CBA litigation

[Mr. WEO]

Why would it not happen if they've been playing all year without a CBA? The MLB players killed an entire postseason in '94 and the NHL players pulled off a successful strike in the spring of '92.

 

It seems to me that they'd have a 3rd option if they were reformed as a union - continue negotiating w/ the owners. I wouldn't expect to see that happen, but it is an available option. But if they weren't happy w/ the way things were looking in the court system, I'm not seeing why they wouldn't consider a strike an option. I wouldn't be surprised to see the NFL close up shop, at least temporarily in the Spring, if things haven't been resolved by then. At that time the leverage would be shifted back towards the owners, so I don't see why a players strike 'would simply never happen' when they would gain leverage.

If the players reform their union, the anti-trust lawsuit (their only leverage at this point) immediately goes away. If that goes away, there is no reason for the owners to offer anything but their last offer from March. There would be no deal. No football. No need to strike.

[Mickey]

I agree there isn't a credible source behind this, but the NHL shutdown is enough precedent to conclude that this might be a possibility, moreso when Bob Batterman is on the NFL lawyers team. Rumbling or not, I see the owners taking this route if the terms of a new CBA are forced to them.

 

 

 

I didn't invent the "nuclear option" term. It was first used by the media to describe the antitrust lawsuits the players were going to fill after a possible decertification.

I know shutting down a league is not simple nor cheap but I see the owners saying this is enough, the business it's at an all time high but it's probably very close to it's peak of growth. If that is the case, when is enough for the players to get more? it's evident the owners (who know a thing or two about economics) are not happy with the last business model and see no more venues to squeeze a potential large revenue to share with the players.

If I were an owner and my accountant is telling me that certain business model is unsustainable, not for the now but for an eventual future, you better believe that I'm listening (no matter how good the business is) If I have to lose now to earn more in the future, I buckle up and take care of my business before it's too late.

 

The players aren't asking for more, the owners are asking them to take less and to play more. The unsustainable model has been sustained for 18 years with record growth and profits. The owners are the ones who forced this fight. The league wants us all to assume that the money isn't working out right but they don't want to fork over the data upon which that conclusion is based. For me, I'm not accepting anything either side says at face value.

 

No, I'm saying that after the players have received (nearly) all of their paychecks (if it works out that it's legal) they might strike right before the playoffs start. Basically like the MLB players did back in '94. If they were going to strike, it'd probably be in early December, so there would be time to get a contract done before the playoffs had to be pitched.

 

I'd be very surprised if the players ever struck after the playoffs had actually begun as it would be PR suicide.

 

At the beginning of the season, before anybody's received a paycheck, the owners have the bulk of the leverage. The players decertified to take that away.

 

At the end of the season, after the players have been paid and the networks are looking forward to their playoff ratings, the players have the bulk of the leverage. I'm not about to try to learn the minutia of labor law, but was curious as to whether the players could recertify w/out having a contract in place and if so I don't see much stopping them from striking. They could always drop their lawsuit if they think the circumstances are more favorable at the negotiating table.

 

 

Thanks for the response.

 

If the players can recertify at their own discretion, it seems to me that a strike is still viable if the injunction against the lockout holds.

 

I don't believe the players want to nuke the NFL. (It's a golden goose for them too.) I just think that if an agreement is made when the owners are under the more severe duress (either due to a lawsuit working its way through the courts or a strike/ threatened strike) then the bigger guys w/ the huge debt loads will have been the ones to crack and there is a greater likelihood that it'll be tough for the Bills to compete in the new landscape. (Kind of the way the bigger guys w/ the huge debt loads cracked last time and carried the bulk of the other owners with them.)

 

I guess I don't follow the logic here. Why would the players get an injunction so that they can play only to strike? A strike gives the league the same thing a lockout would, players not getting paid.

[Turbosrrgood]

My primary concern in this whole thing that the ultimate resolution is beneficial for the Bills staying in Buffalo.

 

 

 

Which means, hoping the owners win. The bigger the victory for the owners, the lower the player costs and the pressure on small market teams.

 

Personally, I don't see how the "union" has a case. Irreparable harm? Every single one of the active players in the dispute makes more than 99% of all Americans. Ironically, the ones suffering the most harm are rookies and udfa's (not in the "union" yet) who have never earned a paycheck, and can't sign. $100 mil plus players like Brady, and Peyton are heading this case? They make more than some of the owners do.

