Players can go on strike in 2010

[Greenranger]

Collusion claim could set the stage for a 2010 strike

Posted by Mike Florio on July 10, 2010 10:24 PM ET

Last year, rumors flew of a possible playoff strike. Though we explained that such an assault would be illegal and ill-advised, Patriots linebacker Adalius Thomas reacted angrily to the mere mention of the existence of the rumors.

"To be blunt, it's a flat-out, bald-faced, capital-letters lie," Thomas said at the time. "We're not the ones who are interested in not playing. We want to play. We're not going on strike. We signed this agreement and we're fine with it. We're happy. We don't want to stop playing football."

Of course, that was before the salary cap -- and salary floor -- disappeared, which has resulted in teams generally not spending big money on unrestricted free agents, not signing restricted free agents to offer sheets, and not signing their own players to lucrative long-term deals. As the 2010 season approaches, player discontent has spiked, and rumors continue to persist of a walkout before the expiration of the current labor deal.

It would still be illegal and ill-advised, but there's a way it could happen that would be legal, albeit possibly still ill-advised.

Article XXVIII, Section 16 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement gives the union the ability to terminate the labor deal prematurely upon a finding of one of more instances of collusion involving five or more clubs and causing injury to 20 or more players, or via proof by clear and convincing evidence that 14 or more clubs have engaged in collusion injuring one or more players.

Given the number of restricted free agents, a showing that teams agreed, overtly or implicitly, to not sign those players to offer sheets, would seem to be enough to prove collusion.

If the NFLPA hopes to try to terminate the agreement prematurely, the proceeding must disclose from the outset a desire to terminate the agreement, and the Special Master must find that the teams engaged in willful collusion with the intent of restraining competition among teams for players.

The challenge continues to be proving collusion. No smoking gun will be available, unless someone says something really dumb (like A.J. Smith talking about the Chargers' refusal to do long-term deals until the labor situation is resolved, and saying that the team isn't being a "lone ranger" in that regard). Thus, the union would rely heavily on circumstantial evidence, carefully pieced together in an effort to persuade the Special Master that an express or implied agreement not to spend money or sign players existed.

Then, if the agreement were to be terminated before the end of the season, the players could indeed strike.

Again, we're not sure it's the smartest thing to do. But laying the foundation for a strike that would potentially scuttle the playoffs and the Super Bowl could be the best way to squeeze the NFL into doing a new deal on terms favorable to the players.

[Sperm Edwards]

Teams not extending RFAs does not, in any sense, "prove" collusion.

What correspondence school gave Florio his law degree (or who did he blow to pass his classes)?

What he describes is an allegation, not proof. Does he think being named a defendant in a civil case means the same as a verdict for the plaintiff.

Idiot.

[Sperm Edwards]

Teams not extending RFAs does not, in any sense, "prove" collusion.

What correspondence school gave Florio his law degree (or who did he blow to pass his classes)?

What he describes is an allegation, not proof. Does he think being named a defendant in a civil case means the same as a verdict for the plaintiff?

Idiot.

[THE ILK]

Cool there's and echo in here.

[Sperm Edwards]

Cool there's and echo in here.

Jerk

Jerk

[aec4]

Teams not extending RFAs does not, in any sense, "prove" collusion.

What correspondence school gave Florio his law degree (or who did he blow to pass his classes)?

What he describes is an allegation, not proof. Does he think being named a defendant in a civil case means the same as a verdict for the plaintiff.

Idiot.

He went to the West Virginia Univ school of law.

People may not like him, but he turned his site into something affiliated with NBC sports. The site is now his primary source of income, so I am assuming it's doing well.

[THE ILK]

Jerk

Jerk

Wow, and you did it in 1 post!

[bitonti]

i dont understand the logic of rooting for the owners over the players

its like watching revenge of the nerds and rooting for the alpha betas

not me... im lambda lambda lambda all the way.

[Mandarinia]

It would be our luck tho. The year the Jets are going to make a superbowl run, the players strike.

[Bugg]

2011 might be a very different story due to the stupidity of both sides.

But this is again diasbarred former West Virginia attorney trying to generate web hits with unfounded speculation to pump up his ad rates with Sprint and NBC.

[Bugg]

i dont understand the logic of rooting for the owners over the players

its like watching revenge of the nerds and rooting for the alpha betas

not me... im lambda lambda lambda all the way.

Agree 100%.

There's plenty of money to be made. As the NBA, NHL and NFL prove, salary caps are excuses for lousy teams to supress player costs. Good management wins out, no matter cap or no cap. The cap is a drag on salaries, nothing more.

[Maxman]

2011 might be a very different story due to the stupidity of both sides.

But this is again diasbarred former West Virginia attorney trying to generate web hits with unfounded speculation to pump up his ad rates with Sprint and NBC.

Was he disbarred?

[PatriotReign37]

Teams not extending RFAs does not, in any sense, "prove" collusion.

What correspondence school gave Florio his law degree (or who did he blow to pass his classes)?

What he describes is an allegation, not proof. Does he think being named a defendant in a civil case means the same as a verdict for the plaintiff.

Idiot.

They are playing by the rules in place right now. They dont have to extend, so they arent.

The owners are colluding in FA, but there isnt any way to prove it. They voted 32 - 0 to opt of the cba in lieu of a new deal. Everyone thought there would no way the owners wanted "cap less season" because a bidding war would ensue, but the opposite sort of happened.

[PatriotReign37]

Was he disbarred?

Banned.

Or, Bano La Florio in Latin.

[SpartanJet]

i dont understand the logic of rooting for the owners over the players

its like watching revenge of the nerds and rooting for the alpha betas

not me... im lambda lambda lambda all the way.

Personally I'm not rooting for either side. There is so much money to be made on both sides but greed is going to ruin a great thing (potentially). NFL is making money hand over fist as well as most players. The only change needed imho is some kind of drafted salary cap as long as the money spent now on rooks is put back into the vets.

The only loser is going to be the fans if there ends up being a strike so it kind of makes it hard to pick sides.

[Sperm Edwards]

He went to the West Virginia Univ school of law.

People may not like him, but he turned his site into something affiliated with NBC sports. The site is now his primary source of income, so I am assuming it's doing well.

I doubt he was much of a lawyer, assuming he practiced at all. A law degree does not make anyone intelligent or competent anyway.

Good for him that he's doing well. He still doesn't come across as being any raving genius.

[Sperm Edwards]

They are playing by the rules in place right now. They dont have to extend, so they arent.

The owners are colluding in FA, but there isnt any way to prove it. They voted 32 - 0 to opt of the cba in lieu of a new deal. Everyone thought there would no way the owners wanted "cap less season" because a bidding war would ensue, but the opposite sort of happened.

It is not collusion. All owners coming to the same rational conclusion, that you cannot guarantee contracts to multiple players with tens of millions of dollars guaranteed, when you don't know what your future spending limit will be, is not collusion. Unanimously deciding something is in their best interest is not the same as unanimously deciding to screw players, with malicious intent, for the sake of screwing them.

That is like saying we're all colluding to deplete society's water supply by drinking water and bathing. Or that all the owners are colluding to not offer Eric Smith $44M per season because they're all unanimously agreeing to not offer him that.

[serphnx]

I doubt he was much of a lawyer, assuming he practiced at all. A law degree does not make anyone intelligent or competent anyway.

Good for him that he's doing well. He still doesn't come across as being any raving genius.

I don't think he ever practiced. As any good lawyer will tell you, or actually, any professional in any decent field anywhere, you don't actually learn how to perform your job until you actually do it.

Also his school is a crappy one. Law is very prestige driven and the top law schools are really the only ones that generally matter. But I guess that is trivial.

Lots of people have law degrees. We have quite a few on this site actually.

Personally, law degree or no, I think this guy is a moron. I don't see how he is in any way qualified to interpret law or even to write articles to begin with. Hell, I wonder how he breathes too, because I think he is so stupid.

[Sperm Edwards]

I don't think he ever practiced. As any good lawyer will tell you, or actually, any professional in any decent field anywhere, you don't actually learn how to perform your job until you actually do it.

Also his school is a crappy one. Law is very prestige driven and the top law schools are really the only ones that generally matter. But I guess that is trivial.

Lots of people have law degrees. We have quite a few on this site actually.

Personally, law degree or no, I think this guy is a moron. I don't see how he is in any way qualified to interpret law or even to write articles to begin with. Hell, I wonder how he breathes too, because I think he is so stupid.

+1

Good for him that he lucked into a job that he likes and pays well. But he isn't impressive; he just writes a lot of articles.

[Bugg]

I don't think he ever practiced. As any good lawyer will tell you, or actually, any professional in any decent field anywhere, you don't actually learn how to perform your job until you actually do it.

Also his school is a crappy one. Law is very prestige driven and the top law schools are really the only ones that generally matter. But I guess that is trivial.

Lots of people have law degrees. We have quite a few on this site actually.

Personally, law degree or no, I think this guy is a moron. I don't see how he is in any way qualified to interpret law or even to write articles to begin with. Hell, I wonder how he breathes too, because I think he is so stupid.

You run across people from time to time who go to law school but either fail the bar exam repeatedly or never take it at all. And the bar exam is a total pain in the ass, time wise, both studying for it and taking 2 or 3 days out in midsummer.Know a guy who is very high up in NYPD's JTTF who is an example; after failing on the 5th go around, he stopped taking the test. May be when my detective pal retires he will try again.

Point is, suspect Florio throws around that "lawyer" stuff around to puff up his credibility. If he was nearly as savvy about NFL contracts as he claims, he would be an agent. And West Virginia is not a hotbed of legal work(based on Florio's 1950s duck ass coiff, it is a center for Brill Creme distribution). And again all this is is idle speculation when until training camps open there isn't much hard news. He has to give NBC.com and Sprint something to jusitfy their sponsorships. No better way than to say something ridiculous like this and hope for tons of hits.

[PatriotReign37]

It is not collusion. All owners coming to the same rational conclusion, that you cannot guarantee contracts to multiple players with tens of millions of dollars guaranteed, when you don't know what your future spending limit will be, is not collusion. Unanimously deciding something is in their best interest is not the same as unanimously deciding to screw players, with malicious intent, for the sake of screwing them.

That is like saying we're all colluding to deplete society's water supply by drinking water and bathing. Or that all the owners are colluding to not offer Eric Smith $44M per season because they're all unanimously agreeing to not offer him that.

Yes, the rational conclusion was that the old CBA wasnt working and giving the players what they want - unlimited spending - wouldnt break the union and drive them back to the bargaining table.

There are ways around the uncertain future of a new cap. Ferguson just got a deal structured in such a way.