official: union decertifies

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2...ory?id=6220232

Nick Collins disagrees with the NFLPA position to boycott the draft.

Current NFL player Nick Collins, a safety with the Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers, said Tuesday that he believes prospects should be able to attend the draft.

"I don't thnk it's fair, but at the same time, we're in a situation where we don't know what's going on," Collins said on ESPN First Take. "But at the end of the day, you got to let those guys enjoy that moment. That's the only thing they have left."

Meanwhile, Adrian Peterson calls the NFL "modern day slavery". Stupid.

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson is so frustrated by the failed labor talks that he went as far as calling the NFL "modern-day slavery" in an interview with Yahoo! Sports last Friday shortly after the union decertified.

"It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money ... the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey -- without us, there's no football,' " he said.

Peterson's "slavery" comment has since been removed from the blog post. Author Doug Farrar said on Twitter that Peterson said it twice but he removed it because "I want to give him the opportunity to explain what he really meant. Because I don't think he meant to connect the two."

[gbgary]

i agree with nick. these guys are going to get drafted without the fanfare, without all the photos and interviews, depriving their families of the spectacle that is the nfl draft. stupid idea asking them to stay home.

[RashanGary]

People like AD are going to make sure this doesn't go well for the players. Idiot!

[Lurker64]

People like AD are going to make sure this doesn't go well for the players. Idiot!

In any argument between professional athletes and businessmen, you can rely on more dumb statements to come out of the mouths of the athletes.

[Bretsky]

http://www.620wtmj.com/sports/gregmatzek/117900414.html

Trying to figure out who is at fault in the now closed labor negotiations between the NFL and the players association is maddening. On the surface it appears to be a conflict between two entities who have more couch cushion money than I have to my name.

While the dollars at stake may not be relatable to you and I, dollars are the root of the conflict. I'd say that up until Friday, the majority of people were on the side of the players, but after a carefully, and well crafted response to the cease in negotiations by the owners, I've sensed a shift in thinking.

The smartest thing the owners have done in reducing their blame is make public their offer to the players. I have listed the bullet points in the offer below. What I can't comment on is the level of truth in the whole mess...all we need are television and radio commercials slamming each other and the situation will resemble a Presidential election.

Here's what the owners supposedly offered the players. I'll let you decide who is most to blame:

1. To more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury, the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multiyear injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the off season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

[mmmdk]

I can't find heads or tails of this money conflict but I do know that greed rules. With that said, I'd like to point out that it is us, the fans, that pays for the gluttony of players & owners.
I rescently got my PACKERS package from Packers-proshop & I paid a sh!t load for the Packers Championship gear and it got me thinking (Oh,I did the AR Champ belt today to a fellow NFL fan...yeah, over there in Denmark but it counts).
NFL has become too much of a Mickey Mouse bobble world and I don't like it; I believe I will follow the Packers regardless 'cos of the structure and nature of the organization but I feel the rest of the NFL can go screw themselves...they remind me of Brett Favre: CLASSLESS!

[bobblehead]

I don't think hat would really work. It would throw the draft out of whack, remove competetive parity (leaving forced parity in its wake), and limit progress and promotions to one internal hierarchy. At least with the current version (an oligopoly), competetiveness is allowing the better organizations (the Packers, Steelers, Ravens, Falcons, etc) to rise to the top while those with poorer structures and decision-making (the 49ers, Cardinals, Browns, Bengals, etc) to flounder. Plus, could you see Jerry Jones giving up ownership of the Cowboys? I admit, that would be absolutely hilarious to watch...

But the NFL IS one corporation. You don't see my team being allowed to compete in THEIR league do you? Its not a free market competition. I have to organize an entire league of my own and even then I don't get to play the Browns. The Cowboys are not their own independent entity either. They are forced to play a schedule. The NFL is one entity that has several franchises competing within its market. Their "corporate rules" are designed to keep it competitive and force teams to compete for the betterment of the entire entity. If not there would be no minimum salary cap. The corporation has no more of a monopoly than Fox news or CNN. But the anchors on each network are competing against each other as well as the ones from the other network. If the USFL pops up again it competes with the NFL.