 

Who pays for ALL of this? US

 

The players aren't asking for more, the owners are asking them to take less and to play more. The unsustainable model has been sustained for 18 years with record growth and profits. The owners are the ones who forced this fight.

 

 

You are right that the Players aren't asking for more, this time. But they scored a huge victory after the last CBA, which included a much larger portion of the profits (much higher salary cap). Ralph Wilson voted against this, since it made the Bill's less financially viable. The Bills also haven't even come close to their cap, since that agreement.

 

"The unsustainable model has been sustained for 18 years with record growth and profits." That is incorrect, the framework may have been put together 18 years ago (and will continue) but the current agreement has only been in place for a few years (since the last CBA agreement, which the owners agreed to in order to avoid a work stoppage).

Edited May 11, 2011 by Turbosrrgood

[Taro T]

The players aren't asking for more, the owners are asking them to take less and to play more. The unsustainable model has been sustained for 18 years with record growth and profits. The owners are the ones who forced this fight. The league wants us all to assume that the money isn't working out right but they don't want to fork over the data upon which that conclusion is based. For me, I'm not accepting anything either side says at face value.

 

 

 

I guess I don't follow the logic here. Why would the players get an injunction so that they can play only to strike? A strike gives the league the same thing a lockout would, players not getting paid.

The logic is that the TV contracts are structured such that the big money comes for the playoff games (that's the way it works in other sports, I expect it works that way for the NFL as well). The playoffs are essentially only money for the owners as the players have already been paid their full salaries and are only getting their playoff bonus money at that point. For the most part, the players get (relative to their regular salaries) nearly nothing for them. A strike does not give the owners the same thing as a lockout because they have already paid the players if a strike occurs near the end of the season but they haven't received all their TV (and other playoff related) revenues yet.

 

That is the point in time when they have their greatest leverage. At the beginning of a season is when the owners have their greatest leverage.

 

Let me back up 1 step and ask another question. If the players and league don't come to an agreement on a CBA, just how far off into the future can this injunction against a lockout continue? Only through this season, through another one, indefinitely? If the players can force the league to let them play (provided the league doesn't "shut itself down"), then I'd see the logic in stating the players have nothing to gain by striking. If that isn't the case (and that doesn't seem logical to me on the surface), I could see scenarios where the players might strike (or at minimum threaten to) to gain negotiating leverage w/ the league. I truly doubt either side wants to see this all get decided in court (as the stakes are so high and the outcome is uncertain), so if the players were to believe they could get a better deal by threatening to strike, I could see it happening.

 

I'm not saying a strike WILL happen, I'm just not seeing why it necessarily won't / wouldn't happen.

[Mickey]

The logic is that the TV contracts are structured such that the big money comes for the playoff games (that's the way it works in other sports, I expect it works that way for the NFL as well). The playoffs are essentially only money for the owners as the players have already been paid their full salaries and are only getting their playoff bonus money at that point. For the most part, the players get (relative to their regular salaries) nearly nothing for them. A strike does not give the owners the same thing as a lockout because they have already paid the players if a strike occurs near the end of the season but they haven't received all their TV (and other playoff related) revenues yet.

 

That is the point in time when they have their greatest leverage. At the beginning of a season is when the owners have their greatest leverage.

 

Let me back up 1 step and ask another question. If the players and league don't come to an agreement on a CBA, just how far off into the future can this injunction against a lockout continue? Only through this season, through another one, indefinitely? If the players can force the league to let them play (provided the league doesn't "shut itself down"), then I'd see the logic in stating the players have nothing to gain by striking. If that isn't the case (and that doesn't seem logical to me on the surface), I could see scenarios where the players might strike (or at minimum threaten to) to gain negotiating leverage w/ the league. I truly doubt either side wants to see this all get decided in court (as the stakes are so high and the outcome is uncertain), so if the players were to believe they could get a better deal by threatening to strike, I could see it happening.

 

I'm not saying a strike WILL happen, I'm just not seeing why it necessarily won't / wouldn't happen.

 

The injunction is temporary, it only covers the time it takes the lawsuit to conclude. This kind of an injunction attempts to freeze things in place to avoid "irreparable harm" to the injunction applicant while the suit goes on. These are sometimes necessary as a lot of wrongful conduct that a suit would eventually stop can work a lot of harm while the suit drags on.

