...meanwhile, the NFL/owners head to supreme court

[stuckincincy]

Still waiting for a reply about my post about the civil entity aspect.

 

If the NFL is a single entity, what is the fate of the stadium contracts signed by this or that city or county with this or that individual team?

 

Can a city/county declare a deal with one of the 32 void, and demand a renegoiated contract with a single-entity NFL?

 

I personally suffer taxation because of the actions of big city welfare queens/kings that vote for anything because they well know it doesn't come out of their hide.

 

I would love to see the NFL win single entity status, and the voiding of existing contracts with municipalities.

[Mr. WEO]

Players these days make exponentially more than they did back in '87, much less '82. Thanks to FA which they successfully fought for, and got. So they have the resources to withstand a strike. They are also MUCH better organized, as the last round of CBA talks, in which they took the owners to the cleaners, proved. A strike, while not ideal, is a very effective tool.

 

But if the NFL really "planned" this, they would have done it before Sotomayor got confirmed. She'll be siding with the players. And even outside of her, I can't see the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the NFL, and in the process all the major sports, and giving them virtually unlimited power.

Gastineau and Montana were not NFL paupers in '87 and they crossed the line. In fact, only 89 players crossed, but it was enough to break the strike. Most of these young guys likely have big monthly bills to cover, being rich for the first time and having blown a ton on the cars, house, child support, etc. They won't last long---you're dreaming.

 

Sotomayor ruled in favor of the NFL in the past, but even if she didn't, her appointment is a wash.

 

Why would the NFL think they can prevail in SCOTUS? Hmmmm. Maybe because they already won their case and it was upheld on appeal to the Circuit Court. Most legal scholars who have commented seem to think it will win.

 

Certainly the NFLPA thinks the NFL will win the case. They are soiling themselves---their only response so far is a pathetic "We can only hope that the justices somehow decide that their decision to take the case for review was improvident and then decide not to make any decision."

 

GG:

 

As the NFLPA sources themselves say:"There is nothing of more concern to me," says one veteran union official, asking for anonymity because of the pending case and the significance of the issues. "Our leverage is in the antitrust courts, and a bad decision in this case could tilt the playing field beyond recognition."

 

As I said, of course the League will negotiate with the players, but the starting offer will be significantly lower than it is now. And, yes the court cannot force an agrement (don't know why you're throwing that in). That leaves the strike---which the union knows is a very transparent bluff (read history).

 

The players will absolutely RUN from the UFL to the NFL as the league plays on without the striking players.

[GG]

As the NFLPA sources themselves say:"There is nothing of more concern to me," says one veteran union official, asking for anonymity because of the pending case and the significance of the issues. "Our leverage is in the antitrust courts, and a bad decision in this case could tilt the playing field beyond recognition."

 

But he didn't explain what that leverage is. That's why I'm explaining that the lawsuit leverage is hollow, because the other side of the lawsuit, even if they win it is empty. There have been countless lawsuits vs NFL, and they all ended up at the same place. How far did the $1 in damages get the USFL?

 

As I said, of course the League will negotiate with the players, but the starting offer will be significantly lower than it is now. And, yes the court cannot force an agrement (don't know why you're throwing that in). That leaves the strike---which the union knows is a very transparent bluff (read history).

 

The players will absolutely RUN from the UFL to the NFL as the league plays on without the striking players.

 

Which is another way of saying that once the CBA expires in 2011, the owners will start with a low bid and players with a high one. And the lawsuit will change that ....

 

Tell me how a strike is an empty threat if UFL is still operational in 2011?

[DazedandConfused]

Certainly the NFLPA thinks the NFL will win the case. They are soiling themselves---their only response so far is a pathetic "We can only hope that the justices somehow decide that their decision to take the case for review was improvident and then decide not to make any decision."

I am sure that the NFL players and their lawyers are developing contingency plans for a range of possible SCOTUS outcomes, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who works on these issues as a professional (or has an oz. of knowledge of past court history has any drop dead certainty about any particular outcome.

 

They would be wandering even further into fantasy land if they think they can predict how third parties (be they they the NFL. the MFLPA, and the networks who really call a lot of the shots on this since they ultimately control the money) are gping to react to a SCOTUS decision which is possibly predictable but there are too many reactions and counter reactions which are going to write this story for any drop dead certain prediction to be much more than the height of fantasy,

 

Of the many possibilities here the default most likely scenarios are those that predict the world tomorrow will be much like the world is today.

 

The more galactic the change predicted it may on some planers in some universes turn out to be right, but the greatest likelihood is that these predictions willl simply be wrong.

 

Here on TSW it is the place to engage in fantasy what ifs, but one would hope that if one wants to be taken at least somewhat seriously on an issue that involves the difficult to predict SCOTUS (we do not even know with great certainty what the dynamic of group interaction and horsetrading will be on the court with a Sotomayor joining) not to mention that theorizing how the many key stakeholders will react to whatever the SCOTUS decision turns out to be is a pretty uncertain art at best.

