that and again this would speak to him playing a lead role in a master strategy to take on the owners.

4. I have no idea whether he feels he has enough money (or even if it is possible to have enough). However, my sense is he likely has made a chunk that taking on the league may be a Dom Quixote like exercise he may lose but actually it is likely a relatively low risk move for him to make with a potential of large fiscal benefits.

Perhaps you have a read on him and the et al. that they will simply cave in the face of a pretty direct attack from the owners. Perhaps bending over and saying thank you sir can I have another is what you would do so you assume it is the logical thing for anyone to do.

However, I am influenced strongly by the fact that the NFLPA has been on a roll since the late 80s. They made an unorthodox move of threatening to decertify after the team owners simply kick the butt of the old AFL-CIO union tactics led by Ed Garvey.

This maneuver grasped victory from the jaws of defeat and produced the CBA which essentially forced recognition of the NFLPA as a partner.

Led by Gene Upshaw and a talented tenth of his fellow players (most of whom are steroid and drug infused lemmings but this actually makes it easier for the talented tenth to lead them) led the NFLPA to negotiate the last CBA which he dictated the player portion of the total revenues needed to start with a 6. Indeed, though certainly part of the final calculation was fun with #s, but by most estimates the players do take in les than 60% but still comfortably a majority of the total take,

If I am Brady, et al. the question to me is why should I try to buffalo the team owners again, but actually the question is why not and how am I gonna do it.

In the end, it seems quite clear to me that the athletes make more money any time there is actually competition rather than collusion between the owners. If I am Brady et al. to reach my goal of making the most money possible I am interested in not killing the NFL but defanging the owners quite a bit and introducing a NewFL which through competition allows the players association to represent players in a new league and the NFL.

My thinking is that the key thing here is to be a man and I am gonna make more bucks either way.

So my question to you is why not take on the NFL rather than caving to them. If you agree this is their default reaction then how do you take on the owners?

Hplarrm · April 27, 2011