Jump to content

  •  

Photo
- - - - -

More Lockout News


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 hoping4ASuperBowl

hoping4ASuperBowl

    boombastic

  • Members
  • 4,210 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:39 PM

per Rotoworld:

If the Players Association ends up going through with the decertification process in the event of a lockout, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees will be the lead plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL.
The union has chosen three widely respected quarterbacks to be the public face if they end up doing battle with the owners in court. The antitrust suit would likely allege, among other things, that franchise tags and the salary cap are in violation of their rights. As of 4:30 ET, an extension to "stop the clock" in CBA talks seems likely though not yet finalized.

http://twitter.com/#!/SI_JimTrotter/statuses/43405248622116864

Does that mean it would be a battle of Brady vs Kraft? If this was to all go through, would these 3 players been straining their relationship with their current owners and thus affecting chances of some of them getting a new contract?
  • 0
Check out my work:
www.3dyagos.com

#2 Garb

Garb

    Little Miss Sunshine

  • Members
  • 17,282 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:43 PM

per Rotoworld:

If the Players Association ends up going through with the decertification process in the event of a lockout, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees will be the lead plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL.
The union has chosen three widely respected quarterbacks to be the public face if they end up doing battle with the owners in court. The antitrust suit would likely allege, among other things, that franchise tags and the salary cap are in violation of their rights. As of 4:30 ET, an extension to "stop the clock" in CBA talks seems likely though not yet finalized.

http://twitter.com/#!/SI_JimTrotter/statuses/43405248622116864

Does that mean it would be a battle of Brady vs Kraft? If this was to all go through, would these 3 players been straining their relationship with their current owners and thus affecting chances of some of them getting a new contract?



No. It's business. It's not personal.
  • 0
BINGO! - Troy Brown

#3 ECURB

ECURB

    Throwback!

  • Members
  • 30,197 posts
  • LocationOn cloud 8.5

Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:52 PM

No. It's business. It's not personal.


Wait what... what the heck are you trying to say there.

Edited by ECURB, 03 March 2011 - 04:53 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#4 Falcon63

Falcon63

    TRN'B

  • Members
  • 1,654 posts
  • LocationOH

Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:59 PM

No. It's business. It's not personal.

icwutudidther
  • 0

I'd recommend not laying any coin on the Celtics Friday night

113-96 Boston


#5 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 27,329 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:13 PM

Very stupid. They should not be announcing any of this sh*t. Isn't the league's position that decertification is a sham and therefore should be ignored? I'm not sure that is a valid argument, but to the extent it is, deciding what you are going to do after you decertify and announcing it seem to indicate the owners are right about it being a sham.
  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#6 Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

    Penis

  • Moderators
  • 28,121 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:17 PM

Very stupid. They should not be announcing any of this sh*t. Isn't the league's position that decertification is a sham and therefore should be ignored? I'm not sure that is a valid argument, but to the extent it is, deciding what you are going to do after you decertify and announcing it seem to indicate the owners are right about it being a sham.


Is there anyone who believes it isn't?
  • 0

JetNation


2446sd4.jpg

 

 


#7 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 27,329 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:29 PM

Is there anyone who believes it isn't?


Being a sham and providing recorded proof that it is are two entirely different things.
  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#8 JetPotato

JetPotato

    Practice Squad Player

  • Members
  • 197 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:50 PM

Cheater on cheater. This is gonna get good.
  • 0

#9 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,597 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 03 March 2011 - 06:52 PM

Very stupid. They should not be announcing any of this sh*t. Isn't the league's position that decertification is a sham and therefore should be ignored? I'm not sure that is a valid argument, but to the extent it is, deciding what you are going to do after you decertify and announcing it seem to indicate the owners are right about it being a sham.


Why?

Its happened a couple of times before and its worked. The CBA was born from the NFLPA decertifying.
  • 0

#10 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 27,329 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 07:14 PM

Why?

Its happened a couple of times before and its worked. The CBA was born from the NFLPA decertifying.


Decertifying is smart. Announcing that you are sticking together as if you were still in the union after decertifying isn't. The owners already filed some form of greiveance saying it was a sham. Why provide documentation that it is?
  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#11 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,597 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:34 PM

Decertifying is smart. Announcing that you are sticking together as if you were still in the union after decertifying isn't. The owners already filed some form of greiveance saying it was a sham. Why provide documentation that it is?


What do you mean sticking together? Who's sticking together?

Somebody has to sue the NFL and Owners.

http://images.nflpla...se Decision.pdf

Less than two weeks after the
McNeil verdict, players Reggie White, Michael Buck, Hardy
Nickerson, Vann McElroy and Dave Duerson brought an antitrust class
action seeking injunctive relief in the form of total or modified
free agency.

