Smith contemplating permanent decertification

[San Jose Bills Fan]

We'll see how many players like the "permanent decertification" and no draft when brady and Manning get 20 million per season while 1500 out of the 1700 NFL players are making 50k per season because thats all the owners will pay.

 

Obviously you're exaggerating but I get the point I think you are trying to make. I don't profess to know all of the legalease in there but I don't think the players are prevented from operating as a group just not as a "union". We could let the american capitalist system take over and let it run it's course. Obviously for 50K a year you will not have quality people around your Peyton Manning making him ineffective.

 

Naturally some level of appropriate compensation will be arrived at as teams are comprised of many players that all have to be dedicated to practice and play at a very high level. Kind of like other businesses in america. Business owners will try to get by on the cheap until it significantly impacts the product on the field then they will realize that they will have to pay better salaries for better employees.

 

Yeah because you just find 6-6 300 pound people that are athletic anywhere.

They;ll probably pay Peyton Manning 100 million. Then get the cart boys from the grocery store to play O-line and pay them $4 an hour plus tips.

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

It would be very interesting if the players were available in a free market.

 

I guess that the distributed compensation would be much more equitable than some people think.

 

 

[ARTnSocal]

The problem is that the Cowboys are worth about a billion dollars more than the Jaguars. (http://www.usatoday....se-values_N.htm). So you're going to have to get Jerry to give up a lot of value or else give him extra shares, which causes plenty of problems. There's not really an easy balance to be struck; but you'd have to think that everyone is currently making enough money that ultimately, somebody's going to cave. Quite probably before any games are missed.

I think Jerry and his COWBOYS were approved for that stadium loan in an amount that he wasn't qualified for. He's gotta be in way over his head with that place he built. I've only seen it on TV, but people in Dallas have commented on the place saying how many distractions there are there where an NFL fans focus should be watching an NFL game in real-time.

 

That stadium must be like a combination of big-money resort & football stadium all in one.

 

Anyone know this to be true? Because of all owners he looks the most stressed out when I see him on TV during this lockout. He's got creditors all over the place from what I've read.

Edited May 28, 2011 by ARTnSocal

[Mickey]

We'll see how many players like the "permanent decertification" and no draft when brady and Manning get 20 million per season while 1500 out of the 1700 NFL players are making 50k per season because thats all the owners will pay.

 

The league has lost virtually every anti-trust suit brought by players and that is why they agreed to the settlement which was ultimately converted into the CBA which has been so successful over the last 20+ years. If you have enjoyed watching pro football over the last few decades, you can

thank that CBA which was the direct result of the Union's decertification in that time period. The league is not going to give up anything they don't have to and without the threat of anti-trust suits, they don't have to compromise one bit. Players don't want a situation where all the wealth goes

to a few players but the owners sure as anything don't want to have to get in to a bidding war for every player. There is a free market basement floor for NFL labor, if the league went below that, they will have to compete with another league sooner or later. That is how the AFL happened.

 

I've never understood the whole "anti-trust" thing. The owners should get together and re-form the NFL as a corporation with 32 shareholders (owners), and 32 franchises. The reality is that the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets (for example) do not compete like Target and Wal-Mart. No NFL team has a main revenue-generating product (football), unless there is at least 1 other NFL team involved. If the NFL wouldn't be allowed to set up drafts, player salary caps, or other "monopoly" behavior, why would it be allowed to dictate how many yards are on the field, how many points a touchdown is worth, or what the playoff system is like? It seems to me that these should all be contracted in individual joint ventures between pairs of teams, right? Otherwise there is collusion going on to some degree.

 

You may not "get it" but the league does, they have lost virtually every anti-trust suit brought by the players. What you are advising the league to do is to form a monopoly in the style of Standard Oil and Ma Bell. There is a reason why the league operates as, essentially, a membership association. I believe their rules actually forbid incorporation of a franchise. They avoid certain consequences by operating in that form but doing so creates other difficulties such as collusion in restraint of the free trade of labor.