 

As for a strike late in the season or just during playoffs, I think that is a bit hairbrained to be honest. It would be a public relations nightmare for the fans. I also think that legally, it would probably revive the application of Norris so that the suit would be dismissed.

 

The Union had very good success in court in the early 1990's which is what eventually drove the league to enter in to the SSA (structured settlement agreement). That is the document that created the relationship that has prevailed and allowed the league to prosper for so long. It was not a CBA because the union was not certified at that point and had no intention of recertifying because of the success it was having in court, an option they lose if they should recertify. The league insisted that they do so and that the SSA be converted in to the CBA we are all familiar with and which has been periodically extended. The players only agreed to do that when assured that they could decertify again any time they wanted. The league did that by stipulating that they would not object to decertification in the future should the players opt to do so. Of course, that is what they are doing now. They are all righteous and indignant over the decertification issue when they agreed back in 1993 that decertification was a legit option for the players, so musch so that they agreed not to B word and moan about it if it should happen.

 

In any event, I don't see the players going through all of this to set up a strike in week 17 this season. Again, the instigators of this crisis are the owners. The players didn't want any of this. The league opted out of the CBA, they are the ones who terminated the agreement which had proved so effective for so many years. They say they have good reasons for doing so. Now they just need to prove it.

 

I'll tell you one thing: Litigation can create its own momentum. Its like a war. It never turns out the way you planned and it never follows the course you anticipated. People fixate on what is and is not a win in court and then start thinking that they have to win at all costs, that anything less than whatever definition they have for "winning" is unacceptable no matter what. That can get ugly fast.

[Taro T]

The injunction is temporary, it only covers the time it takes the lawsuit to conclude. This kind of an injunction attempts to freeze things in place to avoid "irreparable harm" to the injunction applicant while the suit goes on. These are sometimes necessary as a lot of wrongful conduct that a suit would eventually stop can work a lot of harm while the suit drags on.

 

As for a strike late in the season or just during playoffs, I think that is a bit hairbrained to be honest. It would be a public relations nightmare for the fans. I also think that legally, it would probably revive the application of Norris so that the suit would be dismissed.

 

The Union had very good success in court in the early 1990's which is what eventually drove the league to enter in to the SSA (structured settlement agreement). That is the document that created the relationship that has prevailed and allowed the league to prosper for so long. It was not a CBA because the union was not certified at that point and had no intention of recertifying because of the success it was having in court, an option they lose if they should recertify. The league insisted that they do so and that the SSA be converted in to the CBA we are all familiar with and which has been periodically extended. The players only agreed to do that when assured that they could decertify again any time they wanted. The league did that by stipulating that they would not object to decertification in the future should the players opt to do so. Of course, that is what they are doing now. They are all righteous and indignant over the decertification issue when they agreed back in 1993 that decertification was a legit option for the players, so musch so that they agreed not to B word and moan about it if it should happen.

 

In any event, I don't see the players going through all of this to set up a strike in week 17 this season. Again, the instigators of this crisis are the owners. The players didn't want any of this. The league opted out of the CBA, they are the ones who terminated the agreement which had proved so effective for so many years. They say they have good reasons for doing so. Now they just need to prove it.

 

I'll tell you one thing: Litigation can create its own momentum. Its like a war. It never turns out the way you planned and it never follows the course you anticipated. People fixate on what is and is not a win in court and then start thinking that they have to win at all costs, that anything less than whatever definition they have for "winning" is unacceptable no matter what. That can get ugly fast.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it.

 

Based on this, I would expect the likelihood of a strike to be minimal. It's that line of thinking from your last paragraph that made me think a strike's possible.

[syhuang]

The players aren't asking for more, the owners are asking them to take less and to play more. The unsustainable model has been sustained for 18 years with record growth and profits.

 

This is incorrect. The last CBA dramatically increased players' revenue share, which is accounted for 60% of NFL's revenue. It's owners' own fault to accept last CBA in 2006 when they hurried to sign it right before deadline without thinking it through. But after realizing last CBA didn't work for them in last few years, especially for small market teams, they decide not to accept the same terms again in this CBA negotiation, which NFLPA insists to continue to have.

