K-9 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 KellyTFBD, you might resist temptation to open thread ... after seeing how you agreed with Clayton's position against Mr. Wilson. no offense, though, at the time there was plenty of confusion and also plenty of relief that a deal -- any deal -- had been struck. we are, however, awaiting your retraction then again, i thought Mike Williams at the time was a good pick. jw If I may stick up for Kelly here, he was one of the ONLY posters to come back and eat crow two years after the fact. I give him credit for that. GO BILLS!!!
K-9 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 How does one collude with themselves? If they are ruled to be a single entity, then by definition they cannot collude. One obviously doesn't collude with oneself. That aside, what do you think would happen if it were discovered, like it was in MLB some years ago, that NFL owners got together and fixed salaries or ticket prices? That is illegal and they would face prosecution. The NFL is recognized as a single entity for the purpose of negotiating a shared media rights contract. GO BILLS!!!
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 If I may stick up for Kelly here, he was one of the ONLY posters to come back and eat crow two years after the fact. I give him credit for that. GO BILLS!!! cool. and i meant no offense to Kelly, but it was one of the few times I've noticed he missed the mark. jw
Mr. WEO Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 The anti-trust legislation will never be successfully challenged in court and will never be changed by Congress. The current CBA is not a threat to the success of all "small market" teams--it has been shown that low-cost teams can succeed. However, if there was no anti-trust exemption for the NFL, this would permanently change. Each team would be allowed to negotiate their own TV and product contracts. You can guess the rest.
VOR Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 The current CBA is not a threat to the success of all "small market" teams--it has been shown that low-cost teams can succeed. True, it's not a threat to all small market teams. It's a threat to all teams, period. Hence the reason they opted-out of it at the earliest possible opportunity.
Fingon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 One obviously doesn't collude with oneself. That aside, what do you think would happen if it were discovered, like it was in MLB some years ago, that NFL owners got together and fixed salaries or ticket prices? That is illegal and they would face prosecution. The NFL is recognized as a single entity for the purpose of negotiating a shared media rights contract. GO BILLS!!! The court of appeals found that the NFL constitutes a single entity, and therefore, under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust act, is exempt from any of the provisions. Therefore, because the NFL is legally deemed to be one entity, it cannot be considered illegal for them to set ticket prices and salaries at whatever they want. You can't prosecute Microsoft for setting the salaries of their employees, and the NFL will be able to do the same. This ruling will go far beyond simply Jersey sales. Right now, the NFL says who can sell their jersey, and at what price. That is no different than telling people how much they can sell tickets for. If the Supreme Court does make the NFL exempt from antitrust laws, they will be able to do almost anything they want.
Steely Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 A "poor deal?" Come now! It was an awesome deal because hey, it preserved labor peace (for a few years, while costing the owners hundreds of millions). I mean, 30 of 32 owners voted for it! sorry, i think there would be consensus among the owners today to describe it as not a poor deal but "a terrible deal."oh, that Ralph. ... jw This time around I think Ralph and Brown will get a lot more respect in their analysis of the deal. They'd better. The bottom line here is that they have an agreement in place that simply does not work. The financial structure has been broken with the current CBA. I could careless how much of a pitbull attorney Smith is, he is playing with a losing hand right now & my guess is right now he is smart enough to know this. My guess is work stoppage be dam, the owners are going to dig in & not give in until they get the deal they want. The competitive balance in the league depends on it. For every Dallas or New york there are 5 other teams like Buffalo/Jacksonville, New orleans etc... I have no doubt there will be a work stoppage & once these players start missing game checks & given the fact of the short life span of the average NFL player, not to mention some high end players(Brady/Manning) entering there final stages of their careers & not wanting to miss out on a season at this stage of their careerts, the heat is going to be turned up on Smith to get a deal done. I fully suspect the new agreement to be salaries closer to 50% of revenues & a rookie salary cap. The owners may throw a bone to the players by guaranteeing 50% of a players contract or something to that extent. BTW, Ralph Wilson was clearly an old senile fool for speaking up when he did. ESPN, Peter King & all the other moron media that ridiculed & chastised him owe him an apology. When it comes to who can afford to wait out the longest the owners have a huge advantage, IMO. For most of these guys their teams are an expensive toy to play with. They make their money from the other enterprises that put them in the position of being able to afford a team in the first place. Any owner who relies on his team for his income really makes the argument that the owners a losing money a bit hard to swallow. The players are millionaires, for the most part, but many of them spend almost more than make. The guys who spend wisely can have families and other interests that depend on a regular check. They are in no way as capable to weather a long holdout/lockout. To take the contrarian side, I don't know if the owners would fear anti-trust rulings that much anymore. They'll point to the XFL, failed CFL in the US, and UFL as competitive models, and the fact that the NFL is doing nothing to stonewall those leagues. Their argument is the NFL is a natural monopoly, because the fans don't care for a watered down professional football league. The strongest legal support for the argument is the XFL, which had strong backing from another "sports" league and a major network contract, yet still failed. I'm guessing that everyone is watching the merchandise ruling that SCOTUS has decided to review. My guess is that the exclusivity deal the league has with its sponsors will pass, as there's ample precedent for it. I agree, the union would be opening a huge can of worms that could take years of litigation to fix. The players cannot stand a protracted holdout. Decertification is an empty threat. John, I very much doubt that