 

I think by far the most telling part of the story is that it is the owners that want the players to operate as a union. If the NFL really did make it a stipulation of the signing the collective bargaining agreement that the players reform the union it is obviously in the owners benefit for there to be a union. Why would the owners want their workforce to unionize if it was a bad thing for them?

 

Therefore we should logically be able to assume the reverse in that the a union is not good for the players. Add in that the players had to decertify to take the legal course of action that they did and that should be proof enough.

 

Good point, and yes, they really did require the union to certify. The old CBA started out life as a settlement agreement in the Freeman McNeil case. The SSA in that case was later converted in to the CBA.

[justnzane]

How much more can the players let DeMaurice Smith ruin their situation? He clearly has let them adrift on iceberg heading towards the equator. Just wait until the players are gasping for breath and the NFL will have its way.

 

That said, if the owners had listened to Ralph, instead of Jerrah and co. being greedy about getting a deal done so quickly to benefit themselves.

[Nanker]

How much more can the players let DeMaurice Smith ruin their situation? He clearly has let them adrift on iceberg heading towards the equator. Just wait until the players are gasping for breath and the NFL will have its way.

 

That said, if the owners had listened to Ralph, instead of Jerrah and co. being greedy about getting a deal done so quickly to benefit themselves.

 

I blame Tags for this mess. Upshaw had him by the short and curlies forever, and the last deal they made was a "take it or leave it" ultimatum by Upshaw. Tags rammed it through so his legacy wouldn't be tarnished. Well, it did just that. It was not a good deal for the owners.

 

What gets me is that the players' sense of entitlement. They really think taking anything less than what they got the last time is an insult. Not for one nanosecond have any of those doofuses contemplated that they actually got too much in the last contract. It took most of the owners two years to figure out that they screwed themselves when they signed on the dotted line the last time.

 

• Players are NOT "partners" with the owners.
• Players are not entitled to a guaranteed percentage of the owner's revenue.
• Revenue sharing among the teams should be limited to TV revenue and a split of the gate receipts.
• The Cap should be set and governed by only the TV revenue.
• If the decert becomes permanent, an awful lot of guys are going to be playing for a lot less than the current "vet minimum".

That's my opinion and you're entitled to it.

[Thurman#1]

What else is he supposed to say? "uh naw, we're just doing this desertification thing for a show. Don't worry will be unified again as soon the Owners agree to let us keeping 60%."

 

 

 

What else is he supposed to say? Seriously? He's supposed to say what media-savvy people everywhere say when asked a question that they don't want to answer. He's supposed to say "You know, that's an excellent question. I'm glad you asked me that, and by the way, you and your news station do an excellent job. It's media outlets like you that make the American system work. Now, if the owners would do as well at their jobs as you and your media compatriots do at yours, this situation would already have been resolved. Commissioner Goodell simply has not been acting reasonable ... yadda yadda yadda.

 

The fact that he answered the question means something. Not answering was a very reasonable option.

[spartacus]

What else is he supposed to say? Seriously? He's supposed to say what media-savvy people everywhere say when asked a question that they don't want to answer. He's supposed to say "You know, that's an excellent question. I'm glad you asked me that, and by the way, you and your news station do an excellent job. It's media outlets like you that make the American system work. Now, if the owners would do as well at their jobs as you and your media compatriots do at yours, this situation would already have been resolved. Commissioner Goodell simply has not been acting reasonable ... yadda yadda yadda.

 

The fact that he answered the question means something. Not answering was a very reasonable option.

Smith is in damage control mode.Player reps, like Coy Wire, are pushing to negotiate andstating that the de-cert is just a negotiating tactic.

 

Well, the owners are using those statements in their legalfiling to support their claim that the de-cert is a sham

 

Smith’s statement is a direct response to the Owner's reply briefwhich was just filed -

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791867.0.pdf

 

 

 

The owners raise the question of how can the players intend thede-cert to be permanent when they voted for it at the same meeting they electeda player to represent their team in anongoing union.

 

Smith is just trying to gain PR brownie points.

