Injunction Junction

[get louder at lambeau]

That's what happned in 1992 or whenever the last one was. They opened the books after the court made them.

Do you have any links that talk about that? I don't know much about the Reggie White case. I'm not sure how similar it is or isn't to today's lockout case.

[Tarlam!]

This had better be a ploy.

You sound uncertain. That's actually pretty funny.

[get louder at lambeau]

The players are offering up their preferred avenue of negotiation. Why don't the owners just show good faith and negotiate on the players terms?

You could just as easily say it the other way, and the only thing that changes is your personal bias-
"The owners are offering up their preferred avenue of negotiation. Why don't the players just show good faith and negotiate on the owners terms?"

[sharpe1027]

"From here on, you know what Judge Nelson is going to say. Since the players were technically not unionized when the NFL decided to lock out the players, it was technically not a justifiable lockout. Read on and you will understand that Judge Nelson did not believe the decertification of the NFLPA as a union to be any sort of sham."

The decertification wasn't a sham? Then why is the head of the NFLPA still talking as though he's representing the players? Hmmmm.....

Maybe he hasn't read the memo.

[Patler]

"We're all for anything that allows the players to realize their maximum potential on the free-agent market. The league has grown exponentially based on the rules that have been in place over the years, but a lot of the rules that have taken place have been very restrictive on the players," Mawae said.

As an example of the restrictions on players, Mawae cited the NFL draft, which this year takes place Thursday through Saturday.

"These young players coming up have no choice on what team they can go to," he said. "If indeed there was a true free-agent market, they could go out there and market themselves to any team they want to go to and choose who they want to play for instead of being told what team they're going to go play for for the next three to five years depending on what happens with the contract length."

When asked if the NFLPA wants to see the draft abolished, Mawae said: "I'm saying potentially if there is no draft then every kid coming out of college has the potential to negotiate a contract with any team he wants to negotiate with."

Would that be good for the league?

"It could be, it could not be," he said. "We don't know, we've never had a system where there is no draft."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there it is, what the players truly want. This isn't about financial transparency or open books. It is about changing the landscape of the draft and free agency.

How can anyone back the players when this is what they want the league to become. The players want to turn the NFL into MLB.

I hope it's a negotiating ploy and not real. What a shit hole the NFL would be if they changed some of these things.

This had better be a ploy.

Of course its a ploy. Why would the veteran players go through all this for the sake of giving more initial freedom to guys who have never and may never play in the league? The NFLPA probably cares even less about the interests of college players entering the league than it does for the long-retired players.

I have argued for weeks that the NFLPA has an objective other than getting a closer look at the owners books. I would now say they have an objective other than eliminating the draft. Their likely objective(s)? One or more of the following:

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

[KYPack]

OK sports fans, this is it.

Take P's last four lines and chip 'em in granite....

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

That's what the players are trying to do.

Since the monster money came into the game, that's the logical move.

You don't like the players making big money? You don't like the owners? You don't like unions? It don't matter. That's the players objective and they are gonna use the legal system to try and get their goal.

This whole deal is gonna suck, but that's what's going on.

[SkinBasket]

If negotiating in good faith means taking whatever the owners offer with nothing more than a hand shake and a "we're telling you the truth this time, we promise", then no, they never intended to take that. The courts will open the books. The owners will look sleezy in the courts eyes by the stuff they're doing behind partial audits and things will go according to DeMaurices plan.

You have a poor understanding of "good faith."

Nobody's ship is sinking in any sea. If the owners don't like the new deal, sell their franchises. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing them to own an NFL team. They won't sell because they're making a fortune doing something very fun. Quit with the drama, nobody's going broke here.

I guess we'll just rename it the Communist Football Cooperative then. Your understanding of "ownership" might just be even more retarded than your understanding of "good faith."

[RashanGary]

Patler,

Eliminating the salary cap seems like the most obvious one, or greatly increasing the revenue sharing and increasing the pot that way. The ultimate goal is money, obviously.

I'd argue eliminating the salary cap, while it may help the players slightly for a decade or two, it would really dwindle as teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay (two teams with huge fan bases that feed the pot) start losing interest. The way to get more pie, the plain and easy way for everyone to get more pie, is to bake a bigger pie. Parity grows the league.

If skinbasket's distaste for these guys is based on that, I see where you guys are coming from. They really might be out to destroy the league.

Or maybe the owners of the biggest markets are hoarding a butt load of cash and they're trying to open up some more sharing and keeping a cap, I don't know.

Time will tell, I'm kind of disappointed they came out with this stinky shit pile of an idea. The owners had a very (make a bigger pie) plan and the players are countering with, (yeah, and we'll take a big stinky shit in it and the courts will wipe our butts) reply. Not good.

[RashanGary]

I guess we'll just rename it the Communist Football Cooperative then. Your understanding of "ownership" might just be even more retarded than your understanding of "good faith."

You're kind of missing the point, those are the choices the owners might have here, today. My idea of ownership is pretty much in line with what is happening. The owners are getting controlled by the courts. Fact.

Maybe you're clinging on to an ideal that isn't really in line with how our labor laws are enforced today.

[RashanGary]

If it were me, I'd eliminate all labor laws. The 10% of our country that doesn't work could bunk up in slave quarters and work the fields during day for food, shelter and $0.50/hour. We can bring them over from Africa or let them in from Mexico if we run out of labor. Those idiots should have planned their life out a little better if they didn't want to become slaves. Pfft. . . dirt of society.

Imagine what that could do for our exports. We could produce food, cars, electronics, textiles even, not to mention tobacco and mine our resources for cheap. Instead of having environment laws, we could pump it into our rivers and lakes. That's cheap as fuck, why did the government ever get in teh way of that. We'd be back to dominating the world. Imagine, the beautiful world it would be. Almost no middle class, but that's beside the point. And if you think were' going to supply any type of health care for these scum bags, hahaha. that's a funny joke. That would drive up the cost of our exports and prevent the 1% filthy freakin rich from getting filthy frickin richer. As far as motivation, the 90% poor can look to the 1% rich and have something to strive for, the American dream. That wealth gap is like a carrot dangling in from of their stupid little mouths. They can't help but chase it.

10% of our country would have the best healthcare in the world. The other 90%, none. Reject them at the door. Their stupid choices earned them what they're getting, even if it is a slow painful death when all they needed was some penacilin.

Oh what a beatiful place the lawless America would be.


But what am I saying, god and everyone else knows that if there are no labor laws, the good people would never employ slave labor or allow for the elimination of the middle class. That's never happened before. Well, if it has, we're so much more sophisticated now. Nothing bad happens in the new world. Laws really do nothing. They have nothing to do with the thriving system we have today. The system, in fact, is thriving despite them even though it's never thrived without them, but that's beside the point.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe you're clinging on to an ideal

Believing in the principles and laws that founded this nation isn't exactly "clinging to an ideal."

[Guiness]

That's what happned in 1992 or whenever the last one was. They opened the books after the court made them.

1982, following the 57-day strike, two strikes ago. I've posted about it a few times, there was a fair amount of fall-out from the book opening. The next strike was 87, after a five year agreement signed in '82 expired.

Do you have any links that talk about that? I don't know much about the Reggie White case. I'm not sure how similar it is or isn't to today's lockout case.

The Reggie White affair didn't resolve directly around a strike, but was, in a way, a long delayed knock-on effect from the '87 strike. Do you remember 'Plan B Free Agency;?

[Lurker64]

If you eliminate the salary cap, you also eliminate the salary floor. The salary floor is what the union should be fighting for, since it's the salary floor that actually helps the vast majority of their membership. Correspondingly, eliminating the cap only helps the top 5% at best of players, and probably ultimately hurts the bottom 95% of players. In fact Kessler's strategy of eliminating the draft and all free agency restrictions seems optimized to help the superstars at the expense of the rank and file. Since without franchise tags, free agency restrictions, and a salary cap you will have the prices of true superstars going up and up and up, so teams (whose expenses are limited by their revenue plus their owner's largesse) will have to cut costs by treating every middle to bottom of the roster players as fungible.

In fact, in Kessler's world there is no minimum salary, and no rules to which college (or high school) players can be signed as free agents (and when). So if you can't convince a third year veteran to run down and cover kicks for $30,000 a year, you can find some college sophomore who will jump ship in the middle of the college football season to do so.

So what you get is Peyton Manning making $40m/year and longsnappers making $25k.

This is bad for the owners, bad for the fans, and bad for the vast majority of the union. I certainly hope the rank and file can hold their leadership in check, since not only would Kessler's world ruin the NFL it would ruin college football as well. Jeffrey Kessler is waging war, not just against the NFL, but against football.

[RashanGary]

Believing in the principles and laws that founded this nation isn't exactly "clinging to an ideal."

Well, they're stomping all over the principals and laws you believe in. To your original claim that I don't understand the definition of ownership, maybe I understand perfectly well how it works. Mabye you don't understand the definition that's actually being used today.


skinbasket "Bahaha. . . The courts can't interfere with what an employer pays it's employees. You don't understand ownership. "

JH "Uh, they just did. Ownership isn't in complete control anymore. If the owners don't like it, they can sell."

In full context, it's not quite as crazy as it sounded at first blush, I reckon. Maybe it's still as crazy, but in a sad, real way. Certainly not in a stupid me way though.

[Freak Out]

OK sports fans, this is it.

Take P's last four lines and chip 'em in granite....

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

That's what the players are trying to do.

Since the monster money came into the game, that's the logical move.

You don't like the players making big money? You don't like the owners? You don't like unions? It don't matter. That's the players objective and they are gonna use the legal system to try and get their goal.

This whole deal is gonna suck, but that's what's going on.

Eliminating the cap will kill the game....the last two not so much.