 

Salary cap has increased for about 50% since last CBA:

 

2005: $85.5 million

2006: $94.5 million

2007: $109 million

2008: $116.7 million

2009: $128 million

2010: no cap (because of option out)

[spartacus]

e. I also think that describing the players having decertified as a "nuclear option". There was a deadline by which they had to decertify or lose the ability to do so this year. Without an agreement worked out, the safest move they could make was to decertify. If and when a deal is worked out, it can provide whatever is needed to permit the union to re-certify and execute a binding CBA. The cost to the union of decertifying was essentially zero. That is not what one thinks of when hearing "nuclear option".

The CBA did contain the following language preventing the owners from attacking the decertification as a sham:

 

"The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred."

As indicated by the District Court's failure to rely on the above as a bar to the owner's claim, the above provision does not apply since the NFLPA voted to decertify and actually decertified before the CBA expired. (If you're wondering why the players didn't wait a few more hours until the CBA expired before they decertified, it's because another section of the CBA says that, if the players are still a union when the CBA expires, they have to wait at least six months after that to file an antitrust suit. I believe the owners also had to wait 6 months before they could lock out the players)

 

 

This language from the brief filed by the NHL points out that allowing decertification by pro sports union will castrate the collective bargaining process in future negotiations.

 

"Left to stand, the district court's ruling creates a perverse incentive for

unions – during the collective bargaining process and in the midst of negotiations –

to divert their efforts to antitrust litigation tactics rather than complying with their

obligations under federal labor law to bargain in good faith. The net effect is that

2 traditional economic weapons contemplated and made available in the labor

process – employee strikes and employer lockouts – are removed as options. In

turn, the labor process is necessarily subjugated to antitrust law and related

litigation tactics. Indeed, under the district court's ruling, union disclaimer and

simultaneous antitrust suits are likely to be the chosen path any time employee players

(or other unions or associations of employees for that matter) believe that

these tactics are the most viable method of obtaining the terms and conditions of

employment they desire, but might not achieve through the traditional collective

bargaining process."

 

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3787301.0.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

[RyanC883]

My primary concern in this whole thing that the ultimate resolution is beneficial for the Bills staying in Buffalo.

 

As I mentioned in another thread, the NFLPA* lost its home field advantage once this went up to the 8th Circuit. The three judge panel hearing the appeal consists of two Bush appointees and one Clinton appointee. Guess who wrote the dissenting opinion when the panel granted the temporary stay.

 

This has nothing to do with Bush v. Clinton appointees. The owners are correct regarding the status of labor law in their brief. If this goes to the SC, democrat and republican appointed judges will side with the owners. It will prob be 9-0, or 8-1 with some oddball dissenting opinion coming either from the far left of the court (Sodimayer) or far right (Scalia).

 

As for how any of this effects the bargaining positions and prospects for football in 2011 is anyones guess. But I think the Court action is really a side-show at any rate and that there will be football in 2011. Both sides have too much to loose. If there is a lockout, the NHL should consider (if it can) pushing up its season to mid-september (and correspondingly end earlier) to attract NFL fans who never really paid much attention to it before. People always think hockey in June is weird anyway, so start in Sept and end in May.

Edited May 14, 2011 by RyanC883

[CosmicBills]

$100 mil plus players like Brady, and Peyton are heading this case? They make more than some of the owners do.

You don't really believe that do you? There isn't a single player in the league who comes CLOSE to earning more than the owners do. You're talking about 31 of the richest men in the country.

 

Professional Athletes are rich. Owners are a different class of rich. There's no comparison. Any owner in the NFL could crush Brady or Peyton with their wallets.

 

Stop being silly.

Edited May 14, 2011 by tgreg99

[Peter]

You don't really believe that do you? There isn't a single player in the league who comes CLOSE to earning more than the owners do. You're talking about 31 of the richest men in the country.

 

Professional Athletes are rich. Owners are a different class of rich. There's no comparison. Any owner in the NFL could crush Brady or Peyton with their wallets.

 

Stop being silly.

 

How much did the Green Bay Packers net?

 

The CBA did contain the following language preventing the owners from attacking the decertification as a sham:

 

"The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred."

As indicated by the District Court's failure to rely on the above as a bar to the owner's claim, the above provision does not apply since the NFLPA voted to decertify and actually decertified before the CBA expired. (If you're wondering why the players didn't wait a few more hours until the CBA expired before they decertified, it's because another section of the CBA says that, if the players are still a union when the CBA expires, they have to wait at least six months after that to file an antitrust suit. I believe the owners also had to wait 6 months before they could lock out the players)

 

 

This language from the brief filed by the NHL points out that allowing decertification by pro sports union will castrate the collective bargaining process in future negotiations.