 

 

[Mickey]

Smith is in damage control mode.Player reps, like Coy Wire, are pushing to negotiate andstating that the de-cert is just a negotiating tactic.

 

Well, the owners are using those statements in their legalfiling to support their claim that the de-cert is a sham

 

Smith's statement is a direct response to the Owner's reply briefwhich was just filed -

 

http://www.ca8.uscou...8.3791867.0.pdf

 

 

 

The owners raise the question of how can the players intend thede-cert to be permanent when they voted for it at the same meeting they electeda player to represent their team in anongoing union.

 

Smith is just trying to gain PR brownie points.

 

 

 

 

Threatening permanent decertification is a tactic. There is no law that says players have to be in a union and the rulings out of the 8th circuit are only temporary. Remember that the league has already lost the other suit over the tv contract they negotiated where they took less money in exchange for a guarantee that they would get paid even if there is no football. All that is left is a hearing on damages.

 

Exactly what leverage would they have if they negotiated now? Giving in for whatever the owner's decide to give you is not negotiating. Why not wait to see if Judge Doty gives you half or more of the $4 Billion the networks are paying to not show football games?

 

 

[Mickey]

I blame Tags for this mess. Upshaw had him by the short and curlies forever, and the last deal they made was a "take it or leave it" ultimatum by Upshaw. Tags rammed it through so his legacy wouldn't be tarnished. Well, it did just that. It was not a good deal for the owners.

 

What gets me is that the players' sense of entitlement. They really think taking anything less than what they got the last time is an insult. Not for one nanosecond have any of those doofuses contemplated that they actually got too much in the last contract. It took most of the owners two years to figure out that they screwed themselves when they signed on the dotted line the last time.

 

• Players are NOT "partners" with the owners.
• Players are not entitled to a guaranteed percentage of the owner's revenue.
• Revenue sharing among the teams should be limited to TV revenue and a split of the gate receipts.
• The Cap should be set and governed by only the TV revenue.
• If the decert becomes permanent, an awful lot of guys are going to be playing for a lot less than the current "vet minimum".

That's my opinion and you're entitled to it.

If it was such a terrible deal, why has the league prospered so well and for so long? Where is the financial crisis brought on by this terrible, terrible deal that was made? Why is that when a franchise comes up for sale, the price always sets a new record if the deal was such a disaster? At the time that deal was made, the league had just lost the McNeil case including 1.5 million in damages and 10 million in legal fees, not to mention having had their entire system of free agency declared illegal. Its easy to forget now what the league and the commissioner were dealing with then. And the given the extended period of labor peace and prosperity for all that the CBA brought, I don't see how it can be fairly labeled to be a mistake.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Obviously you're exaggerating but I get the point I think you are trying to make. I don't profess to know all of the legalease in there but I don't think the players are prevented from operating as a group just not as a "union". We could let the american capitalist system take over and let it run it's course. Obviously for 50K a year you will not have quality people around your Peyton Manning making him ineffective.

 

Naturally some level of appropriate compensation will be arrived at as teams are comprised of many players that all have to be dedicated to practice and play at a very high level. Kind of like other businesses in america. Business owners will try to get by on the cheap until it significantly impacts the product on the field then they will realize that they will have to pay better salaries for better employees.

On the other hand, it's a pretty well understood economic principle that a labor union drives up the cost of labor. Going to an independent contractor model would force every player to negotiate from their personal perceived market value.

[Saint Doug]

I really can't see why they would re-unionize. There's zero incentive to do so. In their present form, the players can still act like a union (which they are), but the can also continue to reap the benefits from not being unionized, like the ability to sue for antitrust violations. So, basically, whenever the players don't get their way (like poor helmets, not enough peanut butter, etc.), they can parade their star QBs into the court and litigate.

[Scrappy]

This whole spin was said to frighten the owners, which I think it did.

[HalftimeAdjustment]

The problem is that the Cowboys are worth about a billion dollars more than the Jaguars. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-08-25-nfl-franchise-values_N.htm). So you're going to have to get Jerry to give up a lot of value or else give him extra shares, which causes plenty of problems. There's not really an easy balance to be struck; but you'd have to think that everyone is currently making enough money that ultimately, somebody's going to cave. Quite probably before any games are missed.