 

Again, my sense is that past history tells us any ruling is likely to be written to be pretty narrow. It may force galactic shifts vis a vis NFL reactions to companies who advertise, but it is pretty unlikely that any ruling will also galactically change the business relationship between the NFL and NFLPA.

 

Even if it does, the likelihood is not that the NFL will roll over and die from its subordinate position, but these over testosteroned athletes will look foe a fight. Likewise because the the NFL has cleverly managed to lay off their development costs onto the colleges (a huge tax-payer subsidy to the NFL owners as opposed to their MLB, NHL and even NBA brethren who are forced to give huge speculative contracts to 16-19 year olds and for MLB and the NHL pay through the nose for junior leagues to develop these players).

 

One side effect the the NFL owners welfare queenage is that they get players who are adults and some of whom actually got educated while in college learning their craft.

 

These bright boys like the Upshaws, Troy Vincents and even TKO who has pursued Ivy League education in the off season are not smart enough with loads of free time to become lawyers but these men are smart enough to hire smart NY lawyers who helped turn their getting rolled by the owners in the 80s into the CBAs of the 90s and beyond/

 

I think the interesting discussion would be what will be potential NFLPA counter moves if the exotic pretty unlikely outcome of a slam dunk SCOTUS ruling of immunity from antitrust was given not only for NFL interaction with advertisers but took the extraordinary judicial activism step of invalidating a negotiated settlement to give all the cards to the NFL.

 

After pissing in their Depends, my guess is that it becomes more likely that some NFL stars see themselves as held back by the mere hundred thousand aire scrubs and look seriously at starting their own league.

 

If they do something like this, and guarantee the networks a product to sell commercials around without the uncertainties of unhappy workers to spoil the delivery of the product to sell soap with the star players may be game. Some players likely will be scaredy cats and love he security of having Rich Kotite yell at them, but given the multi-millions players have made and the smart ones have invested, it is not a wild idea that these players can find the capital to set up their own league and have to split the proceeds with even fewer players.

 

I know for me given a choice between watching a team led by John DiGregorio and a bunch of replacement players and a team led by Pro Bowlers Schobel and the miscreant Lynch I would watch the good players.

 

The main lesson the past has too teach us about a fantasy future where the NFL wins it all is the replacement player debacle of the 80s. The more thorough an NFL victory the more likely it will become for the NFLPA to simply overturn the chessboard and write new rules.

 

I think with the replacement "win" in the 80s the owners let a genii out of the bottle that they will find it difficult if not impossible to put back in.

[VOR]

Gastineau and Montana were not NFL paupers in '87 and they crossed the line. In fact, only 89 players crossed, but it was enough to break the strike. Most of these young guys likely have big monthly bills to cover, being rich for the first time and having blown a ton on the cars, house, child support, etc. They won't last long---you're dreaming.

 

Sotomayor ruled in favor of the NFL in the past, but even if she didn't, her appointment is a wash.

 

Why would the NFL think they can prevail in SCOTUS? Hmmmm. Maybe because they already won their case and it was upheld on appeal to the Circuit Court. Most legal scholars who have commented seem to think it will win.

 

Certainly the NFLPA thinks the NFL will win the case. They are soiling themselves---their only response so far is a pathetic "We can only hope that the justices somehow decide that their decision to take the case for review was improvident and then decide not to make any decision."

Fine. But why disrupt "labor peace?" A strike and/or lockout is probably what we'll end-up seeing, and that will disrupt the NFL, or lead to some very bad football with replacement players. The NFL (like TO and his Eagles contract) agreed almost unanimously amongst themselves that this was a good CBA. We saw their celebration post-signing on ESPN, and saw Ralph made to look like a fool because he dared vote against it. So why blow it all to hell?

 

And if/when the owners get their ruling and have almost unlimited power over the "pathetic" players, I hope they do the right thing and rollback prices for the fans because....Sorry, I couldn't stop from laughing while typing that.

[Mr. WEO]

But he didn't explain what that leverage is. That's why I'm explaining that the lawsuit leverage is hollow, because the other side of the lawsuit, even if they win it is empty. There have been countless lawsuits vs NFL, and they all ended up at the same place. How far did the $1 in damages get the USFL?

 

 

 

Which is another way of saying that once the CBA expires in 2011, the owners will start with a low bid and players with a high one. And the lawsuit will change that ....

 

Tell me how a strike is an empty threat if UFL is still operational in 2011?

The leverage, again, is the antitrust suit---which the players have won in the past and these wins have forced the League to bargain with the players. Come on! In suits by the players, the League has lost repeatedly. We've been over this three times now. It's a matter of history.