 

"Left to stand, the district court's ruling creates a perverse incentive for

unions – during the collective bargaining process and in the midst of negotiations –

to divert their efforts to antitrust litigation tactics rather than complying with their

obligations under federal labor law to bargain in good faith. The net effect is that

2 traditional economic weapons contemplated and made available in the labor

process – employee strikes and employer lockouts – are removed as options. In

turn, the labor process is necessarily subjugated to antitrust law and related

litigation tactics. Indeed, under the district court's ruling, union disclaimer and

simultaneous antitrust suits are likely to be the chosen path any time employee players

(or other unions or associations of employees for that matter) believe that

these tactics are the most viable method of obtaining the terms and conditions of

employment they desire, but might not achieve through the traditional collective

bargaining process."

 

 

http://www.ca8.uscou...8.3787301.0.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the issues is whether the players decertified before or after.

[Hplarrm]

This has nothing to do with Bush v. Clinton appointees. The owners are correct regarding the status of labor law in their brief. If this goes to the SC, democrat and republican appointed judges will side with the owners. It will prob be 9-0, or 8-1 with some oddball dissenting opinion coming either from the far left of the court (Sodimayer) or far right (Scalia).

 

As for how any of this effects the bargaining positions and prospects for football in 2011 is anyones guess. But I think the Court action is really a side-show at any rate and that there will be football in 2011. Both sides have too much to loose. If there is a lockout, the NHL should consider (if it can) pushing up its season to mid-september (and correspondingly end earlier) to attract NFL fans who never really paid much attention to it before. People always think hockey in June is weird anyway, so start in Sept and end in May.

If the politics of the judges has nothing to do with this because its and open and shut black letter law issue, then how do you explain the FACT that two MN based federal judges (Doty and Nelson) found decisively on the side of the NFLPA position?

 

They went so far as to say that the owners brief and positions on this case were so likely to fail as a matter of law that neither was willing to stay their ruling until an appeal was made.

 

The appeals court then by a 2 vote to 1 vote margin (I believe these decisions happen to break upon appointment lines with the Dem appointed judge finding for the NFLPA and the GOP appointed judges taking what I understand is an unusual step of a total reversal of the lower court ruling (it happens but apparently on such a clear decision by the lower court in a manner which indicates that an opposite legal reading is correct is apparently unusual).

 

What I think this adds up to is that differing people can easily have differing views on this closely contested issue.

 

However, what does appear to be WRONG is your contention that this is a simple legal issue where one view is clearly the legal read.

 

This is an item of legal dispute with both sides having rational reasons for their views. It is simply incorrect to claim there is only one right view on this issue. It is simply incorrect to claim that who appointed which judge has no impact on how this closely contested issue gets decided.

[CosmicBills]

How much did the Green Bay Packers net?

 

You're better than that, Pete. I said 31, not 32 for a reason. Do you really think there's a single professional athlete in the NFL that makes more than any of the 31 owners?

 

There isn't. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and boulders.

[djrocks]

He works for the owners.

 

I have no sympathy for either side. If they can't decide how to split up 9 BILLION DOLLARS then f*ck 'em. I'll do something else on Sundays in the fall.

 

look I'm all for the owners on this one. you show me one industry where its employees get 55% of the gross revenues in salary and compensation.

 

get serious fellas these players spend more on earnings than a normal guy makes in 10 years.

 

the owners assumed all the risk years ago just because the game is so successful now does not mean that the players should somehow be co owners of the league.

 

think of it over 50% of gross revenues go to the players are you freaking kidding me.

 

everyone laughed and ridiculed Ralph Wilson when he vehemently voted no on this ridiculous contract and told his fellow owners they were giving away the house. he was laughed @ and called a senile old man both in buffalo and by all the national media.

 

well the old man was right and now the piss pot major market owners realize that wilson was exactly right so they are now f--ked.

 

they still make money but anyone who sides with the players on this matter need their heads examined.

 

the day these idiot players hired Smith as their leader was the day that football died for the fans. the guy is a total piece of crap and is nothing but a low life consummate freaking lawyer trying to line his pockets.

 

upshaw would never ever have gone the court route but from the get go Smith was going one way and that was litigation. know why because it makes him a rich piece of crap.

 

he never had any intention of reaching an agreement thru collective bargaining and anyone who thinks he did are brain dead.

