NFLPA To Decertify.

[jta1975]

It would not be the players starting their own league. It would be about people finally being able to compete with the NFL brand.

Guys like Cuban have said many times he wanted some of that football money. He wanted to start a rival league years ago. The UFL cities and not to mention the L.A. market. would come into play if the owners simply locked the players out and started fresh with their own rules of engagement it would not fly.

The top players in the league are not hurting for money and could afford to make stands on principle. The networks protected themselves from scab players after the last experience. A TV contract would come with ease to a league with Manning,Brady,Brees. It would work no doubt about it.

If the threat was not valid the players union would have not leverage. The players are the product. If owners could just ignore them and move on they would have done so already. They need each other plain and simple. But there would be plenty of people with huge check books ready to start an alternative.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that NO OTHER league will flourish as long as the best stay in the NFL. Now, if the best players played some where else.....that's a whole different ball game.

Shutting our local NFL teams would not happen for the die hards but if Hillis,Joe Thomas,Cribbs played on the Akron Tires, then people would find a way to incorporate both. If the Tires offered a better product then the Browns would be in trouble.

A. Even if a good chunk of the players flocked to a new league, it would take a while before fans gave their hearts to the Cleveland Shitty Weather/Akron Tires over the Cleveland Browns.

B. In the end, the new league would have the same Owner vs. Player warfare as the NFL.

C. Don't forget stadium contracts. Where are the Akron Tires going to play? U of Akron's stadium, with it's 20k capacity?

D. A LOT of players would be very wary about jumping into bed with some new league after the success rate of previous leagues, even if it is called the BMB League (Brady-Manning-Brees). Just because the super-rich NFL stars can afford to take chances doesn't mean the rank-and-file can.

E. Where are they gonna find all the billionaires just dying to own teams (and provide the superior payroll to the NFL that these stars crave) in a business where non-NFL leagues have failed every single time?

F. Sure, they might get some nice TV revenue, but it sure won't be the 9 bil that the NFL gets. And since NBC, ABC/ESPN, CBS, and FOX all have contracts in place with the NFL, who's filling the void? TNT? The History Channel? I doubt the NBC's of the world would be dumping their NFL contracts to jump in bed with a league that could easily be defunct in 2 years, thus burning their NFL bridge forevermore. Networks have been burned before on these upstart leagues.

I have to respectfully disagree with you that a new player-formed league is a possibility (or that it would work).

That is why I got out of the forum world. All this typing takes its toll.

I already said the league would not be started by players.

A league with current stars would absolutely get a TV deal. Football has been the number one watched thing on TV for years now. The Superbowl keeps breaking it's record. People want to see Manning against Brady. Networks would come for sure.

Just the possibility that the monopoly the NFL has with getting the best players in the world getting weaker would be scary to all involved with the NFL.

Certain teams would fold IMMEDIATELY if they had market competition. It would be horrible for the league.

One side note.... They said on sirius,that the networks have already made it clear that they are not paying to broadcast scab players. They had a bad taste in their mouths from the last time.If this is true, just think at what they would have to say when the owners tell them they could be loosing some of the best players in the league to another league. It would be ugly.

If the day did come when the best football players didn't play in the NFL and true competition was created. They would be in trouble.


The players have a marketable skill. That people will pay a shit ton of money to see. They will not just shrivel and die. Most owners are great business minds who want as much profit as possible. In the end they will agree to compromise.

I can't put any more energy into this lockout. It will end and the NFL will be fine IMO. The possibility of the brand getting weaker will have the owners ear and the possibility of guys who are not making millions not getting paid will win out. The lawsuits are a ploy to acquire and maintain leverage. They will agree and all will return to normal eventually.

I will return my energy to the draft.

[hiko]

I can't put any more energy into this lockout. It will end and the NFL will be fine IMO. The possibility of the brand getting weaker will have the owners ear and the possibility of guys who are not making millions not getting paid will win out. The lawsuits are a ploy to acquire and maintain leverage. They will agree and all will return to normal eventually.

I will return my energy to the draft.

There we can certainly agree.