 

I agree that this is the main stumbling block, but the franchisee would need to retain rights to certain assets rather than the NFL. Such as the team logo, any stadium contracts, etc which would have to remain Cowboys property. The higher value of the Cowboys is based on two main factors, both of which would remain in control of Jerry Jones or his wholly owned corporation: the location (Dallas) and the Cowboys name, logo, and associated history. There would have to be some associated cash flows which went directly to the teams to support their continued value. Probably it is not a risk they want to take, but they would have to consider this alternative when compared to complete player free agency, which would ultimately damage the value of most franchises. The top echelon of teams might benefit from such a system however which is a problem.

[HalftimeAdjustment]

You may not "get it" but the league does, they have lost virtually every anti-trust suit brought by the players. What you are advising the league to do is to form a monopoly in the style of Standard Oil and Ma Bell. There is a reason why the league operates as, essentially, a membership association. I believe their rules actually forbid incorporation of a franchise. They avoid certain consequences by operating in that form but doing so creates other difficulties such as collusion in restraint of the free trade of labor.

 

I "get" that the NFL is in legitimate legal jeopardy, and that it is in fact a monopoly. However, the legal theory that teams should be allowed to compete against each other for players' services because they are independent businesses is a major weakness and exposure which worsens the situation related to free agency. By no means would this eliminate the legal exposure. However, my statements are an indication of my opinion that treating sports leagues similar to Standard Oil is a fallacy. The public does not benefit by unlimited bidding between teams for players. The anticompetitive impact of the NFL should be measured against other leagues, not between teams. A team has no business without the other teams and therefore is unlike a gas station, where multiple gas stations can compete to sell a product to consumers. The public will likely pay higher prices in the absence of salary caps and a smaller portion of the public will have viable winning teams in the event of unlimited free agency. These factors should be considered if the government decides to impose a resolution. I would prefer to see a negotiated resolution that preserves the draft and limits free agency; but I would also prefer to stop hearing that teams are separate businesses illegally colluding. I would be more comfortable simply viewing it as "the NFL is a monopoly and as such it has too much power over its labor, therefore it has to be regulated". Whether it is allegedly 32 separate businesses or 1 does not change its monopoly nature, unless a viable alternative league exists; in which case it is no longer a monopoly.

[beerme1]

This whole spin was said to frighten the owners, which I think it did.

 

 

Seriously?

[Sisyphean Bills]

Seriously?

Look how fast they caved in...

[Niagara Bill]

The KEY word in his statement is "POWER".

He is new in this game with the NFL and this whole situation is about his power. Not money, not players, not the owners share, only his power.

Smith wants power to wield, in a business he does not own or have any investment in. He is not negotiating for the players or the union.

In fact he is refusing to negotiate and stalling with his tactics of deceertification, because he has nothing to bargain for, they already have on the table an offer that is 95% of the goal.

Soon the players will turn on him. June 10....put your money on it. A week after the court decision.

[PDaDdy]

And exactly where would those players take their services? I would say that a good percentage of football players would not be making $50,000 if they were not good football players. Their other prospects would be quite a bit more limited. Not all, mind you, but a healthy percentage.

 

You assume that players have no other option than to play football. They could do plenty of other things for money that would allow them more time with their families and not require them to torture their bodies with lifting and practice and shorten their life spans with incredibly violent collisions and destroyed joints and ligaments.

 

This lack of the big pay day will also have a trickle down effect to college and grade school levels of football. Don't think that young kids dreaming of the fortune, fame and the big pay day down the road won't be impacted. The current NFL lifestyle is a huge motivator. People like to look at this in a vacuum and have an incredibly short sighted and myopic view of the salary issue.

 

Given the nature of the owners business they are not legally compelled to open the books and offer their employees any sort of salaries based on their business earnings. Employees also are free men and should like any other american be able to choose where, for who, or even IF they want to work in a particular profession.

