BaumerJet Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Roger Goodell won't address rumors of a total NFL shutdown By Sean Leahy, USA TODAY If the NFL is considering drastic worst-case scenario plans that include a total shutdown of league operations, commissioner Roger Goodell doesn't want to talk about it.Goodell brushed off a question about a complete NFL shutdown on Wednesday in an appearance on ProFootballTalk Live. The site's Mike Florio had reported on Sunday that there was buzz in some league circles that owners could opt to shutter the league completely and end all business operations -- until a new agreement with the players is reached -- if a federal court orders it to end its lockout. The commissioner refused to address that, however. "The only thing I'm going to say in regards to any of these rumors is that we're considering a variety of different alternatives based on the court decisions," Goodell said."We are prepared to do that and we are going through that process." The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering a case in which the NFL appealed a lower-court ruling that had ordered an end to the lockout. The appeals court stayed the ruling temporarily. But the judges could order the lockout lifted at any point. If that happens, the NFL would have to re-open its doors to players and start a new league year with free agency and player transactions. With the previous collective bargaining agreement expired, that could expose the NFL to potential antitrust violations (the players have already sued the NFL on similar grounds). Goodell said protecting the league from committing antitrust violations without the safety net of the CBA was a priority for the league. He repeated his mantra that he's concerned that lawyers for the players might attack foundations of the NFL business model such as the draft, free agency and roster sizes, which could cause upheaval if a court rules against the league. "As you can imagine, that's not a way to operate your league in a successful fashion," Goodell said. But the commissioner did not disclose specifics of what the NFL might consider for work rules if the court ends the lockout. Earlier this week, SportsBusiness Daily reported that the league was not set on re-imposing the 2010 work rules, as many expected. In response, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said there was a "wide range of options" the league was considering. Roger Goodell won't address rumors of a total NFL shutdown - USA TODAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4HCrew Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Roger Goodell won't address rumors of a total NFL shutdown - USA TODAY Absolutely ridiculous...this is becoming a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I'm not hugely alarmed. It would make sense for the league to mention the threat of losing the season, even if they don't plan on following through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Absolutely ridiculous...this is becoming a joke It was a joke a year ago. It is approaching the point of suicide now. If the owners lose the next court decision in the 18th circuit. They have some choices. Reopen under the 2010 rules. Many players have said they will sue the RFA aspect of it. Any control aspect of it for that matter. The NFL can’t exist in an uncontrolled market in it’s current form. Many of the teams couldn’t exist. This would not help the Jets. Judging by the waiting list for tickets before the new stadium there seems to be 6 times as many Giants fans then Jets fans. Some of the teams would perish I suspect. The owners can just close the business. Just like any other business if they truly feel they can’t make money in this environment. They do that the 2011 season is kaput. This is unreal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 It was a joke a year ago. It is approaching the point of suicide now. If the owners lose the next court decision in the 18th circuit. They have some choices. Reopen under the 2010 rules. Many players have said they will sue the RFA aspect of it. Any control aspect of it for that matter. The NFL can’t exist in an uncontrolled market in it’s current form. Many of the teams couldn’t exist. This would not help the Jets. Judging by the waiting list for tickets before the new stadium there seems to be 6 times as many Giants fans then Jets fans. Some of the teams would perish I suspect. The owners can just close the business. Just like any other business if they truly feel they can’t make money in this environment. They do that the 2011 season is kaput. This is unreal What Goodell either doesn't grasp or doesn't say; a "new" NFL would lose it's antitrust exemption. The NFL has lost case after case-the USFL, Freeman McNeil, etc. and they are losing right now. This would be another loss,and the exemption is what makes them especially profitable. And once that antitrust exemption goes out the window the NFL as we know it is no longer going to be able to dictate terms. Also, even with decertification, Bell Biv DeMaurice is pretty hooked into the Obama Adminsitration, which means the NLRB could get involved if Goodell tries to take his ball and go home for a year; that amounts to definitial unfair labor practices. Further, for all the tough talk the big market/new stadium teams need the revenue of some 2011 season or face ruin. At some point Jerry Richardson is going to be told to shut the f__ up by Jerry Jones. That wonderful story about Wellington Mara agreeing to split revenue with all the other teams is no longer valid when some owners buy in on the cheap and do nothing to grow the revenue or try to win, while others like Jones and the Jets and Giants spend serious cash to generate new revenue.At some point the big amrket guys are going to jump up and demand they get a 2011 season, even if only for 10-12 games. This is the most bizarre labor dispute ever; ownership wants to preserve a legally-exempted socialized monopoly, labor wants a free market. Every time Goodell opens his motuh it becomes clearer he has no idea what the eff he is talking about, and that he is merely carrying water for small market teams. For now.The only thing the owners have is players have finite careers and missed game checks aren't coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 This will get resolved. It is just going to take the time for everyone to reach that precipice point. Players career are too short, to miss any paychecks. Some owners have too much debt, to miss any game paydays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Roger Goodell won't address rumors of a total NFL shutdown This makes me think it's already in the works between him and