[peeker643]

NFL Lockout for Dummies (Like Me). Thought this was a very clear (if very basic) way to explain the situation as explained by one of the attorneys I deal with:

Basically, the way the NFL deals with it's players (drafts, no unlimited
free agency, salary cap. etc) is a violation of anti trust laws and labor
laws. The idea of a group of businessmen agreeing that the best quarterback
can't sign whatever contract he wants to with whatever team he wants to
sign with violates the law.

It is only legal because the players have voluntarily agreed to let their
union represent them and bargain these rights away in exchange for minimum
salaries, pension and medical benefits, a guaranteed percentage, etc. (It's
no different than the Steelworkers union collective bargaining agreement
which requires management to post jobs and allows union members to bid on
those jobs on the basis of seniority) By decertifying the union, every
player can now argue that they should be free to sign whatever future
contract they want and that the owners are violating the law by conspiring
to agree to keep salaries down. Anyone who currently has a contract is
bound by its terms and every NFL contract incorporates the current
agreement with the union. Even if the union decertifies, the signed
contract, by its terms, includes the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement but any future contract won't. That is why the draft is still
legal even with decertification. The collective bargaining agreement
covered the draft and the owners are going through with it.

So, with the union decertified, Peyton Manning now says that he wants to
interview with a job with 10 teams, including Indy, and agree to a future
contract that would not be covered by the collective bargaining agreement
because Manning's current employer has locked him out and is not paying
him. All ten say that they don't want to talk with him and they don't want
to enter into any future contract with him. Manning can then sue arguing
collusion and violation of the law and the owners can't defend by saying
that Manning is represented by a Union and the Union has agreed to certain
rules (free agency rules, compensation in draft picks, franchise player
tags, no tampering, etc) because the union has decertified. The
decertification allows the players to sue individually or as a class and
takes away the best (and maybe only) defense that the owners have.

[motherscratcher]

^^^Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[danwismar]

That is a pretty good summary of the state of play, Peeker. Thanks.

In past labor squabbles I have been able to see some merit in the players' union positions. Not here. The idea that their whole strategy is to litigate and have the courts do their negotiating for them really pisses me off. The owners' opening bargaining position may be tough for the union to swallow, but at least they're ready to sit down and negotiate.

I can't believe I'm about to send a check to these assholes.

[RedDawg]

Quick question:

As selfish Browns fans who want to see a winner in Cleveland, would the NFL going the path of MLB where teams' salaries are only limited by how deep the owners' pockets are - wouldn't that benefit us with Lerner as our owner?

IOW, would not having a salary cap and CBA benefit the Browns?

[motherscratcher]

Quick question:

As selfish Browns fans who want to see a winner in Cleveland, would the NFL going the path of MLB where teams' salaries are only limited by how deep the owners' pockets are - wouldn't that benefit us with Lerner as our owner?

IOW, would not having a salary cap and CBA benefit the Browns?

In theory, I guess. If there was no cap I suppose the Browns might be spenders. And with Heckgren in charge that might be a good thing as far as fielding a competetive team.

But, with a blank check everyone assumes that their team would be the Yankees. they could just as easily be the Mets.

[danwismar]

Quick question:

As selfish Browns fans who want to see a winner in Cleveland, would the NFL going the path of MLB where teams' salaries are only limited by how deep the owners' pockets are - wouldn't that benefit us with Lerner as our owner?

IOW, would not having a salary cap and CBA benefit the Browns?

In theory, I guess. If there was no cap I suppose the Browns might be spenders. And with Heckgren in charge that might be a good thing as far as fielding a competetive team.

But, with a blank check everyone assumes that their team would be the Yankees. they could just as easily be the Mets.

One of the national writers (??) did a piece last season anticipating the "uncapped" season approaching. One thing to remember is that in addition to there being no salary "ceiling", it is also true that there is no salary floor...or minimum, like there is under a CBA.

One of the points of his that I recall is that in a down economy, owners will do what they consider to be in their financial interests...including bad teams deciding WTF....I'm not going to spend at all.

....paraphrasing one of this guy's statements..."in an uncapped world, we need to worry less about the Redskins becoming the Yankees than we do the Jaguars becoming the Royals"

[hiko]

This scenario would fuck the overall NFL product. Perhaps this richest-owners-rule-all system might favor the Browns and owner like Lerner for now, but if he ever sold/died/whatever, the Browns would be the Indians.

I know I don't want to see that at all.