My point of all this is simple. If the players don't like it, they are free to start their own league and compete with the NFL. They have no inherent "right" to the owners profits. Simply put they are doing a job and the owners can pay them if they want to. The only reason some liberal judge ever ruled for the players was some sense that they somehow "deserved" more for their job than they were being paid. I wish a judge would demand that my wifes employer share his profits, but it won't happen. If she sued the judge would laugh and tell her go work somewhere else if she doesn't like his pay. Or open her own business.

I am NOT anti employee by any means, but I think the players actually should form their own league if they want leverage in negotiations. Maybe with some competition for the services of the players the owners might pay them more. Thats the way the free market works.

[Smidgeon]

But the NFL IS one corporation. You don't see my team being allowed to compete in THEIR league do you? Its not a free market competition. I have to organize an entire league of my own and even then I don't get to play the Browns. The Cowboys are not their own independent entity either. They are forced to play a schedule. The NFL is one entity that has several franchises competing within its market. Their "corporate rules" are designed to keep it competitive and force teams to compete for the betterment of the entire entity. If not there would be no minimum salary cap. The corporation has no more of a monopoly than Fox news or CNN. But the anchors on each network are competing against each other as well as the ones from the other network. If the USFL pops up again it competes with the NFL.

My point of all this is simple. If the players don't like it, they are free to start their own league and compete with the NFL. They have no inherent "right" to the owners profits. Simply put they are doing a job and the owners can pay them if they want to. The only reason some liberal judge ever ruled for the players was some sense that they somehow "deserved" more for their job than they were being paid. I wish a judge would demand that my wifes employer share his profits, but it won't happen. If she sued the judge would laugh and tell her go work somewhere else if she doesn't like his pay. Or open her own business.

I am NOT anti employee by any means, but I think the players actually should form their own league if they want leverage in negotiations. Maybe with some competition for the services of the players the owners might pay them more. Thats the way the free market works.

Free market competition is not the opposite of a single corporation. The NFL is an oligopoly. 32 different corporations (that admittedly have a unique way of "hiring" employees for their first run in the businesses; after that, free agency is closer to free market).

In truth, the NFL is similar to the cable/satellite industry. Due to infrastructure, there are limited number of companies who can compete on the same level (an oligopoly as opposed to a monopoly which is a single corporation). In the same way, even if you did field a team (like the UFL), you simply couldn't compete with a single NFL team in a free market due to infrastructure. Not a single UFL team could compete with the facilities, fandom, and talent level of the worst NFL team, which would eventually lead to a collapse of any new franchise that wasn't supported by the brotherhood of the NFL.

The USFL, XFL, AFL (Arena), NFL, WFL, and UFL are all conglamorate oligopolies that are or have competed against each other in the past. Some could be successful simultaneously (NFL and AFL), some could not. But it's competing oligopolies--not monopolies. There's still internal competition between the franchises that you simply wouldn't have in a single corporation.

By the way, I completely agree with your second paragraph. The players absolutely can go create their new league separate from the NFL. But I also would follow that up by saying I think they wouldn't have the stadiums or the capital to build stadiums (the infrastructure) to make that model sustainable. Many of these players are poor with money (thus the Brunell's of the world--or was it Bledsoe?) and therefore wouldn't have the financial savvy to make a new model work. I'm not saying all, just many (and probably most). Maybe it could work. Maybe it'd be worth a try. But I really don't think even they'd be able to compete. The NFL is a juggarnaut of an oligopoly that--without trying--could roll over any competition--for now.

It's an idea I hadn't thought of, but it would be fascinating to watch though.

[rbaloha1]

Just like the players can form their own league, the owners can also REPLACE PLAYERS WITH NEW PLAYERS AND PAY MINIMUM WAGE.

