official: union decertifies

[rbaloha1]

Wouldn't that third party - the one they were going to let look at the books - have helped come up with this number? Like having used car buyer and Ernie Von Schledorn agree to let some dude from Edmunds.com figure out a fair market price for the '96 delta 88.

The third party is the courts. The player's trump card is in play -- anti trust. The owners should provide a better offer that stops the litigation and satisfies the player's quest not to look at the true financials.

Agree with Mr. Smith that the league is not hurting given the record ratings and popularity. Dr. Martin Luther King would be proud.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Wouldn't that third party - the one they were going to let look at the books - have helped come up with this number? Like having used car buyer and Ernie Von Schledorn agree to let some dude from Edmunds.com figure out a fair market price for the '96 delta 88.

Who do you know wants to buy a car? Ernie Von Schleeeeeedorrrrnnnn... main street in Menomonee Fallllllsss.

[MJZiggy]

Who do you know wants to buy a car? Ernie Von Schleeeeeedorrrrnnnn... main street in Menomonee Fallllllsss.

Still?

Oh and PB, Thanks for the insight.

[packerbacker1234]

Well I just read the email for Goodell he sent out yesterday. It appears the owners/nfl has put an even newer offer on the table that almost concedes 100% to the original PU's demands. The problem is even though they were under 200 million doallars apart, and the new deal custs that in half, the fact remains that the PU does not appear to want to budge until full financials are released. While the PU dissolved and no longer represents the players, it was mostly a play to allow the palyers to sue and force the NFL to not allow a lockout to occur. The players union still exists in some respect, and if agreed upon could rerepresent the palyers again in the future.

My initial reaction to the pu dissolving was "what can the palyers themselves do? They work for the NFL, the NFL doesn't work for them". They can sue for anti-trust and to prevent lockouts, but without the union they lose power in a CBA don't they? I say this because NFL owns them, not the other way around. This means the NFL can do whatever they want.

I do appreciate teh fact the NFL is offering a bandaid agreement for two years which will at least give more time to sort out the remaining money issues while not allowing the NFL to stop. It doesn't fix the big issues but it at least makes the immediate future all fine, should the palyers agree.

[mraynrand]

The third party is the courts. The player's trump card is in play -- anti trust. The owners should provide a better offer that stops the litigation and satisfies the player's quest not to look at the true financials. .

Didn't they do that with the offer to have a third party look at the books? I'm not up to speed on this issue, but that's what I heard. Was that a legit offer?

[Lurker64]

The owners should provide a better offer that stops the litigation and satisfies the player's quest not to look at the true financials.

Not possible. You cannot collectively bargain with a trade association, only a union. There is no players union right now, so there's nobody to provide a better offer to.

The die is cast, either the NFLPA effectively blocks a lockout or the decertification is rules a sham (it is). Either way, one side or the other will acquire a ton of leverage so all of the deals, offers, and demands made up until yesterday are irrelevant. If the NFL ends up winning with their sham argument, their opening bid to the NFLPA will be much less generous than the last offer they gave.

[rbaloha1]

Not possible. You cannot collectively bargain with a trade association, only a union. There is no players union right now, so there's nobody to provide a better offer to.

The die is cast, either the NFLPA effectively blocks a lockout or the decertification is rules a sham (it is). Either way, one side or the other will acquire a ton of leverage so all of the deals, offers, and demands made up until yesterday are irrelevant. If the NFL ends up winning with their sham argument, their opening bid to the NFLPA will be much less generous than the last offer they gave.

There is no sham. The CBA is moot. The owners should comply with opening their books to players (not completely though). Owners need to avoid courts since it may be discovered they are underreporting revenue. Very likely since Forbes values all franchises at least $1 billion. The feds could also step-in if they are found to be underreporting. Anti trust is another matter.

IMO the players hold the leverage since the owners do not have the $4 billion piggy bank.

[Bretsky]

Do you know anything about the guy other than he is a lawyer and has a relationship to a politician you don't like? He's not billing hourly. And the same reputable players you feel are represented by Armstrong and Vincent** voted for Smith after an exhaustive and long interview process that included a lot of people INCLUDING Armstrong and Vincent. And Smith was in part a compromise candidate for those who did not feel that going hardcore after the owners was a wise maneuver this time. Its unlikely he drove this option.

They are at this option not because people are incompetent or evil, but because its their point of greatest leverage.

The question is now whether the league's outside counsel has a better strategy for beating this in court than the owners did last time when they got their lunch handed to them.


** Vincent stands accused (though not charged, simply dismissed from his former Union position) of profiting personally from proprietary Union information that he reported to his private business interests. Vincent might not be exactly the stand up guy you think him to be.

