Ex-players file suit against the NFL

[KD in CA]

The Owners, not the players, opted out of the CBA early. They did so because they felt it was in their best interest to do so. The Lockout insurance gave them leverage over the players and it was their best shot to strike the best deal possible.

 

You really want to hang your hat on this point but it's totally meaningless. Exercising a contractual right to opt out of an agreement does not preclude anyone from negotiating a new deal in good faith. It happens with player contracts all the time. And let's be clear -- it's the players who walked away from the table. The owners were still open to negotiating.

 

 

But as to this article, can someone explain what Priest Holmes and Carl Eller have to do with pre-draft college kids? The draft issue does create an interesting point, but how is the lockout impacting a 70 year-old Carl Eller? Weren't his pension benefits negotiated decades ago? This looks like a desperate shotgun approach to me.

[CosmicBills]

The owners were still open to negotiating.

 

Negotiating to what end? What's their goal in this process?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

You really want to hang your hat on this point but it's totally meaningless. Exercising a contractual right to opt out of an agreement does not preclude anyone from negotiating a new deal in good faith. It happens with player contracts all the time. And let's be clear -- it's the players who walked away from the table. The owners were still open to negotiating.

 

 

But as to this article, can someone explain what Priest Holmes and Carl Eller have to do with pre-draft college kids? The draft issue does create an interesting point, but how is the lockout impacting a 70 year-old Carl Eller? Weren't his pension benefits negotiated decades ago? This looks like a desperate shotgun approach to me.

 

1. I agree with you regarding opting out of the CBA not precluding new negotiations.

 

2. Von Miller is a named plaintiff in the first antitrust suit, so presumably any draft-related antitrust arguments on behalf of as yet undrafted college players could already have been made in the first suit.

 

3. It is not clear to me how retired NFL players have been injured YET if the NFL is making whatever retiree benefit contributions the old CBA required of them.

 

4. As I recently posted in another thread, the owners and players have BOTH known since 2006 that they might be doing the antitrust exemption/ union decertification dance when the CBA ended - - see pages 238 - 239 of the 2006 CBA at:

 

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

 

5. Not sure, but I think I read that Page is a Minn state court judge, so he will play no formal role in any federal court antitrust case appeals.

[Saint Doug]

You really want to hang your hat on this point but it's totally meaningless. Exercising a contractual right to opt out of an agreement does not preclude anyone from negotiating a new deal in good faith. It happens with player contracts all the time. And let's be clear -- it's the players who walked away from the table. The owners were still open to negotiating.

 

Let's also not forget the players signed the last contract too - the same contract that had the owners opt-out clause in it. So, in effect, the players agreed to the owners having the right to walk away from that deal. Therefore, the players are not the victims people are making them out to be.

[KD in CA]

Negotiating to what end? What's their goal in this process?

 

Their goal is the same as the players' goal, to maximize personal profit. The players have decided their best chance to win big is in court and that's why they walked away from the negotiating table. That's fine if that's their strategy, but then don't play the 'owners forced their hand' card.

Edited April 1, 2011 by KD in CT

[CosmicBills]

Their goal is the same as the players' goal, to maximize personal profit. The players have decided their best chance to win big is in court and that's why they walked away from the negotiating table. That's fine if that's their strategy, but then don't play the 'owners forced their hand' card.

Isn't it logical to assume then that the owner's best chance to win big is to drag this out as long as possible and wait until players are missing game checks before truly negotiating? Do you really think the Owners expected the players to just roll over and take it? Of course not. They expected a fight and prepared for one. As they should have. Ditto with the players.

 

The Owners negotiated in as much good faith as the players did -- which is none at all. Both sides knew there was slim to no chance of a deal being made in the winter or spring unless it favors the players because until they start missing game checks, the owners have no leverage. The federal mediator said as much when he declared that after weeks of negotiating both sides weren't close enough to even consider another extension! Despite what either side says about the "offers" being made, no one -- on either side -- was offering fair deals because it makes zero sense to do so. The Players, as you said, knew their best shot was to get to court early. The Owners knew their best shot was to wear the players down.

 

It goes both ways, KD. I'm not saying it doesn't. But the reality of the situation is the Owners, not the players, started this because the players would still be playing ball under the old CBA terms if they could.

 

That's not making things up or even bending the truth. That's just how it happened.

 

Let's also not forget the players signed the last contract too - the same contract that had the owners opt-out clause in it. So, in effect, the players agreed to the owners having the right to walk away from that deal. Therefore, the players are not the victims people are making them out to be.

No one, at least no one with any sense, is calling the players victims. I certainly am not and I've been as vocal an opponent to the owners as a message board dude can be.

 

The victims here are the fans.

[Mr. WEO]

That's true ... but you're leaving off the key point. The owners want the BEST DEAL THEY CAN GET.