 

Look at the response of the union. Are those the thoughts of men who think this is no big deal? When a union official says, "There is nothing of more concern to me............ a bad decision in this case could tilt the playing field beyond recognition", you know more about this than he does and he simply shouldn't worry so much?

 

The UFL??? Come on! This is your secret weapon?? A league that plays in two regions that already have two NFL teams and in two crappy sports cities (Vegas and Orlando), with a promise to visit other crappy cities like Hartford and Sacramento. They will play a handful of games and the whole miserable mess will be over by Thanksgiving.

 

That's what gives teeth to the strike??? Those guys will running to the NFLas scabs----faaster than real players crossed in '87.

 

"The lawsuit will change that...." because there will be no CBA. At some point the NFLPA will have to take the best offer they can get and it will never resemble the deal they have now.

 

That's kind of the whole point of the NFL's eagerness to take a chance in SCOTUS with a case they've already won on appeal.

 

 

 

Fine. But why disrupt "labor peace?" A strike and/or lockout is probably what we'll end-up seeing, and that will disrupt the NFL, or lead to some very bad football with replacement players. The NFL (like TO and his Eagles contract) agreed almost unanimously amongst themselves that this was a good CBA. We saw their celebration post-signing on ESPN, and saw Ralph made to look like a fool because he dared vote against it. So why blow it all to hell?

 

Gee, a strike or a lockout will disrupt the NFL? Ok, ah.....yes. Very good.

 

Anyway, why disrupt labor peace and get rid of the CBA? This is the first , and perhaps last, time the League will have an opportunity for the SCOTUS to lay down the final word on their status as a single entity. Let's see, would the NFL rather have to haggle over the same contract every few years to renew a CBA, or would they rather not have a CBA, and persue the possibility to simply set salaries?

 

Hmmmm. I'll let you take this one.

 

Also, loved how you slipped in the completely off topic TO/Eagles VOR gem. Priceless.

 

And if/when the owners get their ruling and have almost unlimited power over the "pathetic" players, I hope they do the right thing and rollback prices for the fans because....Sorry, I couldn't stop from laughing while typing that.

 

How much does it cost for you to watch every Bills game on TV? Didn't you file for one of Obama's gov't digital rabbit ears for your Zenith? The Ralph is full of happy (or at least consenting) ticket purchasers having a great day at the stadium.

 

What's your point Sr. Guevara?

[VOR]

Gee, a strike or a lockout will disrupt the NFL? Ok, ah.....yes. Very good.

 

Anyway, why disrupt labor peace and get rid of the CBA? This is the first , and perhaps last, time the League will have an opportunity for the SCOTUS to lay down the final word on their status as a single entity. Let's see, would the NFL rather have to haggle over the same contract every few years to renew a CBA, or would they rather not have a CBA, and persue the possibility to simply set salaries?

 

Hmmmm. I'll let you take this one.

Good point. The owners so totally overmatched in the last round of CBA talks, that another round would likely have seen them working for the players. So better to let the SCOTUS do their dirty work for them so they don't allow themselves to get raped again.

 

No wait, it was all about "labor peace," which would have been fatal to the league back in 2006, but suddenly doesn't matter anymore. It was a plan all along to take the ANI case to the SCOTUS. Riiiiiiiiight.

 

Also, loved how you slipped in the completely off topic TO/Eagles VOR gem. Priceless.

My bad. TO agreed to the contract with the Eagles and then sought to break that contract because he thought it was a bad one. That's TOTALLY off topic.

 

Then again, TO didn't go crying to the courts to try and change the rules.

 

How much does it cost for you to watch every Bills game on TV? Didn't you file for one of Obama's gov't digital rabbit ears for your Zenith? The Ralph is full of happy (or at least consenting) ticket purchasers having a great day at the stadium.

 

What's your point Sr. Guevara?

How much does it cost most of us to watch the Bills, or for most fans to watch their own teams (because most watch on TV)? What's your point, Sr. Guevara? Because MY point is that with this supposed new found power over setting players' salaries, they'll have a LOT more money. So that means that prices should fall for the fans. You see Mr. WEO, this isn't just about the Bills. But I wouldn't expect you to see anything more than what your narrow scope allows you to see.

[Mickey]

The existence of CBA owes its life to the elimination of Plan B free agency, not to the construct of any free agency that is set up by the league. The likely SCOTUS ruling will not change anything from the league's standpoint, because the NFL has been operating as a single entity all along, in large part due to Rozelle's actions to turn the league into a pre-eminent entity. The league will want a CBA, because it doesn't want its owners to splinter and create a big vs small market paradigm, which will ruin the league.

 

The courts did not enforce the CBA on the league. The owners did it on their own, because it was a better option for them. The SCOTUS ruling won't change a thing.

Hmmm...I guess the NFL just gets a kick out of spending a ton of money on attorneys to obtain meaningless rulings and the union wanted to help out unemployed litigators. Yeah, that makes sense.