  • 0

#12 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 27,329 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 03:31 AM

What do you mean sticking together? Who's sticking together?

Somebody has to sue the NFL and Owners.

http://images.nflpla...se Decision.pdf

Less than two weeks after the
McNeil verdict, players Reggie White, Michael Buck, Hardy
Nickerson, Vann McElroy and Dave Duerson brought an antitrust class
action seeking injunctive relief in the form of total or modified
free agency.


Take a deep breath and listen to me. There is no shortage of players that will sue the NFL. The NFL is trying to keep the NFLPA from decertifying by claiming that decertification is a sham and that they will still be acting as a collective. It's a dubious distinction, but to the extent that it has any merit, why provide dccumentation that they will still be acting collectively after they decert? Just do it behind closed doors or just have Manning come out and say that as soon as the NFLPA decertifies he will file suit. It serves the same purpose but gives the owners no ammo. It also probably helps in the PR battle which, unfortunately, is pretty important.

Edited by #27TheDominator, 04 March 2011 - 03:32 AM.

  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#13 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,597 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 04 March 2011 - 08:44 AM

Take a deep breath and listen to me. There is no shortage of players that will sue the NFL. The NFL is trying to keep the NFLPA from decertifying by claiming that decertification is a sham and that they will still be acting as a collective. It's a dubious distinction, but to the extent that it has any merit, why provide dccumentation that they will still be acting collectively after they decert? Just do it behind closed doors or just have Manning come out and say that as soon as the NFLPA decertifies he will file suit. It serves the same purpose but gives the owners no ammo. It also probably helps in the PR battle which, unfortunately, is pretty important.


Dude, WTF are you talking about?

When White, Nickerson, Duerson, McElroy, and Buck sued the NFL and Owners, it benefited the entire NFLPA - collectively. The NFLPA cannot sue as a union. The NFLPA would decertify, still be the NFLPA and recertify after the lawsuit. Its been done before. Nothing new.

http://en.wikipedia....ers_Association
  • 0

#14 Jetfan13

Jetfan13

    older but better

  • Members
  • 6,432 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 08:52 AM

F them all...bring back NFL Europe, those guys would be happy to play for 1/10th the money
  • 0
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

#15 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 27,329 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 08:58 AM

Dude, WTF are you talking about?

When White, Nickerson, Duerson, McElroy, and Buck sued the NFL and Owners, it benefited the entire NFLPA - collectively. The NFLPA cannot sue as a union. The NFLPA would decertify, still be the NFLPA and recertify after the lawsuit. Its been done before. Nothing new.

http://en.wikipedia....ers_Association


Dude, if you don't ******* understand me maybe you should try to figure out why instead of repeating yourself. I certainly don't need to read wikipedia articles on it. I'm not 14. I was there.

The owners are worried about decertification. They have filed a labor complaint with the NLRB claiming in part: "As in the past, the NFLPA's threatened disclaimer as the representative of the players, together with the now-familiar antitrust litigation that is expected to follow, is a ploy and an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process, there being no evidence whatsoever of any (let alone widespread) disaffection with the union by its members."

The union seems to have fallen right in line with the owners complaint by going so far as to vote on who files suit once they decertify. Agreeing on who files suit doesn't seem to indicate disaffection by union members. It would have made more sense to simple keep quiet about it and do it rather than admitting to some kind of pre-decertification agreement.

My link

My other link

DO you understand what I am talking about now?

If they decertify, there isn't supposed to be an NFLPA. Therefore the NFLPA can't benefit from a suit. The players can, but not the union which isn't supposed to exist. If the union exists, the players can't file suit.

Edited by #27TheDominator, 04 March 2011 - 09:00 AM.

  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#16 SoFlaJets

SoFlaJets

    Sasquatch Hunter

  • Members
  • 33,936 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 09:20 AM

F them all...bring back NFL Europe, those guys would be happy to play for 1/10th the money

I loved the USFL...that was almost real football...The Generals rocked. Hey Al remember when they had replacement players and when the Jets played Miami it was like nothing had changed? Both teams still hated each other just as if they had been going head to head for years
  • 0
 
 

#17 Jetfan13

Jetfan13

    older but better

  • Members
  • 6,432 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 09:22 AM

I loved the USFL...that was almost real football...The Generals rocked. Hey Al remember when they had replacement players and when the Jets played Miami it was like nothing had changed? Both teams still hated each other just as if they had been going head to head for years



I do remember Jimmy, somethings never change lol
  • 0
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

#18 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,597 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 04 March 2011 - 09:42 AM

Dude, if you don't ******* understand me maybe you should try to figure out why instead of repeating yourself. I certainly don't need to read wikipedia articles on it. I'm not 14. I was there.