the players can do anything to bring Anti-Trust laws into play. This is because a federal court has recently decided that the NFL is one organization, and not a collection of separate entities. Therefore, their actions are exempt from many of the statutes of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. edit: Yep, i'm correct. The NFL is immune from collusion laws because a Federal Appeals Court has ruled them to be a single entity http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ure-challenges/ Not entirely correct. The NFL cannot collude to set salaries nor can they collude to set ticket prices. GO BILLS!!! I see both sides of this argument but the SCOTUS would be making a huge reversal if they overturned it. IMO, the new agreement will include/what I'd like to see: * A larger donation by the owners to the pension fund. * A rookie salary cap. Even though rookie salaries help the vets, somewhat, I'm sure it grinds the gears of the vets who have put in a lot of time to earn their jobs. Anyway, contracts like Albert Haynesworth's will always be raising the bar. * Guaranteed contracts in exchange for a slightly reduced %age of revenue. * An accounting method that will allow teams to take players who are no longer in the NFL off the cap book. * A method of accounting that can make part of a trade the ability for the team acquiring the player to take the cap amortization as part of the deal. It would have to be agreed to by both teams but it would be a trade option. * A good deal for all teams, small market and big market. * A caveat that if the Bills are moved out of Buffalo the whole league has to disband. I'd be surprised if there is a lockout/holdout. It does neither side any good. If they can't agree by the deadline they will probably continue to function under the old agreement until a new one can be hammered out. JMO
Fingon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 If the players get guaranteed contracts, they will have to give up a large percentage of the revenue. As it is now, guaranteeing all contracts would amount to an absolutely gigantic raise in their share of the revenue.
Ramius Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 If the players get guaranteed contracts, they will have to give up a large percentage of the revenue. As it is now, guaranteeing all contracts would amount to an absolutely gigantic raise in their share of the revenue. If the players get guaranteed contracts, you aren't going to see these astronomical deals with play money. Haynesworth got $100 million, sure, but only 40 guaranteed. In the new system, his contract would be worth 45-50 million, not 100.
Fingon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 If the players get guaranteed contracts, you aren't going to see these astronomical deals with play money. Haynesworth got $100 million, sure, but only 40 guaranteed. In the new system, his contract would be worth 45-50 million, not 100. I was speaking about the players that get signed, and then cut. It would either lead to teams signing guys on 1 or 2 year deals, or paying out those contracts. There is no way guaranteed contracts would work in the NFL, it simply has too much turnover.
Steely Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I was speaking about the players that get signed, and then cut. It would either lead to teams signing guys on 1 or 2 year deals, or paying out those contracts. There is no way guaranteed contracts would work in the NFL, it simply has too much turnover. The latest contracts are pretty close to guaranteed contracts when you consider the guaranteed monies they now include anyway. I don't think there would be that much difference.
Lori Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I wonder ... could they agree to guarantee only a certain percentage of the bigger contracts? Say, lock in the first $1-2 million per season, but go to a buyout clause after that? That's one of the things I don't like about MLB -- someone signs for $20 million/year, and the team's on the hook even if the guy ends up out of the league. Thinking Kevin Brown with the Yankees, not that I get depressed about #Yankees#fail. A related link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2518991
Ramius Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I wonder ... could they agree to guarantee only a certain percentage of the bigger contracts? Say, lock in the first $1-2 million per season, but go to a buyout clause after that? That's one of the things I don't like about MLB -- someone signs for $20 million/year, and the team's on the hook even if the guy ends up out of the league. Thinking Kevin Brown with the Yankees, not that I get depressed about #Yankees#fail.A related link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2518991 If the NFL does got o guaranteed contracts, you'd need buyout clauses. Something along the lines of what the NHL has. Let the team buyout the deal for maybe 50% of the remaining time on the deal. Going off of what Fingon mentioned, perhaps have a system where a contract isn't guaranteed until week 1 of the season? This way all the fringe players could still be signed and cut, but the team would not be on the hook for the entire contract.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 KellyTFBD, you might resist temptation to open thread ... after seeing how you agreed with Clayton's position against Mr. Wilson. no offense, though, at the time there was plenty of confusion and also plenty of relief that a deal -- any deal -- had been struck. we are, however, awaiting your retraction then again, i thought Mike Williams at the time was a good pick. jw I am surely not always right but after reading that article and the thread again, I stick up for everything I said in it. The three main points of Clayton's thread were not concerning the players percentages that eventually turned out to be the bad part of it. And Clayton even says that Ralph IS Bills football and that some of his points deserve to be heard. I thought, still think and always said that Ralph was right about the revenue sharing problem and should make a stink about it (although I thought, still think and said that he was disingenuous about it). He got what he wanted later on when the details were finalized. I also always thought and said that he owes a great deal of his net worth to the big owners because they basically made his worth of the team double from about 400 mil to 800+ mil and he never gives them credit for that. Overall they haven't been bad for him they have been good for him. That was the major part of that thread. I still think that Ralph shouldnt complain about a million or two or three more dollars that the smalal market teams can't get when he can get 1-2-3 more million by just selling the stadium rights, especially when I believe he was the first guy in the league to do it. Most of that article was and is right, and I said in my first post in that thread "I agree with most of it".