[pbmax]

OK. Best guess as to what this gesture looks like and means. I have utterly no idea unless he means he's going to start knocking heads together like Moe Howard. By leaving the room.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, not a bit humbler after last month’s Super Bowl seating fiasco or the prior day’s finding that the owners had abused their duty to max out revenues by cutting a deal for lockout insurance, opened a face-to-face meeting with the players on March 2 with the following message to the players who attended the session.

“I don’t think we’ve got your attention,” Jones said, according to several players who spoke anonymously to Trotter. “You clearly don’t understand what we’re saying, and we’re not hearing what you’re saying. So I guess we’re going to have to show you to get your attention.”

Per Trotter, Jones then tapped his fists together. The players interpreted the gesture as a sign that a lockout was coming. (Maybe he was simply using Friends code for giving the finger.)

Jones then stood up and walked out. Panthers owner Jerry Richardson reportedly prepared to leave as well, but Patriots owner Robert Kraft put a hand on Richardson’s forearm, prompting Richardson to stay put.

h/t: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...42/1/index.htm

via: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...certification/

[bobblehead]

Free market competition is not the opposite of a single corporation. The NFL is an oligopoly. 32 different corporations (that admittedly have a unique way of "hiring" employees for their first run in the businesses; after that, free agency is closer to free market).

In truth, the NFL is similar to the cable/satellite industry. Due to infrastructure, there are limited number of companies who can compete on the same level (an oligopoly as opposed to a monopoly which is a single corporation). In the same way, even if you did field a team (like the UFL), you simply couldn't compete with a single NFL team in a free market due to infrastructure. Not a single UFL team could compete with the facilities, fandom, and talent level of the worst NFL team, which would eventually lead to a collapse of any new franchise that wasn't supported by the brotherhood of the NFL.

The USFL, XFL, AFL (Arena), NFL, WFL, and UFL are all conglomerate oligopolies that are or have competed against each other in the past. Some could be successful simultaneously (NFL and AFL), some could not. But it's competing oligopolies--not monopolies. There's still internal competition between the franchises that you simply wouldn't have in a single corporation.

By the way, I completely agree with your second paragraph. The players absolutely can go create their new league separate from the NFL. But I also would follow that up by saying I think they wouldn't have the stadiums or the capital to build stadiums (the infrastructure) to make that model sustainable. Many of these players are poor with money (thus the Brunell's of the world--or was it Bledsoe?) and therefore wouldn't have the financial savvy to make a new model work. I'm not saying all, just many (and probably most). Maybe it could work. Maybe it'd be worth a try. But I really don't think even they'd be able to compete. The NFL is a juggarnaut of an oligopoly that--without trying--could roll over any competition--for now.

It's an idea I hadn't thought of, but it would be fascinating to watch though.

Frst, I didn't mean to imply that the NFL was a monopoly or oligopoly. I meant that in its function its a single entity of 32 divisions. Sort of like ABC has several "shows" that compete for airtime. The NFL has created a league that allows 32 "shows" to compete for the title. They all must compete in the NFL's rule set regarding salary caps, roster sizes, etc. Every team is reliant on the other teams as with no league the "franchise" would be worthless. My point was regarding the original "collusion" lawsuit where players won free agency. If you view the NFL as one entity the ruling was ridiculous. Players have always been free agents. They can go to the USFL, or do another job. The idea that the NFL is required to allow them to shift from franchise to franchise at will given the unique business here was crazy. Thus, we needed a salary cap and other rules to be implemented after that decision to re balance the playing field. Without a cap, we would have a situation where Dan Snyder would win every super bowl (or Paul Allen) and the entire product would lose money. For the NFL to thrive every team MUST be forced to at least attempt to be competitive.

Now as far as them competing with the NFL, I agree, that in the beginning getting stadium contracts, TV contracts et al would make it a slow start...BUT that is what happens when you enter a market. You start out behind and try to compete. If you do compete you deserve the riches. If the players form a league and it thrives, they can have the profits....until then, they deserve exactly what the NFL chooses to pay them. AS rb said...minimum wage if they want. The ownership of the NFL has to decide if its worth putting an inferior product on the field, or if they give up more money. But its their choice to make (not the players). The players only choice is, do you wish to play for what someone is willing to pay you?

[bobblehead]

Touche, point taken. Capitalism, even though greed is a big part of the driving force, it does seem to work a little better. I can't argue that.

I still like it when you can mix a little socialism in with it though. Keep just enough of a carrot out there for the money seekers to keep going out there diving for their treasure, but then balance it off by rewarding the regular people who just want to work a job they like, help people and have a peaceful life. They are the backbone of this country, not the billionaires. The greed does play a role though. You can't take that out. I see your point.

I'll give you my advice. Work for a single owner small business. They tend to treat employees better. As long as you just want to work a job you like and value respect and decent pay without envying the owner you will be happy. The true backbone of the country are the guys who take a risk. I know a high school dropout worth $17 million. He gives his employees big bonuses every year. He knows all 300 of his employees. Knows their spouses and most of the names of their children. I value guys like him more than any 10 CEO's of fortune 500 companies. He is the lifeblood of this country because HE makes the lives those 300 people desire possible. They have value, no doubt. But he is the risk taker and the innovator that made their happiness easier to achieve.

[Bretsky]

Mark Murphy gave an awesome interview. He's been on all angles. He's been a player rep, he worked for the union after he retired, and now he's with the owners.

He noted several things

He noted the owners offered to provide all audited financials to the playere from 06 when the last agreement went down
He noted the owners were offering several concessions that they would only give up if the 18gm season was agreed to
He noted on the last effort the owners dropped that extended schedule idea for two years while still giving concessions
He noted he was very disappointed the players union walked away from their offer with no counter
He strongly believes that from the get go, the players didn't want an agreemen
He strongly believes the players believe they will do best by rolling the dice, disbanding, and taking this through the legislative process
He sounded sincere, honest, and throughly disappointed in his dealings with the new commander in charge

[Smidgeon]

Frst, I didn't mean to imply that the NFL was a monopoly or oligopoly. I meant that in its function its a single entity of 32 divisions. Sort of like ABC has several "shows" that compete for airtime. The NFL has created a league that allows 32 "shows" to compete for the title. They all must compete in the NFL's rule set regarding salary caps, roster sizes, etc. Every team is reliant on the other teams as with no league the "franchise" would be worthless. My point was regarding the original "collusion" lawsuit where players won free agency. If you view the NFL as one entity the ruling was ridiculous. Players have always been free agents. They can go to the USFL, or do another job. The idea that the NFL is required to allow them to shift from franchise to franchise at will given the unique business here was crazy. Thus, we needed a salary cap and other rules to be implemented after that decision to re balance the playing field. Without a cap, we would have a situation where Dan Snyder would win every super bowl (or Paul Allen) and the entire product would lose money. For the NFL to thrive every team MUST be forced to at least attempt to be competitive.

Now as far as them competing with the NFL, I agree, that in the beginning getting stadium contracts, TV contracts et al would make it a slow start...BUT that is what happens when you enter a market. You start out behind and try to compete. If you do compete you deserve the riches. If the players form a league and it thrives, they can have the profits....until then, they deserve exactly what the NFL chooses to pay them. AS rb said...minimum wage if they want. The ownership of the NFL has to decide if its worth putting an inferior product on the field, or if they give up more money. But its their choice to make (not the players). The players only choice is, do you wish to play for what someone is willing to pay you?

Well said. I see what you're saying.

[Lurker64]

Just like the players can form their own league, the owners can also REPLACE PLAYERS WITH NEW PLAYERS AND PAY MINIMUM WAGE.

Not in this case they can't. They would be in breach of contract.