In this case a favorable ruling for the players means there is football in 2011. The owners want to lock the players out.

 

What exactly needs to be fixed?

 

Federal judges are basically gods who can do whatever they want within the law.

Getting the case back to Doty is probably as simple as the other judges deferring to him, as he is the senior judge of the circuit. Plus the federal dockets are incredibly backlogged, so most judges would be pleased to dump this on somebody else as it will involve alot of hands on work.

What I imagine will happen is that Doty will grant an injunction ending the lockout which will not be stayed on appeal. And during the appeal time Doty will force the parties back to mediation. And with Doty's supervision mediation has a chance to meaningful. If Doty feels that bob Kraft needs to be in attendance for a deal to get done he can compel him to attend. And if he doesn't, he can send a federal marshall to escort him there. If the Judge thinks they need to work until 10:00 pm every night, then the federal marshall will wait outside until that time.

Again, they're legal gods.

 

He absolutely has the right to enforce the current contracts.

 

what contract, contract expired therefre no contract

 

and that is why people hate lawyers

 

The CBA has expired. That doesn't void the current player contracts. All it means is that things like the salary cap, franchise tag, etc. aren't under contract.

 

true but then the owners can pay those that dont have contracts what? we go totally to free mkt? well teams that cant afford to compete w loss of rev sharing shut down players out of work? there is a bad to it all. cannot force nfl to operate. can say they cabt restrain trade as far lock out of building but if nfl says no games = no games

 

I think this is a good thing. It puts the gun to the owners heads so to speak and will make them deal, rather than allowing them to wait for player's money to run out.

I'm not for a total-player ruling, but I don't want the opposite either. Them getting the union to dissolve was bad for the league IMO, and only serves to extend this battle into upcoming seasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Absolutely. If people want to talk about the players should take whatever the owners give them, and that negotiating a % of revenue is a travesty of the free market, then let them go to a truly free market. The players will get just as much money.

Why couldn't teams afford to compete, and why in the world is that the responsibility of the players? You're advocating free market principles apply the players when it comes to them receiving a % of revenue, but you're opposed to free market principles when it comes to the owners?

 

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. I would guess that without a negotiated CBA the players would be receiving just as much compensation from owners.

 

i would like to see Judge Judy wrap this up in half an hour loke she always does.

 

Doty actually hasn't found them guilty of anything illegal. All he basically did was say that they were essentially colluding with each other. The next step in that trial would be determining if the collusion resulted in restriction of trade for any other business (American Needle in that case). Collusion alone isn't illegal, collusion that results in restriction of trade is.

 

Not sure I see that logic.

 

I realize that this whole fight between the NFL and NFLPA is rather complicated but it can also be broken down relatively simply. The players and owners HAD a deal in place, that they had negotiated together years ago. Football was ON. The owners got together and decided that even with their unprecedented financial prosperity, they wanted the players to take a pay cut, right around the area of 18%, and so they opted OUT of the agreement that was already in place, and began aggressively trying to accomplish that pay cut...without proving why they needed that pay cut in order to ensure the league's prosperity.

If you have an agreement in place with your boss to pay you $100,000 a year, you put in long hours and hard work for him and the company becomes extremely prosperous, and so he lets you know that he's opting out of the deal you two had in place and wants you to sign a new deal that pays you $82,000, wouldn't you want to know why? In such a time of unprecedented prosperity, with you still expected to work 70 hour weeks, impacting your home life, etc? I would. I would want to see firsthand the economic necessity of this pay cut. And if he didn't want to show me that necessity, I'd tell the guy that I'm leaving to go work for someone else. Ah, except NFL players can't do that. The NFL is a monopoly. And that is why players have no choice but to seek legal recourse.

And of course, someone working in the restaurant industry, making barely $30,000 a year, would look on at your situation quibbling between $100,000 and $82,000, and saying "What a bunch of greedy bastards arguing about money I'll never see."

 

When it comes to class conflict there always seem to be people that feel the most angst toward the class all the way at the top, that differ the most from themselves, and then there seem to be the people that feel the most angst toward those classes most adjacent to them, the most like themselves. I'll admit that I tend toward the former rather than the latter, and have a hard time "getting" people that fit into the latter description. Because the players literally work themselves to early death through brain and heart trauma, and/or employer-sanctioned (demanded?) obesity and the habits that go with, and because the players work ten times as hard as UPPER management (though much closer in work commitment with lower management), I do tend to feel sympathy for players in this.