the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Roger Goodell won't address rumors of a total NFL shutdown This makes me think it's already in the works between him and the owners. That is exactly what they would like the Union to think. These stories don't get planted by them self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 That is exactly what they would like the Union to think. These stories don't get planted by them self. More than likely. How long before we start seeing the "Replacement Players" leaks? Soon me thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 More than likely. How long before we start seeing the "Replacement Players" leaks? Soon me thinks. Don't think they can do that Because it’s a lock out, not a strike, the courts would beat them to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Don't think they can do that Because it’s a lock out, not a strike, the courts would beat them to death Hmmmm, interesting. I sorta thought those two things went together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Gosh ... I hate the owners more every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJetsFan Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Don't think they can do that Because it’s a lock out, not a strike, the courts would beat them to death What about the players starting their own league? Is that a legally acceptable option? I could imagine any number of successful former players that would want to own their own team - Curtis Martin for example. I realize the stadiums would be an issue, but if all the current players gravitated to an alternate league, then would it be viable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 This is awesome. Seriously. I hope the players hang in and take the owners to the mat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 What about the players starting their own league? Is that a legally acceptable option? I could imagine any number of successful former players that would want to own their own team - Curtis Martin for example. I realize the stadiums would be an issue, but if all the current players gravitated to an alternate league, then would it be viable? If the NFL shuts down that is exactly what the players might threaten. No way they could get it going this year. Logistical nightmare. Stadiums, TV. Players would have to play for much cheaper. I don’t know the legal ramifications of it. Both these sides are acting like suicide bombers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 If the NFL shuts down that is exactly what the players might threaten. No way they could get it going this year. Logistical nightmare. Stadiums, TV. Players would have to play for much cheaper. I don’t know the legal ramifications of it. Both these sides are acting like suicide bombers Some one could absolutely start their own league right now. As you mention, the logistics (particularly stadiums) make that difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Some one could absolutely start their own league right now. As you mention, the logistics (particularly stadiums) make that difficult. The Polo Grounds for the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 More than likely. How long before we start seeing the "Replacement Players" leaks? Soon me thinks. I don't think that would ever happen again. There is way much more money involved in TV, Ticket Prices, Directtv that the owners would never go down that road again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggin94it Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 The NFL can't simply shut down; the teams are individual businesses, and individual businesses collectively deciding not to operate would, in and of itself, be an antitrust violation. The NFL's head office could shut down, though, I guess - refusing to approve player contracts or sanction games . . .Interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I don't think that would ever happen again. There is way much more money involved in TV, Ticket Prices, Directtv that the owners would never go down that road again. I was actually wondering if they would just start talking about it to try and prod the players. I do agree that would be a very bad idea. People would be pretty pissed in their PSL seats watching the stockroom guy tackle the volunteer fireman for a 4 yard loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I was actually wondering if they would just start talking about it to try and prod the players. I do agree that would be a very bad idea. People would be pretty pissed in their PSL seats watching the stockroom guy tackle the volunteer fireman for a 4 yard loss. If the fireman were Fireman Ed I think some people would pay good money to see him get tackled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 If the season does not happen how would we know which free agents the JETS would have signed for the 2011 season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 The NFL can't simply shut down; the teams are individual businesses, and individual businesses collectively deciding not to operate would, in and of itself, be an antitrust violation. The NFL's head office could shut down, though, I guess - refusing to approve player contracts or sanction games . . .Interesting Edify me here-Why can't a business and owners collectively decide to end their business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Edify me here-Why can't a business and owners collectively decide to end their business? The Supreme Court declared, in the American Needle case, that the NFL was a collective of 32 competing business entities. If they were all to close shop at once, it would be a clear breach of antitrust laws as a "combination, contract or conspiracy" to restrain competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggin94it Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Edify me here-Why can't a business and owners collectively decide to end their business? *A* business can. But 32 separate businesses, acting collectively, as part of a coordinated plan, cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 *A* business can. But 32 separate businesses, acting collectively, as part of a coordinated plan, cannot. But, it can be argued, if 3 go out of business by them self, that there is irreparable damage to the remaining 29, that they could not sustain. It would be an interesting case. Of course, it won't come to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I'd be curious to find out what happens to the $5 billion in TV money that's currently in escrow if the owners pull the plug. It'd be hard to believe that there weren't provisions written into those TV contracts that