 

So.....now what?

Edited May 29, 2011 by PDaDdy

[spartacus]

Threatening permanent decertification is a tactic. There is no law that says players have to be in a union and the rulings out of the 8th circuit are only temporary. Remember that the league has already lost the other suit over the tv contract they negotiated where they took less money in exchange for a guarantee that they would get paid even if there is no football. All that is left is a hearing on damages.

 

Exactly what leverage would they have if they negotiated now? Giving in for whatever the owner's decide to give you is not negotiating. Why not wait to see if Judge Doty gives you half or more of the $4 Billion the networks are paying to not show football games?

 

 

 

You are correct that there is no law that requires the players to be in a union.

 

 

unfortunately for them, their employer needs to have a CBA in order to operate without the constant fear of anti-trust suits being filed by anyone with a bug up his butt.

 

after the 8th circuit approves the lockout, there will be no football until a new CBA is agreed- regardless of the posturing by Smith

 

 

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I believe their rules actually forbid incorporation of a franchise.

I realize that your ultimate conclusions are not dependent upon the above statement. The idea that an NFL franchise may not be owned by a corporation, however, is a common misperception that even appears in mainstream media articles about the NFL. Although commonly believed, it is factually incorrect.

 

The NFL makes its governing "Constitution and Bylaws" (as amended through 2006) available here:

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

 

Article III, section 3.3, at pages 6/292 through 7/292 of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document, contains numerous provisions that would make no sense at all if a "member" (i.e., the owner of a franchise or club) could not be a corporation. For example:

 

"3.3 (A) Each applicant for membership shall make a written application to the Commissioner. Such application shall describe the type of organization and shall designate the city in which the franchise of the applicant shall be located. Such application shall further describe and contain the following information:

 

(1) The names and addresses of all persons who do or shall own any interest or stock in the applicant . . .

 

(2) A detailed balance sheet of such company . . . A written financial statement shall be required from the applicant and from anyone owning an interest in any applicant, including stockholders and partners;

 

(3) If applicant is a corporation, a certified copy of the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and share certificate shall accompany such application . . ."

 

===============================

 

The misperception about this may stem from Article 3.2, which reads, at page 5/292:

 

"3.2 Any person, association, partnership, corporation or other entity of good repute organized for the purpose of operating a professional football club shall be eligible for membership, except:

 

(A) No corporation, association, partnership, or other entity not operated for profit nor any charitable organization or entity not presently a member of the League shall be eligible for membership."

 

==============================

 

The section 3.2(A) language prohibits nonprofit corporations from becoming members of the NFL, but it has no impact whatsoever on the eligibility for membership of for-profit corporations. The "not presently a member of the League" phrase is some of the language that "grandfathers" the pre-existing community-based ownership situation of the Green Bay Packers.

 

Large publicly owned corporations, like the ones that trade on the stock exchanges, are prohibited from owning NFL franchises not because they are corporations, but because they have more than the maximum number of allowable shareholders as specified elsewhere in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document.

 

So if you own a for-profit corporation with less than the maximum allowable number of shareholders, and you have one shareholder who owns at least 30% of the shares of the corporation (you can aggregate family shares to get to 30% in some situations), that corporation can own an NFL franchise.

 

The Buffalo Bills franchise is owned by Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - a New York corporation for which Ralph Wilson is at least a 30% shareholder, and as far as anyone knows, the only shareholder.

 

http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415664&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

 

Still don't believe it? Take a look at the first page of the Bills' stadium lease here:

 

http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml

 

The introductory paragraph defines the "Bills" (as that term is used in the lease) as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127."

 

The second "Recital" clause of the lease then uses that definition, and reads:

 

"WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the Bills are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ."

 

As the owner of the NFL franchise, Buffalo Bills, Inc. is a party in the Brady v. NFL lawsuit, as evidenced by the corporate disclosure statement filed with the 8th Circuit:

 

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-1898/801649983/

 

Just like the Buffalo Bills, many (though not all) of the NFL clubs are in fact owned by corporations.

Edited May 29, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead