News on CBA and Lockout.....................

Some thoughts from an attorney as to how Judge Nelson may rule in an effort to force players and owners back into negotiations. The article pretty fairly presents the major issues of both sides which have become the barriers to an agreement so far.

Once again a suggestion is made to follow the approach Mike Vrabel suggested of getting together without legal counsel and other mouthpieces to discuss issues with only a few key parties involved.

Good Read!

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...to_talk_032211

not bad and its what we have said since day one.. NOTHING gets done by lawyers, except them getting rich and at the end negotiations and compromise will happen anyway, so better to avoid the lawyers and do it yourselves..

And soul, been looking at some of the numbers and from the owner's perspective of the system,from 2006 its broken and i'll explain why they are playing hard ball about the Cost side.. The problem isn't the big market teams, but the small market teams, that because of the shared revenue policy they have that changed in 2006 to include almost all the revenue.. let's say a team like the giants and dallas take in new additioal revenue from the stadium of $40 mill each from higher seats AND then get let's say a $20 mill /yr endorsement deal for stadium.. So the dallas and giants "happy" with the additional $60 mill coming in, and because this additional revenue is added to ALL 32 teams f0r cap purposes..($120 million/32 or $3.75 mill to the cap for each team), the giants and dallas effectively make $56.25 million in pockets, but low revenue teams like carolina,minny or jax, jsut had their costs raise $3.75 million and got nothing for it and can see how they the struggle under the system. so need to change the formula's and both cost and revenue side to compensate for this. And yes already have the supplemental pool, but it doesn't cover these additions

prelude to April 6: primer on NFL's brief

Readers guide to NFL arguments Andrew Brandt

Now that the NFLPA and the NFL have had their annual meetings to vent about the other side and their tactics, we are at the same place we were when talks broke off on March 11th.

The NFL wants to negotiate/mediate more with the union. The NFLPA says they are no longer a union and the NFL can talk to their lawyers, which they won’t, since they don’t believe the NFLPA is not still a union. Confused?
Well, for some clarity, let’s go to the lawsuit (yes, I said that). Here is my earlier guide to Brady v. NFL. In advance of the April 6th Preliminary Injunction (PI) hearing where the Players will attempt to enjoin (stop) the lockout, the NFL submitted their supporting brief on Monday.

Here’s a primer on the NFL’s argument to deny the Players the PI:

What are the NFL’s main arguments?
1. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must resolve the NFL’s unfair labor practice charge prior to the U.S. District Court in Minnesota (the Court) making a ruling;
2. The Players do not meet the legal standard for the issuance of a preliminary injunction; and
3. The Norris-LaGuardia Act (the Act) prevents the U.S. District Court in Minnesota (the Court) from issuing an injunction to block either lockouts or strikes in cases arising from labor disputes, as here

What does this mean?
One argument is jurisdictional, arguing the case should be in front of the NLRB rather than the Court. The other argument is procedural, as the NFL argues that the NFLPA’s decertification was a “flip of a switch” that cannot immediately turn valid and legal collective bargaining tools — such as the lockout — into an instant antitrust violation.

Key issue: Court or NLRB?
The NFL claims that the unfair labor practice charge it filed with the NLRB on February 14, and amended last week, is a pending matter whose resolution is needed before Brady v. NFL can proceed. The NLRB will determine whether the NFLPA’s decertification was made in good faith or done for purely tactical reasons.

The NFL is asking the Court to defer to the NLRB, which has substantial specialized knowledge and expertise in labor matters.
The NFL also argues about incompatible results. If the Court were to block the lockout, what happens if the NLRB later determines that the NFLPA’s decertification was illegitimate? Whose ruling takes precedence? Arguably, the possibility of contradictory results would present a legal challenge.

Decertification a legal strategy, not in good faith
The NFL points out the past as instructive on the NFLPA’s present strategy. From 1987-1992, the NFLPA decertified and antitrust lawsuits followed (McNeil v. NFL, White v. NFL), leading to settlement, re-formation of the NFLPA as a union, and a new CBA embodying the settlement. The NFL claims that the NFLPA seeks to repeat this cycle again in an effort to secure bargaining leverage.
The NFL lists evidence demonstrating that the NFLPA had long been planning this tactical maneuver, not one in good faith. They present a catalogue of quotes from NFLPA representatives including: Kevin Mawae, Derrick Mason, Vonnie Holliday, Jeff Saturday, Mike Vrabel, and DeMaurice Smith.

What is the Norris-LaGuardia Act and how does it apply here?
The Act, known originally as the “Anti-Injunction Bill,” provides protections against injunctions during labor disputes. The NFL has now turned the Act for its advantage, asserting that it protects both employee strikes and employer lockouts.
The NFL argues the Act applies whether the NFLPA is a union or a trade association, as it applies to disputes between employers and “employees or associations of employees.” Since Brady v. NFL derives from a labor dispute, the NFL claims the Act expressly prevents the Court from issuing the injunction.

What is the legal standard for granting a preliminary injunction?
Players primarily need to show (1) that they will likely prevail on the merits (win the case), and (2) they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

As to the merits, the NFL points to key language in the case Brown v. Pro Football stating that the nonstatutory labor exemption – protecting them from antitrust claims – continues to apply “sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances” beyond the collective bargaining process. Alternatively, this is a matter that requires the resolution of the NLRB claim first.
As to the irreparable harm argument, the NFL argues that Players’ are asking for monetary damages, eliminating the need for an injunction. The NFL also asserts that during a lockout, there is no risk to players of injury or “wear and tear” on their bodies.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the NFL’s brief?

Strengths: The NFL’s legal dream team’s claims are grounded in federal labor law and emphasize the underlying policy favoring collective bargaining over antitrust. The incompatibility argument is persuasive in allowing the NLRB determination to take precedence over the Court, or at least defer to its schedule. The brief also makes a strong argument that the Players' harm is not immediate and irreparable as we sit here in March.

Weaknesses: The Norris-Laguardia Act’s original purpose was to protect union employees from striking, not to protect employers from locking out. And the NLRB process is painfully slow; the Court may weigh that in light of the football season ahead.
In sum, the NFL made some compelling arguments. I am sure the Players' side -- their brief is due next Monday -- will as well. Ultimately it will come down to the feelings of one Judge Susan Nelson.

Again, welcome to the brave new world of courtroom football…

I gained two important perspectives from this article. One was the confirmation of what I've been saying all along. The players feel disrespected and lied to and they don't trust what the owners are telling them. The second is that there are some legitimate $$$ issues the owners have that need to be addressed. Just how is what the negotiations should be about but it's going to be incumbent on the owners to regain some trust before any real progress will be made.

I'm in total agreement that lawsuits will not solve it. Neither side will get what they so badly want and by my experience that's the way it always goes when you ask a judge to settle a dispute that should be settled amongst the parties involved. Just like a messy divorce, the marital estate gets split four ways. 25% each for the couple and 25% each for opposing counsels.

While I can see your point about the revenue sharing and I don't disagree with you in principal you still have to consider the fact that those actual numbers, not the pro forma estimates you use an example, still have not been offered or provided in a manner that's acceptable to the players. That's what that trust and lack of respect issue is all about. Theoretically you may be right but in actuallity those numbers may not even be close to reality. Whatever we may suspect isn't the issue. We don't really know and neither do the players.

What is clear to me is that the owners are are trying to do is once again fix labor costs instead of making them a percentage of the revenue stream. Since the players already negotiated that latter in the previous CBA asking them to give that up is truly "backwards bargaining" which is what they've claimed all along. At face value they will never accept that and if I were in their shoes neither would I.

There has to be some other form of compromise which bargains forward from that point. The eventual agreement must include the players in future revenue growth and continue to compensate them from a revenue pool which is a percentage of the agreed upon revenues. As it stands they already have most of those rights so if owners expect them to give some of that up they're gonna have to provide a good reason and document it. Or if their privacy means that much to them then give up their attempts to fix players payroll costs again.

The players feel disrespected and lied to and they don't trust what the owners are telling them

And i'd also say the owners feel te SAME disrespect when vrabel brags and laughs how the "union took it the owners in 2006" and when Demaurice smith, vrabel and others call th owners goddell etc "liars".. can't say that accomplished a thing,except ticking them off even more... and showing even less class and less respect

Both sides suck, and he more this goes into the sewer the worse it gets.. there are financial and logica reasons to both sides arguments and that is ALL either side shoudl be talking about, all the "liars, distrust' stuff is meaningless and keeps them accomplishing the goals.. time to put ALL THAT AWAY from both sides, and start fresh,, we "get" both sides mad, "get" both feel slighted.. who cares? move on time and get a deal done with with basically the $300 mill difference down to now, and going forward have an independant 3rd party verify all numbers in the aggregate and be done with ll the nonsense, its simple : )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulman

I gained two important perspectives from this article. One was the confirmation of what I've been saying all along. The players feel disrespected and lied to and they don't trust what the owners are telling them. The second is that there are some legitimate $$$ issues the owners have that need to be addressed. Just how is what the negotiations should be about but it's going to be incumbent on the owners to regain some trust before any real progress will be made.

I'm in total agreement that lawsuits will not solve it. Neither side will get what they so badly want and by my experience that's the way it always goes when you ask a judge to settle a dispute that should be settled amongst the parties involved. Just like a messy divorce, the marital estate gets split four ways. 25% each for the couple and 25% each for opposing counsels.

While I can see your point about the revenue sharing and I don't disagree with you in principal you still have to consider the fact that those actual numbers, not the pro forma estimates you use an example, still have not been offered or provided in a manner that's acceptable to the players. That's what that trust and lack of respect issue is all about. Theoretically you may be right but in actuallity those numbers may not even be close to reality. Whatever we may suspect isn't the issue. We don't really know and neither do the players.

What is clear to me is that the owners are are trying to do is once again fix labor costs instead of making them a percentage of the revenue stream. Since the players already negotiated that latter in the previous CBA asking them to give that up is truly "backwards bargaining" which is what they've claimed all along. At face value they will never accept that and if I were in their shoes neither would I.

There has to be some other form of compromise which bargains forward from that point. The eventual agreement must include the players in future revenue growth and continue to compensate them from a revenue pool which is a percentage of the agreed upon revenues. As it stands they already have most of those rights so if owners expect them to give some of that up they're gonna have to provide a good reason and document it. Or if their privacy means that much to them then give up their attempts to fix players payroll costs again.

---

The NFL is a falsified economic entity. While not communistic as the article you posted in another thread suggests it may well be, it most certainly is socialistic. To fix labor costs, or in another way of saying it, to fix salaries, is truly foolish and goes completely against the natural laws governing a free enterprise. The NFL could be setting itself up for a long fight if it does not back down on this demand. It is better to earn some money than no money at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabears54

The players feel disrespected and lied to and they don't trust what the owners are telling them

And i'd also say the owners feel te SAME disrespect when vrabel brags and laughs how the "union took it the owners in 2006" and when Demaurice smith, vrabel and others call th owners goddell etc "liars".. can't say that accomplished a thing,except ticking them off even more... and showing even less class and less respect

Both sides suck, and he more this goes into the sewer the worse it gets.. there are financial and logica reasons to both sides arguments and that is ALL either side shoudl be talking about, all the "liars, distrust' stuff is meaningless and keeps them accomplishing the goals.. time to put ALL THAT AWAY from both sides, and start fresh,, we "get" both sides mad, "get" both feel slighted.. who cares? move on time and get a deal done with with basically the $300 mill difference down to now, and going forward have an independant 3rd party verify all numbers in the aggregate and be done with ll the nonsense, its simple : )

---

I've never seen Mike Vrabel quoted as having said that and I do believe that Goodell and Pash have shaded the truth monsterously at times. The use of the word liar is pretty direct but then again calling it shading the truth, while more politically correct, is not how the players see it. All in all it's a pretty direct reflection of their frustration and anger with the owners right now.

You can say all you want about what the owners may or may not feel but if they do feel disrespected they haven't said so in public yet and it would be very wise if they didn't. At this moment the players don't give a damn about the owners feelings but they do care how the owners feel about theirs. Until that changes I think the battle will continue to rage.

Say whatever you will man but "It is what it is" and that's been very clearly established.

wayne weaver on april 6th hearing "we will win"
Preliminary injunction request to be heard Aaron Wilson

Jacksonville Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver predicted a victory in the upcoming hearing in federal court for the decertified players' union's request for a preliminary injunction to halt the lockout.

Weaver wants to get back to the bargaining table, though.

“I’m getting out another letter to all of our fans saying, you know, you’re going to hear a lot in the media about the court hearings on April the 6th,” Weaver told the Florida Times-Union prior to a corporate rally. “The reality of that is we think we’ll win, but if we don’t, we’re still going to get back to the negotiating table. It’ll just be how soon and when. Once we get back to the negotiating table, we all know that we have to play football in 2011. That’s our bottom line.”

Weaver referred to the plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit known as Tom Brady, et al, vs. the NFL, as the "gang of 10."

He also characterized the decertification as a sham.

Weaver said he didn't think the court ruling would prevent future negotiations.
“It’s obvious there will be some leverage to whichever side prevails,” Weaver said. “But I don’t think it will keep from getting a deal done that’s fair to both sides. I think the offer that was on the table when the union decertified, I thought it was an extremely fair offer. Did it have all the tweaks that the players wanted? Probably not. We should’ve stayed at the negotiating table until those things got ironed out.”

Fortunately for all of us we've only got 9 more days before we find out. Was he this confident about Blockbuster's failure too? LOL

Thanks for the update bro.:drinking61:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulman

Fortunately for all of us we've only got 9 more days before we find out. Was he this confident about Blockbuster's failure too? LOL

Thanks for the update bro.:drinking61:

---

no prob and an FYI.. weaver owns "nine west" and shoe carnival" not blockbuster.. which was one of the 'pump and dumps" of wayne huzinga of miami) who also owned and sold before they went belly up of waste management and can't think of the water company now, but he now runs 'autonation".. its my wall street days coming back:lol-032: