Lockout Watch: 4/29: Stay of injunction granted, LOCKOUT REINSTATED

[Larry]

I agree- I was being sarcastic. But you can't argue that judging by our terrible draft history over the past decade, it would benefit us

Only if you ignore our history of throwing money at FAs.

[The Tris]

It might be scare tactics, its certainly part of a PR strategy, but its not ridiculous. This is an anti trust case, if the Courts ultimatley find in the players favour things like a collective draft would be at risk as wojuld a salary cap and salary floor. Dont believe that? Here is a transcript from an interview DeMaurice Smith did with Mike Florio (link below).

What is ridiculous is that the NFL and Goodell are now seemingly arguing that as litigation endangers the NFL's success, they claim the old system is best for the long term health of the league - AFTER SPENDING THE PAST TWO YEARS ARGUING THE EXACT OPPOSITE - that the current structure of the CBA is not financially sustainable.

Now that the court has roundedly ruled against them and every argument they have made for their position, they are crying wolf that litigation, which they gleefully embranced as much as the players, will kill the NFL.

[AKM311]

What is ridiculous is that the NFL and Goodell are now seemingly arguing that as litigation endangers the NFL's success, they claim the old system is best for the long term health of the league - AFTER SPENDING THE PAST TWO YEARS ARGUING THE EXACT OPPOSITE - that the current structure of the CBA is not financially sustainable.

Now that the court has roundedly ruled against them and every argument they have made for their position, they are crying wolf that litigation, which they gleefully embranced as much as the players, will kill the NFL.

Maybe I missed something, but where did he say the old CBA is then best for the long term health of the NFL. What he is saying is a CBA negotiated through a union is in the best interests of the NFL. Not the last CBA.

Also, when and where did the NFL every say or act that they embrace litigation? They never did and said numerous amount of times that it is the worst way to go. They had no choice to go along with it, but they never embraced it.

This comes down to the players not wanting to compromise. They want the courts to determine the outcome. If the players win on every level, we may see the NFL from back in the day (70's and 80s) come back. Where it is the same 8-10 teams that compete for a championship every year. The game will suffer.

[rd421]

Please can we trade players for picks please o please o please?

[AKM311]

Please can we trade players for picks please o please o please?

We can, but we won't. No team will until a stay is rejected.

[Wrong Direction]

We can, but we won't. No team will until a stay is rejected.

Which could happen before the 4th round at least. Potentially even before the 2nd round.

[Gurgeh]

This comes down to the players not wanting to compromise. They want the courts to determine the outcome. If the players win on every level, we may see the NFL from back in the day (70's and 80s) come back. Where it is the same 8-10 teams that compete for a championship every year. The game will suffer.

The owners want to pay less money to the players so it's a bit much to blame the players for not "compromising", especially when there's no apparent reason for them to accept less money. Both sides have compromised in the talks on other issues but it comes down to the owners wanting more money which will come straight out of the players pockets, so why should they agree to a pay cut?

[AKM311]

Which could happen before the 4th round at least. Potentially even before the 2nd round.

Correct. That is what I am hoping. Because none of the players we are trying to trade will net us a 1st or a 2nd. Not even a 3rd to be realistic.

[texasthunder]

Judge Susan Nelson has asked the NFL players to respond to the owners' request for a "stay" on the lockout injunction at 9AM Wednesday.

NFL business will remain on hold for another day (the day before the start of the 2011 draft). A number of players across the league reported to their teams' facilities Tuesday morning, but most were turned away as the league awaits the next in-court development. The players, of course, can be expected to reject the owners' request. But the owners will then re-appeal.

http://www.rotoworld.com/sports/nfl/football?r=1

Doesnt look like anything is going to be done before the draft.

If it does, it could be a frenzy of activity, which could potentially disrupt every draft board accross the league.

[AKM311]

The owners want to pay less money to the players so it's a bit much to blame the players for not "compromising", especially when there's no apparent reason for them to accept less money. Both sides have compromised in the talks on other issues but it comes down to the owners wanting more money which will come straight out of the players pockets, so why should they agree to a pay cut?