But even if you cast that aside, there's the cold logic that football was on, one side opted out and demanded a better deal for themselves in relation to the other side, refused to prove why they needed that better deal, and is now locking out the other side. I mean, those are just the bare facts. Even the coldest, most objective onlooker should be able to see that there was one side that was CLEARLY the aggressor in this negative outcome. Whether that aggression was justified or not remains to be seen.

 

Eggggg-zactly! Well-said!

 

Good post. If the owners want a billion, $800M, $500M, or $375M, they do need to show why. If not, to hell with ya.

If you are working on a percentage of revenue, less expenses, who here, in their right mind, does not think they are entitled to know what those expenses are?

Were they legit? Were they for private jets, and parties?

Just show what they were or forget them. JMO

 

Jason LaCanfora: "Judge Nelson and not Judge Doty will be overseeing the Brady v. NFL case, parties have been informed. Could be a huge turn of events"

 

Nelson is a new Judge. She was confirmed in 2010 after being a magistrate judge (an non-appointed position) for several years. Even though it probably doesn;t matter, she is an Obama appointee. Can't imagine the union fights her handling of the case.

 

Someone new and feeling her oats. As I said before once this gets to the courts you can't count on anything.

The players, hoping for Doty, may have just screwed themselves.

My hope is that both sides get taken down!

 

I think you are in error here CK... the players are not being asked to take a pay cut. They cannot take a cut on income not yet earned. What the owners are trying to do is lessen the players compensation % by pocketing $1 billion (although it's less based on the "last" offer made before the NFLPA walked out) before any distributions take place.

While it is an unbelievable obscene amount of money that the owners want to reserve for themselves, it still does not mean the players are taking a cut. Keep in mind that the TV contracts, endorsement deals, etc. that kick in this year will still have everyone splitting over $8 billion dollars... somewhere's over $3-4 billion more than any other year in NFL history. My numbers may be off some, but in a nutshell, that's the kind of $$$$ they're squabbling over. So in essence, no one is really taking a pay cut here.

The only players who will take a "pay cut" would be future first round draft picks who will now have to deal with a rookie salary cap, whose savings, BTW, would be spent on veterans who actually deserve the $$, and BTW, what the NFLPA wanted.

 

You are incorrect. Yes, we're talking about an actual pay CUT. First off, cutting the percentage of revenues that are dealt to the players, is a pay cut. Secondly, the proposal that was on the table from the owners just before their final offer which prompted the NFLPA to pack their bags and go home, was for a 2011 salary cap of $131 million, which includes salary and benefits. The 2009 salary cap with benefits included was $149 million. I don't care what you try and say, that's a pay cut. A cut...in pay. When the players shot back with an offer of $151 million, the owners shot back with an offer of $141 million but decided that they would keep any revenues over and above their projections instead of splitting it, as in the previous proposal. So even the final owners proposal for a cap of $141 million (salary plus benefits) was below the 2009 salary plus benefits cap of $149 million.

That's a pay cut. Slice it up, put some wrapping on it, slap on a pretty bow, it's still a pay cut.

 

Interesting that the NFL is making it seem like the NFLPA opted out of the deal because of issues in the CBA (18 game schedule, rookie salaries, etc, etc.) whereas the NFLPA is making it seem like they opted out of the deal because of money.

I was on the NFL's side on this but after reading CK's posts I think the NFL saw this economic downturn as an opportunity to bring in more revenues for each team, owner and the overall League. They thought the people (fans) would side with the NFL and sort of put the pressure on the NFLPA to sign a deal lowering the cap. Most people see the millions of dollar contracts players get and think they are "Greedy" or what have you, but they don't even consider the amount of money each NFL team gets to pocket because the figure is not made public. I am starting to side with the NFLPA a little more as of now...

 

B-I-NGO...B-I-NGO...B-I-NGO and Bingo was his name-o...

 

My business law teacher on the first day of class said there was one phrase he wanted us to be able to recite instantly if asked at any point during class or even if he saw you outside of the classroom. And that phrase was -

"Concerted Action in restraint of Trade."

So much of the class revolved around that simple fact.