 

The best way to get that is to wear down the opposition until they have no choice but to accept. And the best way to accomplish that? Not play a single down in 2011 until the missed game checks start piling up and forces the players to a resolution.

 

There's no way the owners were going to get the deal they want with three weeks of negotiations in FEBRUARY. Or March. Or April. Or May. Or June. Or July. Or August. They knew that going in. So did the players.

 

But come September, October or November ... then it's a different story. A deal made before the season starts will favor the players. That's not what the owners want. At all.

 

It's not rocket surgery, dude. But I forget, logic isn't your strong suit.

 

 

Neither side planned on striking a deal in February.

Of course the owners want the best deal they can get--so do the players. In fact any negotiated agreement between opposing side is, by definition, the best deal they could get. Did you really not understand that?

 

The owners were willing to take a deal that was much less than they initially wanted. Their last offer guaranteed annual "pay raises" (for you understanding), not "pay cuts". They wanted an extra billion off the total revenues to be set aside for them. Then they cut that to 700 mil, 500, and finally 350 mil. Thye wanted 18 games. They then gave up on that--saying they would only bring it up again two years from now--and only if the players wanted 18 games. They agreed to cover more than one year of salary in a player is out for more than a year. They agreed to an 82 million fund for retired players. All the union had to do, after squeezing all of these concession formt he owners, was say "OK". If the players took that offer, do you think the owners would have said "surprise!--kidding--we don't rally want to play football." Of course not.

 

So you continue to think that the owners, by conceding point after point to the players--they were "wearing down" the players? What sane person thinks this way?

 

 

 

Isn't it logical to assume then that the owner's best chance to win big is to drag this out as long as possible and wait until players are missing game checks before truly negotiating? Do you really think the Owners expected the players to just roll over and take it? Of course not. They expected a fight and prepared for one. As they should have. Ditto with the players.

 

The Owners negotiated in as much good faith as the players did -- which is none at all. Both sides knew there was slim to no chance of a deal being made in the winter or spring unless it favors the players because until they start missing game checks, the owners have no leverage. The federal mediator said as much when he declared that after weeks of negotiating both sides weren't close enough to even consider another extension! Despite what either side says about the "offers" being made, no one -- on either side -- was offering fair deals because it makes zero sense to do so. The Players, as you said, knew their best shot was to get to court early. The Owners knew their best shot was to wear the players down.

 

It goes both ways, KD. I'm not saying it doesn't. But the reality of the situation is the Owners, not the players, started this because the players would still be playing ball under the old CBA terms if they could.

 

That's not making things up or even bending the truth. That's just how it happened.

 

 

No one, at least no one with any sense, is calling the players victims. I certainly am not and I've been as vocal an opponent to the owners as a message board dude can be.

 

The victims here are the fans.

 

If the owners "knew" their best play was to not negotiate, why did they agree twice to extend negotiations? Why did they negotiate at all? Why didn't they lockout as soon as possible on March 3rd? And if the owners plan is to gain advantage once players start losing checks, why didn't the players make a deal before the owners gain this advantage?

 

When the CBA would have expired next year, what do you think would have been different than now?

[KD in CA]

It goes both ways, KD. I'm not saying it doesn't. But the reality of the situation is the Owners, not the players, started this because the players would still be playing ball under the old CBA terms if they could.

 

That's not making things up or even bending the truth. That's just how it happened.

No disagreement that its a two way street and that both sides can and will do everything in their power to gain the maximum benefit, but the owners probably don't sign the last CBA if not for the out clause, so you can't even say that. It's also disingenuous to measure what's 'fair' against one point in time (i.e, the last CBA). That one happened to greatly favor the players, but this fight didn't just start two years ago, it's been going on for decades.

 

 

 

The victims here are the fans.

And not even them IMO. Fans should be smart enough to know this is a business and they have the option to register their displeasure with their wallet.

[CosmicBills]

Once again you manage to top yourself. I admit, I dig it. It's hilarious to watch you argue blindly without really bothering to understand or pay attention to what's being said. In fact over the past few days you've not only argued against yourself, you've changed stances mid sentence because you refuse to actually take a moment and consider that not everyone is trying argue or one up you. Some are in fact trying to express views and opinions which in no way impact your stance.

 

It's impossible to actually have a conversation with you since you can't (or refuse) to engage that two cylinder brain that rest atop your noggin, so I beg you to actually read the following before reacting. And by read it, I don't mean read only the words you understand. I know that's tough because most people who finished the third grade tend to use words that you clearly don't understand. I mean consider what's being written before responding. Formulate your points. Take time to type them out. Read them before hitting "add reply". You'll do yourself a favor.

 

Let's start here:

 

Of course the owners want the best deal they can get--so do the players. In fact any negotiated agreement between opposing side is, by definition, the best deal they could get. Did you really not understand that?