Based off my understanding (I am no lawyer so could be way off base), the players will get more money in $$ just not percentages. They are fine with giving the vets more money, but not rookies. The last proposal given by the NFL, 2 months ago, seemed to offer great benefits across the board (vets, rookies, retired players, etc.). Again, I don't know the full details and I don't think many do.

I think had an a 3-5 day extension been agreed upon after the last proposal, we would have had an agreement. But the players had no intention of agreeing to anything. They want the courts/legal system. The NFL did not. That is the difference. This was the players motive all along. Right fully so as they knew they would win these small battles.

[MartinC]

What is ridiculous is that the NFL and Goodell are now seemingly arguing that as litigation endangers the NFL's success, they claim the old system is best for the long term health of the league - AFTER SPENDING THE PAST TWO YEARS ARGUING THE EXACT OPPOSITE - that the current structure of the CBA is not financially sustainable.

Now that the court has roundedly ruled against them and every argument they have made for their position, they are crying wolf that litigation, which they gleefully embranced as much as the players, will kill the NFL.

I think you misunderstand why the NFL opted out of the old CBA. It was not to do away with the draft, salary cap, salary floor and free agency - it was to lower the percentage of total revenue that the players got. Clearly the players are not excited by that idea and no settlement could be negotiated. The owners locked the players out and the Union went to Court to have the lockout lifted arguing anti trust. The logical conclusion of the Unions case if they win is no collective draft, no free agency as we understand it now etc etc.

[Gurgeh]

Based off my understanding (I am no lawyer so could be way off base), the players will get more money in $$ just not percentages. They are fine with giving the vets more money, but not rookies. The last proposal given by the NFL, 2 months ago, seemed to offer great benefits across the board (vets, rookies, retired players, etc.). Again, I don't know the full details and I don't think many do.

I think had an a 3-5 day extension been agreed upon after the last proposal, we would have had an agreement. But the players had no intention of agreeing to anything. They want the courts/legal system. The NFL did not. That is the difference. This was the players motive all along. Right fully so as they knew they would win these small battles.

It's the percentage that matters, not the total dollars. If you are getting 60% this year why should you accept 50% next year? What's wrong with 60% next year, and the year after that, and so on? The owners have not demonstrated a good reason why they should get a bigger percentage.

The extension being refused comes down to the players not believing that the NFL was negotiating in good faith. IIRC there was some kind of time limit on when the NFLPA could de-certify so by continually offering last-minute changes on the deals and asking for extensions the NFL could be viewed as attempting to take away the anti-trust option from the players. Don't forget the NFL has already been found in court to have operated against the interests of the players in the TV negotiations so that's not exactly the behaviour of someone whose heart is set on reaching an amicable settlement.

[AKM311]

It's the percentage that matters, not the total dollars. If you are getting 60% this year why should you accept 50% next year? What's wrong with 60% next year, and the year after that, and so on? The owners have not demonstrated a good reason why they should get a bigger percentage.

The extension being refused comes down to the players not believing that the NFL was negotiating in good faith. IIRC there was some kind of time limit on when the NFLPA could de-certify so by continually offering last-minute changes on the deals and asking for extensions the NFL could be viewed as attempting to take away the anti-trust option from the players. Don't forget the NFL has already been found in court to have operated against the interests of the players in the TV negotiations so that's not exactly the behaviour of someone whose heart is set on reaching an amicable settlement.

I am not siding with either side at all. I think the NFL is playing games too! However, I don't always believe in percentages, because in business percentages change as a business grows.

Ex. I am in IT sales...My margins on deals that are under $500,000 is a lot higher than deals over $500,000. However, I still make a lot more money on deals over $500,000 because the revenues are higher. I am ok with this model and understand the business reasonings behind it. Also, my pay percentage on commissions decreases every year as my number grows because I have a target income to make vs. just a flat rate.

I know for a fact, if our company just gave a flat rate to all sales reps each year, we would go bankrupt. Out top 2 competitiors had to shut down there company, because of this exact reason. They gave flat rates on commissions to all sales reps. Guess what, they realized they had no money left for growth of the company. If you can't grow, you will slowly die.

Again, I don't know the details of this case or the profits/numbers of each team. However, seeing that about 3-4 teams were willing to open there books, I am thinking there margins are not as high as the players think. Sure the Redskins probably are cashing in, but we are the 2nd largest market in the NFL. That is why Dan Snyder has stayed away from negotiations, because he knows whatever happens he will still make money. This cannot be said for small market teams.

If players want money and money only, thats fine, but expect the NFL go back to the 70s and 80s. 8-10 teams will stack there rosters up with all the top talent. The NFL will lose all competitive balance. No one will watch Giants vs. Jaguars, because it will be a blow out and no good players will be on the Jags. Look at Baseball. Notice only the Red Sox and Yankees get all the headlines? You want the NFL to be like that?

I sure don't.

[Cool as Crud]

Apparently, a couple players tried to go workout at Redskins Park and had an awkward exchange with Bruce Allen.

"It was a little weird. It felt like you were sneaking into the club or something like that, and they knew you weren't supposed to be in there but they hadn't done anything about it yet. Just a little awkward. Just wish you get in there and so some real live work, looking at film, getting on the field." - Anthony Armstrong

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f7c26e/article/alexander-armstrong-have-short-return-at-redskins-park?module=HP_headlines

[Destructis]

The owners felt as though they got screwed with the last CBA, so they made the decision to opt out of the contract. I am at the point where I feel that the owners are bringing this upon themselves. I do feel as though the players are being vindictive to a point. This whole thing has turned into a finger pointing contest and the only real losers in the end are the fans. I think the NFL will need to figure out a way to wash this nasty taste out the mouths of the fans. I have no idea how they will do it. I just see this getting nastier and nastier on both sides.

The owners and players need to find a way to come together on this or they are going to do damage that I don't know can be repaired.

[jflow78]

My only worry is that each side will continue to take shots at each other and grow more and more prideful and less and less interested in compromise and, instead of talking it out, they'll let the courts make a decision on the antitrust hearing.

At that point, Goodell is actually right. There will be no league max/min for spending or paying players, no draft, no rules at all regarding employment (so if I don't like playing for the Skins and the Cowboys are in playoff contention, I can walk out of the Skins' building in week 14 and sign a new contract with Dallas), no rules on roster limits (so Seattle can sign 200 players if they would like, though they might not all be active on gameday), no limits on training/practices and no restrictions for IR or trades (since you can't just trade an employee from Microsoft to Google, the NFL will work the same exact way). EDIT: (Heck, at that point, there's nothing stopping the a team from just dropping out of the NFL and heading to the UFL.)

Both sides will be brutally hurt at that point, but right now I get the feeling that they'd almost rather watch the ship sink while the players stand on one end and the owners on the other. Then, they can all blame each other while they go down together.

[Destructis]

(so if I don't like playing for the Skins and the Cowboys are in playoff contention, I can walk out of the Skins' building in week 14 and sign a new contract with Dallas), no rules on roster limits (so Seattle can sign 200 players if they would like,

There would still be contracts. Odds are they would be guaranteed too.

[88Comrade2000]

This fight was going to happen anyway. If the owners didn't opt out in 2008, triggering the end of the deal after 2010 season; this fight would've occurred after the 2012 season when the original deal expired.

As Redskins fans, we probably don't have to worry long term because we have an owner that would spend like crazy and could adjust to a radically different NFL.

The thing is the courts ultimately decide what the relationship will be between the NFL and The Players; then I would expect a radically different game. Free Agency rules would be different. Draft- there would be none.

[authentic]

Both sides will be brutally hurt at that point, but right now I get the feeling that they'd almost rather watch the ship sink while the players stand on one end and the owners on the other. Then, they can all blame each other while they go down together.

