BroadwayJ667 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 there goes my job with the Jets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 word is they just revoked or reversed it fascinating brinksmanship negotiating going on right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 this is really irritating. The Jets sent me a letter saying they would like to interview me for a job (i graduate in may) but the job isn't there until there is a new cba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Banner across the top the NFL.com: NFLPA pulls back on decertification The union intended to tell the NFL that it planned to dissolve but has delayed, Kara Henderson reports. Something's up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 Banner across the top the NFL.com: NFLPA pulls back on decertification The union intended to tell the NFL that it planned to dissolve but has delayed, Kara Henderson reports. Something's up yeah they are playing games with each other. ONe of the anchors said it best, they are playing chicken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Banner across the top the NFL.com: NFLPA pulls back on decertification The union intended to tell the NFL that it planned to dissolve but has delayed, Kara Henderson reports. Something's up I wonder if mr.s mith is getting played, and the owners lock them out that would be an epic burn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Decertification is a good thing because it allows the league to continue to function. It's the third best outcome after (1) new deal and (2) extend the clock and continue to negotiate. Decert STOPS a lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I wonder if mr.s mith is getting played, and the owners lock them out that would be an epic burn Actually, that would be terrible. Then we would be heading for an NHL-type situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I wonder if mr.s mith is getting played, and the owners lock them out that would be an epic burn If the union decertifies and the owners lock them out anyway then owners are looking to get slammed in court. It's a restraint of trade and the owners would subject to individual lawsuits by the players claiming that the owners breached their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Decertification is a good thing because it allows the league to continue to function. It's the third best outcome after (1) new deal and (2) extend the clock and continue to negotiate. Decert STOPS a lockout. But doesnt that START the litany of lawsuits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 But doesnt that START the litany of lawsuits? Yeah, decert starts a litany of lawsuits but from the football fan perspective, so what? The union would go to court on a preliminary injunction and within a week the judge will rule (Dotty) who will likely enjoin the NFL from locking out players. Then the league would continue to function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 -per Mortensen The players union has decertified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 But doesnt that START the litany of lawsuits? But at least there's still football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 But at least there's still football. Yep. If the owners try to lockout the players they'll be setting themselves up for epic fail in court. The NFL could ultimately win an anti-trust case, but still lose big money for damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 BTW, in the past I've supported the owners' position in pro sports labor disputes. I supported the owners' position in MLB, NBA, and NHL. But this time the NFL owners were just doing a poor money grab. In all those other disputes the leagues were faced with revenue problems and competitive imbalance. The NFL doesn't have this problem. Instead, the owners simply wanted more and thought they could bully the NFLPA to get more of a cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 BTW, in the past I've supported the owners' position in pro sports labor disputes. I supported the owners' position in MLB, NBA, and NHL. But this time the NFL owners were just doing a poor money grab. In all those other disputes the leagues were faced with revenue problems and competitive imbalance. The NFL doesn't have this problem. Instead, the owners simply wanted more and thought they could bully the NFLPA to get more of a cut. If they do decertify and the season continues I'll side with the players, but if they turn around and put the season on hold I hate them both because now they are just hurting the mid and low level employees working for the teams and stadiums. Those people aren't making anywhere near what the players are. They just want to keep their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 NVM. Looks like the NFLPA decertified. per Rotoworld: The NFL Players Association has formally filed for decertification, dissolving the players' union. "They are now free to file an antitrust suit, if they so choose," explained NFL Network legal analyst Gary Roberts. NFLPA head DeMaurice Smith asked the owners on Friday to "open the books" and show their financial records in exchange for an extension. The owners are NOT opening the books, so the players will take matters to court. It's still highly likely that there will be football in 2011, but the players want to get the best CBA possible. Player-friendly Judge David Doty's court might give them their best chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Ok, i honestly don't understand what exactly this means,at least not enough to weigh in. So, if the union decertifies, does that now theoretically mean that if the owners want they can just sign and release players however they want, and that players are free to go along or boycott? Can someone objectively explain what this move means for both sides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Yeah, decert starts a litany of lawsuits but from the football fan perspective, so what? The union would go to court on a preliminary injunction and within a week the judge will rule (Dotty) who will likely enjoin the NFL from locking out players. Then the league would continue to function. Hold on, the owners are going to file suit vs the NFLPA that they did not bargain in good faith and planned to go to court all along. The right to decertify would be argued first, if what Ive read comes to fruition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 But at least there's still football. What about expired contracts? Peyton Manning got franchised. He plays for 23 Million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 so does this means the CBA is officially expired ? that will mean no FA until after the draft ? weird kinda sucks for the jets having 17 players up in the air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The Players did nothing to deserve one cent of pay cut. This is the right move for them and they will win in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Ok, i honestly don't understand what exactly this means,at least not enough to weigh in. So, if the union decertifies, does that now theoretically mean that if the owners want they can just sign and release players however they want, and that players are free to go along or boycott? Can someone objectively explain what this move means for both sides? Objectively speaking, here it goes. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption to the extent it negotiates with a unionized workforce (NFPLA) and has a CBA. Without an NFLPA and CBA, there is no exemption. Thus, by law, being a collection of 32 businesses (teams) they cannot agree amongst themselves and set up rules to sign players, trade, etc. That's a monopoly. As such, the NFL will likely have to continue doing business under the 2010 rules as that was the last set of CBA negotiated system. In otherwords, the NFL year will continue as normal until a new CBA is agreed to. The litigation aspect I'll describe in another post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Objectively speaking, here it goes. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption to the extent it negotiates with a unionized workforce (NFPLA) and has a CBA. Without an NFLPA and CBA, there is no exemption. Thus, by law, being a collection of 32 businesses (teams) they cannot agree amongst themselves and set up rules to sign players, trade, etc. That's a monopoly. As such, the NFL will likely have to continue doing business under the 2010 rules as that was the last set of CBA negotiated system. In otherwords, the NFL year will continue as normal until a new CBA is agreed to. The litigation aspect I'll describe in another post. There is still an NFLPA but they are now a trade association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Hold on, the owners are going to file suit vs the NFLPA that they did not bargain in good faith and planned to go to court all along. The right to decertify would be argued first, if what Ive read comes to fruition. AND, who is going to hear the NFL's lawsuit??? Judge Dotty who just held that the owners breached their fidiciary duty to the players by negotiating lockout insurance into the TV deals. Judge Dotty has jurisdiction over all CBA related labor litigation. It's going to be hard to argue that the NFLPA didn't negotiate in good faith when the judge has already held the owners have been planning a lockout for at least 2 years. The lockout insurance was an idiotic move by the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 There is still an NFLPA but they are now a trade association. There's no more union. That's a fact. You can argue about what it's called all you want. What I wrote is 100% spot on. That was the whole purpose of decertifying. The NFL can't legally lockout the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Objectively speaking, here it goes. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption to the extent it negotiates with a unionized workforce (NFPLA) and has a CBA. Without an NFLPA and CBA, there is no exemption. Thus, by law, being a collection of 32 businesses (teams) they cannot agree amongst themselves and set up rules to sign players, trade, etc. That's a monopoly. As such, the NFL will likely have to continue doing business under the 2010 rules as that was the last set of CBA negotiated system. In otherwords, the NFL year will continue as normal until a new CBA is agreed to. The litigation aspect I'll describe in another post. Ahh, ok, but wouldn't continuing to work under the old cba rules when there is no current union be in violation of this exemption? And also, if the 32 teams just said "hey, no more rules, everyone just hire and fire and give out whatever contrats you want for as much as you want" wouldn't that negate any monopoly concerns. Obviously not saying that would be the best thing for football or the players, just possible scenarios. It would seem the players are doing this so they can sue, but what exactly would they sue for? If it is a monopoly do they want it broken up? Are they doing this to try and reach a settlement, and if so what if they don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 This is about a small group of greedy owners that have hijacked this league and are trying to break the union. They are going to lose in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 There is still an NFLPA but they are now a trade association. Which is seams to me is their way of organizing lawsuits with no union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Ahh, ok, but wouldn't continuing to work under the old cba rules when there is no current union be in violation of this exemption? And also, if the 32 teams just said "hey, no more rules, everyone just hire and fire and give out whatever contrats you want for as much as you want" wouldn't that negate any monopoly concerns. Obviously not saying that would be the best thing for football or the players, just possible scenarios. It would seem the players are doing this so they can sue, but what exactly would they sue for? If it is a monopoly do they want it broken up? Are they doing this to try and reach a settlement, and if so what if they don't? No, working under old rules doesn't violate the exemption because the previous rules were negotiated. It's the notion of "status quo" having the business run as it already has. As to your second question, the NFL couldn't function like that. You can't have 1 team with 70 players and another with 30. The NFL needs collective rules to function. Also, cheap a$$ owners like the Jags owner and Wilson in Buffalo will cry bloody hell. The players are suing to keep on playing and to continue to make money. In a lockout the players don't get paid. Seriously, decertification allows the season to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 No, working under old rules doesn't violate the exemption because the previous rules were negotiated. It's the notion of "status quo" having the business run as it already has. As to your second question, the NFL couldn't function like that. You can't have 1 team with 70 players and another with 30. The NFL needs collective rules to function. Also, cheap a$$ owners like the Jags owner and Wilson in Buffalo will cry bloody hell. The players are suing to keep on playing and to continue to make money. In a lockout the players don't get paid. Seriously, decertification allows the season to continue. So what is the players end game here? What do they sue for? It can't be to have the court impose the unions will on the owners i am guessing. These are just honest questions, like i said, i am trying to get the knowledge about this, and there are no good articles that i can find that are laying it all out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The owners are money grubbing PIGS. I hope they get destroyed in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 So what is the players end game here? What do they sue for? It can't be to have the court impose the unions will on the owners i am guessing. These are just honest questions, like i said, i am trying to get the knowledge about this, and there are no good articles that i can find that are laying it all out. The "end game" for the union is to continue to work and get paid. Remember, the OWNERS opted out of the CBA. It still had 2 yrs left but the Owners excersised an early termination clause. A lockout prevents the players from working and getting paid. The players want 2 things: 1) Best deal possible as close to the previous CBA, and 2) Keep getting paid and playing Decertification makes BOTH a possibility. Without decertification No. 2 wasn't happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 This is about a small group of greedy owners that have hijacked this league and are trying to break the union. They are going to lose in court. I think its more like greedy owners and greedy players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 By decertifying, what offseason activities can continue besides the draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.