 

I understand that. But it's clear you don't. It's a great attention grabber. Let's be clear, this statement does nothing but repeat exactly what I said in my post -- yet you found a way to argue with it while supporting it. That's a mean feat of logic.

 

 

The owners were willing to take a deal that was much less than they initially wanted. Their last offer guaranteed annual "pay raises" (for you understanding), not "pay cuts". They wanted an extra billion off the total revenues to be set aside for them. Then they cut that to 700 mil, 500, and finally 350 mil. Thye wanted 18 games. They then gave up on that--saying they would only bring it up again two years from now--and only if the players wanted 18 games. They agreed to cover more than one year of salary in a player is out for more than a year. They agreed to an 82 million fund for retired players. All the union had to do, after squeezing all of these concession formt he owners, was say "OK". If the players took that offer, do you think the owners would have said "surprise!--kidding--we don't rally want to play football." Of course not.

 

So you continue to think that the owners, by conceding point after point to the players--they were "wearing down" the players? What sane person thinks this way?

 

You're SO close to having a valid point here, but then you ruin it with the button. But herein lies a difference of opinion: you believe the reports that say the owners actually were conceding points to the players. That sure sounds nice -- but again, I tend to believe the federal mediator who said at no time were either side ever really close to a deal. If the owners' deal was as good as you seem to believe it was, the federal mediator -- who by definition is a neutral party -- would have lobbied for the players to remain at the table. Had the players decertified anyway -- he would have thrown them under the bus.

 

He didn't.

 

Why?

 

If the owners "knew" their best play was to not negotiate --

 

Let's stop here. Show me where in my post I ever uttered the words "the owners knew their best play was not to negotiate". Go ahead. Look for it.

 

...

 

Find it? It's okay, sound out the big words.

 

...

 

Oh, hi! You're back. Didn't find it, did you? Of course not, because I never said it. What I did say was it was in the owners' best interest to drag out the negotiations for as long as possible before truly negotiating.

 

Key word: "truly". You like to put random words in quotes, how 'bout instead you discover what an adverb is. Can you define it without going to Google? I bet ya' can't. In fact, I don't even need to bet since it's clear you don't know.

 

Which brings us to the second half of that sentence:

 

 

... why did they agree twice to extend negotiations?

 

Hmm. Once again you've flipped sides and are in fact restating exactly what I said in previous posts. Either you're looking to argue just to argue, or your cognitive abilities are on par with a blender. I'm guessing the later, but I digress.

 

I'll spell it out for you.

 

The owners want the best deal possible -- a point you agreed to yourself. The best way to ensure (crap, that's a big word ... let me try this) ... The best way to get the best deal is to reach a deal when the opposition is at their weakest.

 

In this case, the players will be at their weakest when they begin to feel the effects of not receiving their paychecks. That does not begin to happen until actual games are missed. The NFL season does not start until September.

 

Look at your calendar.

 

Since you clearly are incapable of putting two and two together, allow me. That's five months away.

 

So, why did the owners agree to extensions? Can you fill in the blanks? Nope. Can't. I can already see the steam coming out of your ears and hear the Apple II that powers your brain overloading. They agreed to extensions because they want to drag this process out as long as possible.

 

 

Why did they negotiate at all? Why didn't they lockout as soon as possible on March 3rd?

 

This question shows why you probably spend most of your income buying things off of QVC or buying Extenze. Not everything people say in public is actually true. People mislead. People employ spin control. People don't act like robots and march in a straight line towards their goals.

 

In this case, negotiating -- by both sides -- was nothing more than PR. Both sides want to look good to the fans. They want to look like they're the ones carrying the torch so to speak. And since the owners realized that the players weren't simply going to roll over and take whatever was offered to them, negotiating makes it looked like they tried.

 

But there's a difference between actually trying and going through the motions.

 

If the owners or players had truly wanted to negotiate then they would have reached a deal.

 

And if the owners plan is to gain advantage once players start losing checks, why didn't the players make a deal before the owners gain this advantage?

 

This goes back to an earlier stance you took where you assume that the players just have to accept whatever is offered. You obviously are not a risk taker. The players had ammunition to fire and they unloaded. Will it work? That's now up to the courts to decide. But they chose to fight for what they feel is right. Just as the owners are fighting for what they feel is right.

 

Making a deal out of fear is silly. In fact it's stupid. And just because you chose to live your life that way and make your decisions in that manner, doesn't mean everyone does.

 

When the CBA would have expired next year, what do you think would have been different than now?

Absolutely. There would have been a season played in 2011.

 

I just want football.

 

Now, don't respond to this tonight. For once actually take a breath and relax. Let it soak in. Consider what's been said. Maybe you'll prove you're not the macaroon you seem to be.

[Mr. WEO]

Once again you manage to top yourself. I admit, I dig it. It's hilarious to watch you argue blindly without really bothering to understand or pay attention to what's being said. In fact over the past few days you've not only argued against yourself, you've changed stances mid sentence because you refuse to actually take a moment and consider that not everyone is trying argue or one up you. Some are in fact trying to express views and opinions which in no way impact your stance.

 

It's impossible to actually have a conversation with you since you can't (or refuse) to engage that two cylinder brain that rest atop your noggin, so I beg you to actually read the following before reacting. And by read it, I don't mean read only the words you understand. I know that's tough because most people who finished the third grade tend to use words that you clearly don't understand. I mean consider what's being written before responding. Formulate your points. Take time to type them out. Read them before hitting "add reply". You'll do yourself a favor.

 

Let's start here:

 

 

 

I understand that. But it's clear you don't. It's a great attention grabber. Let's be clear, this statement does nothing but repeat exactly what I said in my post -- yet you found a way to argue with it while supporting it. That's a mean feat of logic.

 

 

 

 

You're SO close to having a valid point here, but then you ruin it with the button. But herein lies a difference of opinion: you believe the reports that say the owners actually were conceding points to the players. That sure sounds nice -- but again, I tend to believe the federal mediator who said at no time were either side ever really close to a deal. If the owners' deal was as good as you seem to believe it was, the federal mediator -- who by definition is a neutral party -- would have lobbied for the players to remain at the table. Had the players decertified anyway -- he would have thrown them under the bus.

 

He didn't.

 

Why?

 

 

 

Let's stop here. Show me where in my post I ever uttered the words "the owners knew their best play was not to negotiate". Go ahead. Look for it.

 

...

 

Find it? It's okay, sound out the big words.

 

...

 

Oh, hi! You're back. Didn't find it, did you? Of course not, because I never said it. What I did say was it was in the owners' best interest to drag out the negotiations for as long as possible before truly negotiating.

 

Key word: "truly". You like to put random words in quotes, how 'bout instead you discover what an adverb is. Can you define it without going to Google? I bet ya' can't. In fact, I don't even need to bet since it's clear you don't know.

 

Which brings us to the second half of that sentence:

 

 

 

 

Hmm. Once again you've flipped sides and are in fact restating exactly what I said in previous posts. Either you're looking to argue just to argue, or your cognitive abilities are on par with a blender. I'm guessing the later, but I digress.

 

I'll spell it out for you.

 

The owners want the best deal possible -- a point you agreed to yourself. The best way to ensure (crap, that's a big word ... let me try this) ... The best way to get the best deal is to reach a deal when the opposition is at their weakest.

 

In this case, the players will be at their weakest when they begin to feel the effects of not receiving their paychecks. That does not begin to happen until actual games are missed. The NFL season does not start until September.

 

Look at your calendar.

 

Since you clearly are incapable of putting two and two together, allow me. That's five months away.

 

So, why did the owners agree to extensions? Can you fill in the blanks? Nope. Can't. I can already see the steam coming out of your ears and hear the Apple II that powers your brain overloading. They agreed to extensions because they want to drag this process out as long as possible.

 

 

 

 

This question shows why you probably spend most of your income buying things off of QVC or buying Extenze. Not everything people say in public is actually true. People mislead. People employ spin control. People don't act like robots and march in a straight line towards their goals.

 

In this case, negotiating -- by both sides -- was nothing more than PR. Both sides want to look good to the fans. They want to look like they're the ones carrying the torch so to speak. And since the owners realized that the players weren't simply going to roll over and take whatever was offered to them, negotiating makes it looked like they tried.

 

But there's a difference between actually trying and going through the motions.

 

If the owners or players had truly wanted to negotiate then they would have reached a deal.

 

 

 

This goes back to an earlier stance you took where you assume that the players just have to accept whatever is offered. You obviously are not a risk taker. The players had ammunition to fire and they unloaded. Will it work? That's now up to the courts to decide. But they chose to fight for what they feel is right. Just as the owners are fighting for what they feel is right.

 

Making a deal out of fear is silly. In fact it's stupid. And just because you chose to live your life that way and make your decisions in that manner, doesn't mean everyone does.

 

 

Absolutely. There would have been a season played in 2011.

 

I just want football.

 

Now, don't respond to this tonight. For once actually take a breath and relax. Let it soak in. Consider what's been said. Maybe you'll prove you're not the macaroon you seem to be.

 

Holy s**t.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

LINK

 

 

 

This lawsuit is coming somewhat out of left field and could throw a wrench in the owners plans. At the very least it could delay the draft indefinitely.

 

PTR

Just found a copy of the actual court complaint at:

 

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/eller_vs_nfl_lawsuit.pdf