Based on what has been said via multiple league sources (twitter) is that if the league year begins at the rejection of the appeal. Rules would need to be in place. Perhaps, the same rules as they had last season.

[The Tris]

I think you misunderstand why the NFL opted out of the old CBA. It was not to do away with the draft, salary cap, salary floor and free agency - it was to lower the percentage of total revenue that the players got. Clearly the players are not excited by that idea and no settlement could be negotiated. The owners locked the players out and the Union went to Court to have the lockout lifted arguing anti trust. The logical conclusion of the Unions case if they win is no collective draft, no free agency as we understand it now etc etc.

The owners have had TWO YEARS to negotiate a new CBA to replace the old one. They chose to ignore all attempts at negotiations until the 11th hour (the post-SB pre-lockout period), and only then offered up proposals they knew were not realistic options, HOPING for litigation, and expecting the court to ultimately side with them, or the players to crack, which ever happened first.

The players offered up proposals that lowered the revenue split, but asked for concessions on the owners, most of which were acceptable to the ownership (rookie wage scale, player funded increased pension and HC benefits). At one point the players were even willing to conceed on the 18 game issue to get this proposal done, and the owners refused - actively choosing litigation over further negotiations.

The owners chose this past, and now that they see the results, they are unhappy with it, and attempting to blame the players for this mess. And they are using the Commissioner of the league, who supposedly is unbiased and neutral in this, to play this blame game.

For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

Don't give me this woe-is-me BS. He then goes on to lament the loss of the CBA - as if the decision to opt out of it was the players decision.

For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

Then he goes on to pull this cry-wolf, doomsday scenerio that you are buying into, as if he and the owners were powerless to stop the evil minded union hell bent on destroying the NFL - that is not PR, that is manipulation of the public through the use of fear.

And if you really think that the players want some wild west system with no draft, free agency, etc, you are crazy. As Goodell himself states, the CBA has worked enormously well for both the players and the league for years now. No one wants to operate without those tenants of the CBA, but when the NFL refused to negotiate for years, and welcomed litigation, litigation is what they got. Now they are crying foul because they didn't get the outcome they expected, like a petchulant child.

Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

OF COURSE THE PLAYERS DON'T WANT THIS.

Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

No, now they are persuing the only course left to them, when the owners chose not to negotiate. This is a reactive move the the calculated steps taken by the league to opt out of the CBA, force a new deal on there terms, lock the players out when they did not except, all with the hope that the courts would side with them and force the players to accept whatever deal the NFL proposed. This was their plan, and they lost, and now they are pissed about it. No more so than lil Rogey Goodell, who just wishes we could go back to the good old days.

Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!

These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement.

Which is what the players tried to do for years, only to be ignored by the ownership.

So to recap - the players (not the owners), have driven the league to the gateway of hell, despite the ownership preventing any attempt to negotiate a realistic CBA, locking the players out, and welcoming litigation. That's like blaming the person who was rear-ended for the accident.

I don't pretend that the players aren't going for the jugular here (as they should based on the NFL's actions up to this point), but pardon me if I think Roger Goodell is being a little ridiculous here, and showing just how out of touch the ownership really is.

[AKM311]

There would still be contracts. Odds are they would be guaranteed too.

1) Yes, there will be contracts, but nothing stating you can't walk away. Just like my job. I signed an offer letter (contract), but can walk away at anytime.

2) It definitely would not be guarentueed. That will hurt players more than owners.

[authentic]

AlbertBreer Football folks prepare for all contingencies. Imagine: 2 days out from draft, they gotta be ready for possibility FA could start suddenly...

[stoshuaj]

a little snippet lifted from an article in the Wall Street journal:

"What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects."

just some food for thought

[DarrellsMyHero28]

a little snippet lifted from an article in the Wall Street journal:

That all sounds awful.

[MattFancy]

Watching OTL and Vinny is on which is funny to begin with. But Bob Ley just asked if there would be any rouge teams that would allow players in to work out and stuff, and Chris Mortensen of course said the Redskins would be a candidate for that. Why?