GG Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 If the NFL does got o guaranteed contracts, you'd need buyout clauses. Something along the lines of what the NHL has. Let the team buyout the deal for maybe 50% of the remaining time on the deal. Going off of what Fingon mentioned, perhaps have a system where a contract isn't guaranteed until week 1 of the season? This way all the fringe players could still be signed and cut, but the team would not be on the hook for the entire contract. In effect, the system is moving that way now, as players get a lot more guaranteed pay written into their deals. As for NFL's fear of anti-trust moves, the recent court decisions eliminate any fear, which would be supported by the fact that the NFLPA would need to resort to Maxine Waters to introduce legislation (bill that's a guaranteed DOA)
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 In effect, the system is moving that way now, as players get a lot more guaranteed pay written into their deals. As for NFL's fear of anti-trust moves, the recent court decisions eliminate any fear, which would be supported by the fact that the NFLPA would need to resort to Maxine Waters to introduce legislation (bill that's a guaranteed DOA) actually, nflpa has wanted no part of Waters. she's unhappy with the union over pensions because her husband, Sidney Williams, is a former NFLer. jw
stuckincincy Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 actually, nflpa has wanted no part of Waters. she's unhappy with the union over pensions because her husband, Sidney Williams, is a former NFLer. jw Faulty memory perhaps - didn't that virago once get escorted out of Congressional chambers for uncontrollable deportment? I might be confusing her with somebody else...
GG Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 actually, nflpa has wanted no part of Waters. she's unhappy with the union over pensions because her husband, Sidney Williams, is a former NFLer. jw Frankly, I don't know what the union would accomplish with the anti-trust action. It's not like they're interested in starting up a league of their own. Thus, by "breaking up" the league, they'll insure a bigger divide between the have & have-not franchises. In that game, the stars will win, the jags will lose. Not exactly the hallmark of traditional unions
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Frankly, I don't know what the union would accomplish with the anti-trust action. It's not like they're interested in starting up a league of their own. Thus, by "breaking up" the league, they'll insure a bigger divide between the have & have-not franchises. In that game, the stars will win, the jags will lose. Not exactly the hallmark of traditional unions i'm a little uncertain about the effects as it's never been clearly explained to me. hey, i'm a dumbass sports writer by trade and a Canadian by birth, so two strikes against me there. what i do know is that the anti-trust law was considered a threat to the NFL when the union decertified back in the late 80s/early 90s, though i'm not sure how that opens the door to that. the trouble at the union's end is by decertifying, it then has no control over whether its members cross the line. and yet, there were some -- Trace Armstrong for one -- during the recent executive director election that raised the possibility of decertifying the union once again to re-open that threat. jw
GG Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 i'm a little uncertain about the effects as it's never been clearly explained to me. hey, i'm a dumbass sports writer by trade and a Canadian by birth, so two strikes against me there. what i do know is that the anti-trust law was considered a threat to the NFL when the union decertified back in the late 80s/early 90s, though i'm not sure how that opens the door to that. the trouble at the union's end is by decertifying, it then has no control over whether its members cross the line. and yet, there were some -- Trace Armstrong for one -- during the recent executive director election that raised the possibility of decertifying the union once again to re-open that threat. jw My fuzzy memory is that the anti-trust threat was much bigger back then, because of a bigger competitive threat from another league starting up. It wasn't too long after the courts ruled for the USFL and Al Davis. But, as fingon points out, the anti-trust rulings would have the effect of each franchise acting on its own, and not part of one league. This would be very bad for most players, as only 250 out of 1,500 would get to play in NY, DC, Dallas & Chicago. Since the '80s, the NFL enjoyed a string of court victories and if the pending merchandising case goes in favor of the league, then its hand is further strengthened. There have also been a series of competitive leagues that folded on their own, and had nothing to do with NFL exercising monopoly power. If Trace Armstrong believes that reviving anti-trust threat would be a benefit to most players, he's badly mistaken or dumber than a Canadian ( ) The players will lose more than their current position, if the NFL teams will be able to set their own wages and not mandated to share revenues.
Recommended Posts