The owners are worried about decertification. They have filed a labor complaint with the NLRB claiming in part: "As in the past, the NFLPA's threatened disclaimer as the representative of the players, together with the now-familiar antitrust litigation that is expected to follow, is a ploy and an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process, there being no evidence whatsoever of any (let alone widespread) disaffection with the union by its members."



From your link

NFL’s complaint is maneuver vs. decertification

On Monday, the NFL fired a torpedo at the union’s ability to break up and eventually file a class-action lawsuit. The longer the league can delay the union and the players from getting to court, the more leverage it gains in negotiations with players, hoping to bleed them dry this offseason by making free agency disappear.


The longer the Owners can stave off a lawsuit.

The union seems to have fallen right in line with the owners complaint by going so far as to vote on who files suit once they decertify. Agreeing on who files suit doesn't seem to indicate disaffection by union members. It would have made more sense to simple keep quiet about it and do it rather than admitting to some kind of pre-decertification agreement.

My link

My other link

DO you understand what I am talking about now?

If they decertify, there isn't supposed to be an NFLPA. Therefore the NFLPA can't benefit from a suit. The players can, but not the union which isn't supposed to exist. If the union exists, the players can't file suit.


Youre wrong.

The settlement was presented to and approved by the judge who had heard the McNeil antitrust case in 1993. Once the agreement was approved the NFLPA reconstituted itself as a labor union and entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with the league

They were still the NFLPA. GET IT? Read the wiki page.

I understand perfectly and your Yahoo link just proves that the Owners want to delay the NFLPA from decertifying by filing a BS complaint.
  • 0

#19 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 27,329 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 10:15 AM

From your link

NFL’s complaint is maneuver vs. decertification

On Monday, the NFL fired a torpedo at the union’s ability to break up and eventually file a class-action lawsuit. The longer the league can delay the union and the players from getting to court, the more leverage it gains in negotiations with players, hoping to bleed them dry this offseason by making free agency disappear.


The longer the Owners can stave off a lawsuit.



Youre wrong.

The settlement was presented to and approved by the judge who had heard the McNeil antitrust case in 1993. Once the agreement was approved the NFLPA reconstituted itself as a labor union and entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with the league

They were still the NFLPA. GET IT? Read the wiki page.

I understand perfectly and your Yahoo link just proves that the Owners want to delay the NFLPA from decertifying by filing a BS complaint.


I am not wrong and you can't understand me even though I am beating you on the ******* head with a hammer inscribed with my point.

1. The NFLPA is the union.
2. The players can't sue as long as the NFLPA is certified.
3. The owners are trying to delay them by filing a BS complaint (we're in agreement there) that says that the union should not be able to decertify (or to delay the decertification) because the players are not "disaffected" with the union.
4. This may be bullsh*t, but by continuing to act in a coordinated fashion after decertification they are helping the owner's case.

I know the NFLPA stayed alive as a "professional organization" but obviously, the fact that they continue to act in concert after decertification and make arrangements to do so does not help them in regards to the owners complaint. I'm not saying the owners should win, I'm saying that it is stupid of the players to give them any ammo at all. The decertification will obviously be a sham. Why go on record as admitting it?

The fact that the owners shouldn't win does not mean that the players should ignore the complaint.

Edited by #27TheDominator, 04 March 2011 - 10:25 AM.

  • 0

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#20 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,597 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 04 March 2011 - 11:41 AM

I am not wrong and you can't understand me even though I am beating you on the ******* head with a hammer inscribed with my point.


LOLZ

You told me: (1)If they decertify, there isn't supposed to be an NFLPA. (2) Therefore the NFLPA can't benefit from a suit. The players can, but not the union which isn't supposed to exist. If the union exists, the players can't file suit.

(1) There is still an NFLPA. If Brady and the rest sue the owners, they still belong to the NFLPA.
(2) Thats why the NFLPA certifies itself as a union again.

1. The NFLPA is A union as of this day.
2. The players can't sue as long as the NFLPA is certified as a union
3. The owners are trying to delay them by filing a BS complaint (we're in agreement there) that says that the union should not be able to decertify (or to delay the decertification) because the players are not "disaffected" with the union.



The NFLPA sued before and it benefited all NFL players.

4. This may be bullsh*t, but by continuing to act in a coordinated fashion after decertification they are helping the owner's case.


What ccordinated fashion? Brady and the other players suing the owners are still members of the NFLPA.

Im not going to say that the owners would win their complaint vs the NFLPA, but history is not on the owners side here.

I know the NFLPA stayed alive as a "professional organization" but obviously, the fact that they continue to act in concert after decertification and make arrangements to do so does not help them in regards to the owners complaint. I'm not saying the owners should win, I'm saying that it is stupid of the players to give them any ammo at all. The decertification will obviously be a sham. Why go on record as admitting it?

The fact that the owners shouldn't win does not mean that the players should ignore the complaint.


How can the decertifaction be a sham when the last time that happened an agreement called the CBA was formed? More or less, 17 years of labor peace.
  • 0

#21 #27TheDominator

#27TheDominator

    Forza Rhinos!

  • Members
  • 27,329 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 12:09 PM

LOLZ

You told me: (1)If they decertify, there isn't supposed to be an NFLPA. (2) Therefore the NFLPA can't benefit from a suit. The players can, but not the union which isn't supposed to exist. If the union exists, the players can't file suit.

(1) There is still an NFLPA. If Brady and the rest sue the owners, they still belong to the NFLPA.
(2) Thats why the NFLPA certifies itself as a union again.



The NFLPA sued before and it benefited all NFL players.



What ccordinated fashion? Brady and the other players suing the owners are still members of the NFLPA.

Im not going to say that the owners would win their complaint vs the NFLPA, but history is not on the owners side here.



How can the decertifaction be a sham when the last time that happened an agreement called the CBA was formed? More or less, 17 years of labor peace.


Either you aren't understanding me or you don't understand any of this.

You are lol'ing, but you don't seem to get it.

Decertification means they are not a union. What you are talking about is like the guy on the office declaring bankruptcy by saying "bankruptcy".

YOU CAN'T BE DECERTIFIED AND HAVE A CBA. They can't sue AND negotiate collectively.

If you think they can get away with pretending not to be a union and continuing to exist as a decertified "professional organization" that's up to you, but I see no reason they should even take the chance. Unions are supposed to decertify when they don't represent the employees interests. They aren't supposed to continue to exist after decertification and reap the benefits of the individual players law suits. The NFLPA did NOT sue before. The players sued before. That's why the captions were Reggie White, et al v. the NFL and Freeman McNeil v. the NFL and not the NFLPA v. the NFL.

The NFLPA has sued on certain things, like the collusion and failure to fairly negotiate, but not for the big ticket items that require lack of capacity to bargain collectively.
  • 3

by Angel crazy with over 3000 post some day 


#22 Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

    Penis

  • Moderators
  • 28,121 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 12:54 PM

Either you aren't understanding me or you don't understand any of this.

You are lol'ing, but you don't seem to get it.

Decertification means they are not a union. What you are talking about is like the guy on the office declaring bankruptcy by saying "bankruptcy".

YOU CAN'T BE DECERTIFIED AND HAVE A CBA. They can't sue AND negotiate collectively.

If you think they can get away with pretending not to be a union and continuing to exist as a decertified "professional organization" that's up to you, but I see no reason they should even take the chance. Unions are supposed to decertify when they don't represent the employees interests. They aren't supposed to continue to exist after decertification and reap the benefits of the individual players law suits. The NFLPA did NOT sue before. The players sued before. That's why the captions were Reggie White, et al v. the NFL and Freeman McNeil v. the NFL and not the NFLPA v. the NFL.

The NFLPA has sued on certain things, like the collusion and failure to fairly negotiate, but not for the big ticket items that require lack of capacity to bargain collectively.


Wait, I don't get it. Please explain.
  • 0

JetNation


2446sd4.jpg

 

 


#23 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,720 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 04 March 2011 - 02:18 PM

isn't owners complaint have something to do with that they say the nflpa is not bargaining in good faith with the threat to decertify and sue looming?
  • 0

#24 Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

    Penis

  • Moderators
  • 28,121 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 03:36 PM

isn't owners complaint have something to do with that they say the nflpa is not bargaining in good faith with the threat to decertify and sue looming?


The complaint is that the players want some more of the owners' money.
  • 1

JetNation


2446sd4.jpg

 

 


#25 PatriotReign37

PatriotReign37

    500 warning points and counting.

  • Members
  • 9,597 posts
  • LocationThe road to Seacacus

Posted 04 March 2011 - 06:47 PM

Either you aren't understanding me or you don't understand any of this.

You are lol'ing, but you don't seem to get it.

Decertification means they are not a union. What you are talking about is like the guy on the office declaring bankruptcy by saying "bankruptcy".

YOU CAN'T BE DECERTIFIED AND HAVE A CBA. They can't sue AND negotiate collectively.

If you think they can get away with pretending not to be a union and continuing to exist as a decertified "professional organization" that's up to you, but I see no reason they should even take the chance. Unions are supposed to decertify when they don't represent the employees interests. They aren't supposed to continue to exist after decertification and reap the benefits of the individual players law suits. The NFLPA did NOT sue before. The players sued before. That's why the captions were Reggie White, et al v. the NFL and Freeman McNeil v. the NFL and not the NFLPA v. the NFL.

The NFLPA has sued on certain things, like the collusion and failure to fairly negotiate, but not for the big ticket items that require lack of capacity to bargain collectively.


YOU WIN

Posted Image
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users