reimbursed the networks in the event of a complete shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I'd be curious to find out what happens to the $5 billion in TV money that's currently in escrow if the owners pull the plug. It'd be hard to believe that there weren't provisions written into those TV contracts that reimbursed the networks in the event of a complete shutdown. CBS will develop 2 more "3 and a half men" pilots. ESPN will pay Herm Edwards to coach their flag football team. Linda Cohen is Center. NBC will do what they do best-Wonder how they can spend money of the sinking "the Office". The NFL Channel will create a reality show around Antonio Cromartie titled "All my Children" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaumerJet Posted May 12, 2011 Author Share Posted May 12, 2011 Edify me here-Why can't a business and owners collectively decide to end their business? Scott, I think you hit the nail! The NFL plans to disband, should the courts go against them - The teams do not. No league means no new CBA discussions - which to the players is a worse scenario than them (Players) attempting an Anti-Trust Suit against the NFL. No league means each team is an individual company, which is not a monopoly and as such, they do not have to deal with Anti-Trust issues when negotiating contracts. The NFL could return as only the promoter of the games, which would also not effect Anti-Trust legistration (Can anyone say "WWE" and why it's no longer the "WWF"). Even though the WWF is an entertainment issue (like the Globtrotters, et al...) and even thought it's not truly a sport, The had to become the WWE in order to continue to conduct business as a result of ANTI-TRUST LEGISTLATION. And the thought of the end of the world on 05/22/2011 was an issue (and I truly do not think the world will end) - the end of the NFL as we know it, may come on 06/06/11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Anything the league tries, Demaurice Smith seems to have an answer for... most football fans hate the dude for whatever reason... but he's been litigating the pants off the NFL in the last few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaumerJet Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 Anything the league tries, Demaurice Smith seems to have an answer for... most football fans hate the dude for whatever reason... but he's been litigating the pants off the NFL in the last few months. The problem is if they run the scenario that I posted, No litigation can stop this. However, the move would not violate the contract between tv & the NFL. The difference would be that the NFL would be acting as the agent for the individual teams. That could lead to a litigation stand by the NFLPA against the individual teams that could wind up in court for years... Any way you slice it, it's gonna be one hell of a May, June & July! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Anything the league tries, Demaurice Smith seems to have an answer for... most football fans hate the dude for whatever reason... but he's been litigating the pants off the NFL in the last few months. It was a mistake to decertify and break off talks, because the closer they get to a settlement, the more likley the big owners tell Richardson and his ilk to STFU and split the difference. But Smith has managed this much better than Goodell, who seems to be a total dolt being driven stupidly by the small market owners. And Smith has a trump card or two; he is tight with the Obama Administration, and when Goodell floats an imbecilic idea like this that is de facto unfair labor practices, the NRLB will come down on him like a ton of bricks, and right after that the Justice Department will do everything they can to yank the antitrust exemption. Further, with $5 billion of TV money in escrow with the prospect of no football next fall, the TV networks are not going to be happy. Heck, the draft outdrew NBA playoff games, and preseason games outdraw MLB every time. Keeps coming back to make a deal everyone can live with and stop damaging your product and pissing off your customers. This is bad situation,and every move Goodell has made makes it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggin94it Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 No league means each team is an individual company, which is not a monopoly and as such, they do not have to deal with Anti-Trust issues when negotiating contracts. You couldn't be more wrong on this if you tried. It's because the teams are individual companies now that there are anti-trust issues (multiple companies cannot join together to restrain trade by coordinating on pricing or salaries, etc.). The NFL could return as only the promoter of the games, which would also not effect Anti-Trust legistration (Can anyone say "WWE" and why it's no longer the "WWF").Even though the WWF is an entertainment issue (like the Globtrotters, et al...) and even thought it's not truly a sport, The had to become the WWE in order to continue to conduct business as a result of ANTI-TRUST LEGISTLATION. Uh, no. The "ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION" (the Sherman Act) was written and passed in 1890, before the WWF was even a glimmer in Vince McMahon's grandpappy's eye. The WWF had to change its name because it was sued in Britain by the World Wide Fund for Nature (which also used "WWF" as its trademark), and the Fund won. Why in the world do you think it had anything to do with anti-trust laws?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggin94it Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 The problem is if they run the scenario that I posted, No litigation can stop this. Uh . . . no. Sorry. Thanks for playing, though. What the NFL could do is shut down the league office, meaning that it would not be able to approve contracts, meaning that teams would be unable to sign players during the shutdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMaynard Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 GOD I hate the owners. I know there are always two sides to every dispute, and I am trying to be open minded, but everything I have heard to date makes me believe the owners have collectively lost their minds. My greatest fear is this will not end well for the Jets in particular. I have to believe there will be football this year. Both sides have too much to lose and the owners can't be that stupid. However, I don't see how the salary cap does not end up being less than, or at best, equal to 2009. And for the jets, with their payroll and high priced free agents they want to retain, that would be death. Someone please tell me I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.