Lockout Might Not Last Long
March 12th, 2011
"You hear the one about Saltines and anchovies?"
So hell’s bells sounded last night and the NFL players union decertified and players sued the league, and the NFL owners locked out the players.
Now Joe doesn’t cover the lockout — what for? when ProFootballTalk.com does such an incredible job — but it’s pretty clear that in a few weeks old man, player-friendly federal judge Doty is going to rule that the NFL can’t lock out the players and then business will resume as usual while the NFL may or may not appeal.
Already, the NFL Draft isn’t supposed to be affected.
Joe’s not crying or worried about any of this ridiculous mess — Joe won’t be nervous unless the mess is still around come late July.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:00 am
I am going to follow your lead,Joe! I refuse to pay this rediculious situation any attention, until it starts to cut into the season. This is just stupidity
March 12th, 2011 at 11:03 am
If the courts stop a lockout by the owners, all hell will break loose. The NFL will be in the middle of an anti-trust lawsuit (monopoly), and they will be forced by the courts to keep their business operations open and running. Without a collective bargaining agreement, teams will be hesitant to sign free agents (not knowing if there will be a salary cap). By not signing players, players will sue in anti-trust court that the players are monopolizing the market and in effect “locking them out”. If the NFL signs the players and then an agreement is made, teams may be in violation of new salary floors and caps. It’s a lose/lose situation for the NFL if the courts prevent a lockout.
On the flip side, the NFL can ask the courts to overturn the union’s decertification. Say they weren’t bargaining in good faith. If they can show that the players union didn’t make any concessions at the bargaining table, and effectively used decertification to “gain the upper hand” in negotiations, the courts can overturn it and force the union to represent the players and continue to negotiate a deal. Of course, Judge Doty is not one to rule in favor of the NFL very often, so this isn’t the most likely scenario.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:35 am
You should cover the lockout more some of us gave up keeping up with pro football talk a long time ago.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Good post BamBam and I would add that in previous litigation with the McNeil case and Reggie White cases, both decided by Doty, the NFL tried the same argument that the decertification was just a sham and lost. Most likely that same argument will be defeated and then the anti-trust litigation starts in earnest. The owners are fools that are poised to kill the golden goose! This didn’t have to be this way and it is easy to blame the NFLPA but the Owners put them in this situation to have to protect their legal rights so you can’t blame them for playing along the same rules as the owners. NFL has severely miscalculated their leverage in this situation and greed is going to kill the NFL as we know it. Get ready for MLB style football and say goodbye to parity and small markets!
March 12th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Letting the players (employees) dictate how the owners run their businesses and how much of the profits the owners can keep before dishing out the players portion is like….
letting the inmates run the asylum. Sure, you need inmates or there’s no need for an asylum, but do you really want them running the place? If so, why even have an asylum? Just let them out to run their own household. Of course you need administration to run the asylum, not the inmates. The players play, the owners own. The owners choose how much to spend on improvements and new equipment and staffing…. If the owners choose not to spend money on upgrades to older stadiums or team events, it’s the fans that suffer. Either the fans pay for upgrades in taxes or the fans don’t get the upgrades and suffer. Cities don’t get Super Bowls because of having old stadiums. Teams move when fans in a new city fund a stadium, and fans in the old city wouldn’t pay more. It’s the fans that suffer. I’d rather have the owners with the money and have them pay for the upgrades, than lose a team to a new city or having a run down stadium.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Actually BamBam,
This is a more accurate description of the LOCKOUT: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons%2F110304
March 12th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
there it is folks…..another goofy picture of all 3 glazer boys wearing the same stupid tie…what exactly is wrong with them?…..might they all be wearing matching underoos as well??………..adam from ny
March 12th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
May or may not appeal? Joe you are out of your mind, respectfully. Abandoning an appeal would be a complete, total, permanent loss for the owners. Undoutedly, the owners would appeal.
Missing a season absolutely survivable for owners. They have planned for it, expected it and believe it to be worth it. They not Doty is a pro-labor judge, so to get an objective ruling they will need to go over his head. Players must compromise or this thing continues.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Joe here,
@Thomas 2.2. – Always a chance they’ll sit down again with the players before filing — a good faith gesture. None of us know.
March 12th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
When the owners capitulated at the 11th hour and offered to split the difference, even giving up major concessions like the 18 game schedule, the NFLPA saw the fear of litigation in their eyes and filed suit. Regarding the latest proposal, the NFLPA took the position that there’s enough “manure” here, there must be a pony somewhere! They sued sensing the owners will fear a legal process called “discovery” where they and the rest of the world will get to look under the sheets of the NFL. Trust me! This is not going to last long. They are going to get back around the table and the players are going to compromise and give the owners everything they asked for except the money which is what this is all about.