And by the way: the last guy to go this route and win? Respected former player Eugene Upshaw. People both inside and outside the Union called him every name in the book for going this route. But he won true free agency.

Root for the owner's if you wish, just be honest about it.

yes, I've read about his egotistical dousche plenty; I could care less who he's friends with. I stand by my belief that the players want to make this ugly, they do not want to bargain in good faith right now, and they want to inflect pain on the owners...partiall for feeling slighted in the past........they didn't want one of their own anymore for a reason .

[Bretsky]

Very true. It's hard to filter fact from fiction in all the news stories, but recent things seem to point to an unreasonableness from the players:

- supposedly the owners agreed to release unaudited financial information to an independent third party accounting firm, who would then issue a report to the players about the owners claims. The players rejected it, wanting all details in front of their own biased eyes, just like the owners biased eyes. Generally, an independent third party is the way to breach gaps such as this.

- apparently on Friday the players demanded 10 years of data immediately to secure another extension for negotiations. I believe they originally asked for 5 years. Upping demands at a critical time assures that no compromise will occur.

- Hunter Hillenmeyer, who apparently has been involved in the negotiations, criticized the owners for not offering a counter proposal when the players rejected the owners first proposal. It is never wise to negotiate by yourself. A proposal from one side generally is countered by a proposal from the other side, not a second proposal from the side making the initial offer.

I think the players are right were they wanted to be all along, in Federal court.

BOOM
WINNER

[rbaloha1]

BOOM
WINNER

I have lava land available if you want it. The arrogant owners only changed when Judge Doty ruled against the owner's $4 billion slush fund. Judge Doty is player friendly having ruled on the players side in 1989, the Reggie White free agency and the illegal $4 billion.

The owners better find a solution. IMO leaving your fate with Judge Doty is unwise.

[Bretsky]

I have lava land available if you want it. The arrogant owners only changed when Judge Doty ruled against the owner's $4 billion slush fund. Judge Doty is player friendly having ruled on the players side in 1989, the Reggie White free agency and the illegal $4 billion.

The owners better find a solution. IMO leaving your fate with Judge Doty is unwise.

agree with you...........I was just stating Patler's point of the players being exactly where they wanted to be was a winner

[rbaloha1]

agree with you...........I was just stating Patler's point of the players being exactly where they wanted to be was a winner

Thank goodness. The owners are asking players to revert to 2007 salary cap numbers and asking office personnel to take pay cuts. Ridiculous when you are growing revenue.

The owners are still freaked-out by not having that $4 billion. Imagine if Judge Doty ruled against the players.

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/117857134.html

[pbmax]

yes, I've read about his egotistical dousche plenty; I could care less who he's friends with. I stand by my belief that the players want to make this ugly, they do not want to bargain in good faith right now, and they want to inflect pain on the owners...partiall for feeling slighted in the past........they didn't want one of their own anymore for a reason .

Link about the egotistical douche? One who is more egotistical and douchetastic than the other wildly successful people in the room?

[pbmax]

Wouldn't that third party - the one they were going to let look at the books - have helped come up with this number? Like having used car buyer and Ernie Von Schledorn agree to let some dude from Edmunds.com figure out a fair market price for the '96 delta 88.

It certainly could be. However, despite Patler's post to the contrary, I have found nothing at all today that the Owner's stance on sharing financial data during the last two days.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-disrespectedunion031111

Silver does confirm the request for 10 years of audited financial data, but there is no mention that this was a change from a previous request for five years (in fact the inference is that the request had not changed and the owners had not changed their opposition). As for a third party, I doubt either side wants to trust a party that the other side is paying. So that would eventually mean 2 sets of auditors see the info (the owners accountants and the firm the players had contacted). However, the players would not need to know WHICH teams possessed which set of data, so some confidentiality could have been arranged, Team A, Team B, ....

So I am not so sure the owners were sharing anything more substantial than the statement on profits they have already shared. One source (via PFT) had the totality of that information consisting of one page of numbers, two for each team. Presumable, either the last two years or one number from prior to 2006 and one after.

I missed much of Thursday and all of Friday NFL stuff, so I would like to see if anyone has a report that I am missing.

My reading of the tea leaves is that the league thinks the players are caught in a legal paradox, one provision of the CBA limited the ability of the Union to decertify for six months IF they didn't decertify before the CBA expired. Another provision limited the owner's ability to claim that decertification was a sham only if decertification occurred AFTER the CBA expired. The players picked the former language to adhere to and thus the owner's might have retained the ability to claim the NFLPA is still a Union.