 

 

mark my words now fellas Smith will take us all down.

[Mr. WEO]

How much did the Green Bay Packers net?

 

 

 

One of the issues is whether the players decertified before or after.

This is not in dispute. By decertifying hours before the lockout, the players were able to remain in Doty's court.

[CosmicBills]

look I'm all for the owners on this one. you show me one industry where its employees get 55% of the gross revenues in salary and compensation.

 

get serious fellas these players spend more on earnings than a normal guy makes in 10 years.

 

the owners assumed all the risk years ago just because the game is so successful now does not mean that the players should somehow be co owners of the league.

 

think of it over 50% of gross revenues go to the players are you freaking kidding me.

 

everyone laughed and ridiculed Ralph Wilson when he vehemently voted no on this ridiculous contract and told his fellow owners they were giving away the house. he was laughed @ and called a senile old man both in buffalo and by all the national media.

 

well the old man was right and now the piss pot major market owners realize that wilson was exactly right so they are now f--ked.

 

they still make money but anyone who sides with the players on this matter need their heads examined.

 

the day these idiot players hired Smith as their leader was the day that football died for the fans. the guy is a total piece of crap and is nothing but a low life consummate freaking lawyer trying to line his pockets.

 

upshaw would never ever have gone the court route but from the get go Smith was going one way and that was litigation. know why because it makes him a rich piece of crap.

 

he never had any intention of reaching an agreement thru collective bargaining and anyone who thinks he did are brain dead.

 

 

mark my words now fellas Smith will take us all down.

Thanks for that well thought out, well articulated and educated response. If I might make a suggestion, it would be to actually research what you're ranting about before making blanket statements that make you look ... well, silly.

 

The overwhelming majority of current owners did nothing to build the NFL. They bought in AFTER men like Wilson, Davis and Rooney built the league into what it currently is. The overwhelming majority of current owners in fact contributed nothing to the league's success.

Edited May 14, 2011 by tgreg99

[spartacus]

Thanks for that well thought out, well articulated and educated response. If I might make a suggestion, it would be to actually research what you're ranting about before making blanket statements that make you look ... well, silly.

 

The overwhelming majority of current owners did nothing to build the NFL. They bought in AFTER men like Wilson, Davis and Rooney built the league into what it currently is. The overwhelming majority of current owners in fact contributed nothing to the league's success.

 

for the privilege of owning a team in the NFL, those new owners spent hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

Whether they built it from scratch or bought in, the owners have a lot at risk -

 

 

not sure how you can blow it off

 

 

[CosmicBills]

for the privilege of owning a team in the NFL, those new owners spent hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

Whether they built it from scratch or bought in, the owners have a lot at risk -

 

 

not sure how you can blow it off

Where is the risk in a realistic sense? Show me a single NFL team that has lost money in the past decade. In the past TWO decades. Despite the worst economic crsis the country has faced since the 40s and despite a CBA that favored the players the owners wewre making record breaking profits. The TV contracts alone cover every owner's nut before a game is played. That doesn't even factor in the money made from ticket sales, psls, concessions, or merch.

 

Seems to me the only risk to the owners comes when they decided that making money hand over fist wasn't good enough. It seems to me the only risk involved came when the owners risked exposing their unique business model to the meddling of the federal court or to the ire of the fans of the product they provide because they wanted even more money.

 

That's just greed and stupidity. But celebrate it if you want.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Show me a single NFL team that has lost money in the past decade. In the past TWO decades.

At present, I only have access to data for the 2009 season. "Lurker" recently provided the link below, from Forbes magazine:

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html

 

When you click on the above link, an annoying commercial runs first, but you eventually get a 32 team chart. When you get that, click on the blue column header in the upper right hand corner of the page labeled "Operating Income." That will sort the column. Scan down to the bottom of the column. According to Forbes, the Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins both had negative "operating income" in 2009, and if you read the related footnotes, such "operating income" was BEFORE "interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization."

 

If you want to see more details for those two franchises, click on the blue team hyperlinks in the far left column.

 

I think the current CBA situation involves a lot more greed than stupidity, but I celebrate neither.

[Peter]

This is not in dispute. By decertifying hours before the lockout, the players were able to remain in Doty's court.

 

 

Exactly. That is why the NFL is taking the position that the NFLPA* is not entitled to invoke the provision of the prior agreement.