March 12th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
tha players have tiger blood and they’re winning
March 12th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The beauty of this fight is that it mirrors the core battles that divide our country now.
I’ve heard that the Players Union is a “partner” to the NFL Owners. If that truly is the case then a “partner” should share in losses the same as they share in gains. They should also be privy to the books as they have demanded. The percentage split should have been predetermined when the partnership was formed, and shouldn’t change unless it is on a sliding scale. But if “Partner” is a loosely used term and the Players Union is just a group of employees, then they are wrong in their demands and have overstepped the boundaries of the employee employer relationship, and should all be cast to the depths of Hades. The players in the NFL are the most well compensated group in the US, well next to MLBaseball, so what on this Earth could they possibly have to complain about. AS PFT posted, the deal offered by the Owners was a deal that 99% of all Americans would have not only accepted but Celebrated. Since the Union has disbanded I would like to see the Owners hire all new players to field their teams and for those that want to abandon this corrupt stinking union and come back to their teams, welcome back. This is the Golden Goose if ever there was one, next to Congress of course, so why walk away from that? Stupidity abounds, and Doty will side with the Union. The Appeals court will likely side with the Owners, and the Supreme Court will say “We’re trying to overturn this Healthcare Debacle so wait your turn”, but we all know Conservatives love busting Unions, especially in the South. By a 5-4 vote the union takes up the @$$ and we the fans will pay the price. And the Lawyers walk away with $Billions$. Cha-ching $$$
My favorite is all of these countries that own the US debt have all been bailed out by the US at some point in time, be it financial or militarily.
March 12th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
You really do not pay attention. The NFL will knows it cannot get away with cancelling a season. Why? Because the advertisers are already preparing themselves to file suit. The advertisers have found faults in the contracts they have, and they were misrepresented.
I’m in favor of the owners in all this, but they really have ZERO leverage. And I think that’s a shame because employees should not be permitted to force employers to do their bidding.
If it were me, I’d freaking disband the NFL and restart it as a new company under a new name. Then all previous agreements are nill and void, and they win.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Pete,
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. Disband the “NFL”, and let the owners individually own their teams and schedule games. There is NO chance of “anti-trust” then because each team is individually owned and not a part of an organization like the NFL. Each individual team would have to find players to play for them, there would be no more “draft”, simply a highest bidder for services. No structure of the NFL makes it 32 individual companies competing for players and in games to see which company is “better”. It would eliminate the whole “monopoly” factor. Microsoft should have done this and become multiple smaller companies. Windows operating system. Office Suite document programs. XBox video gaming. then they couldn’t have been a monopoly either. Must be nice for a company like Coke to have a competitor on the level of Pepsi, so they will never have to worry about things like this.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:24 am
DeMaurice Smith led these players off the cliff.
They were able to negotiate the 1 billion down to about 135 million, with 16 games and more money to go to player retirement and the genius left that offer on the table? That is almost a 90% compromise from 1 Billion with a B, down to nearly 1/10th of that and DeMaurice left it on the table?
The owners should just stop signing unionized players and start with younger guys and start it over again. The Buccaneers have proved this can be done, especially against non veteran quarter backs. Fans will stick with their teams over has been stars in the Canadian league. And life will go on.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:40 am
The Glazer’s problem is that they are just too private. They are the complete opposite of Jerry Jones who never met a camera he didn’t like. They rarely r make themselves available to any media outlet so we never know what is on their minds. The perception is that they are disinterested about the Buccaneers and are more concerned with Manchester United or their other business interests. This perceived apathy is magnified still more by the frugal course of action regarding player salaries. While I personally understand why the payroll is one of the lowest, most fans see this as the Glazer’s unwillingness to invest in the team. Solution: Talk to us!
March 13th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Wow, I just read the details of the deal from the owners:
What was DeMaurice thinking? I this greed or what?
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb9907/article/league-releases-details-of-proposal-that-union-didnt-accept?module=HP_headlines
March 13th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
For your edification Joe, that so called “player freindly” judge was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. You remember Ronnie, don’t you. The union freindly prez who busted open the Air Controllers union.
Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think. A president who didn’t like unions appointing aa judge who rules in favor of one.
Perhaps Judge Doty just recognized the greedy owners intention for what it was. A cynical attempt by a pack of greedheads to hide money that they agreed to share with the players.
It was a beautiful trump card to play against the owners at the right time and noone saw it coming.
March 13th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Scubog, the one thing I like about the Glazers is the fact they never try to hog the spotlight from the team or the coaches, unlike the egomaniacal Jerry Jones.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
drdneast:
Not sure why you are going after Joe? He’s on the players’ side in this mess.
As for judges not following lockstep with the philosophies of the president who hand-picked them, happens all the time, has for centuries.
Oh, and for another history less, anti-union Ronnie was a former union president.