Then announce that they want to re-open negotiations and set 12/1/11 as the strike date-effectively canceling the 2011-2012 season

They can prove me wrong, by demanding a 12.5% across-the-board pay increase for all players currently under contract (in that they will be playing 12.5% more games – at least 12.5% more games that actually count anyway) – but they haven’t done this yet. Why?

—————————-

Because the players don’t want to play 18 games. They endure enough as it is. They probably wouldn’t want to if you gave them a 20% pay increase – they make millions as it is.

The fact of the matter is the league is saying one thing and doing another. They’re apparently all about player safety, but yet they want to put them through two more games a season. How is that going to protect the players?

What is the benefit of 18 games? More money. That’s it.

“3.. The owners have an alternative to a lockout.

If a new agreement isn’t reached by March 4, the owners aren’t required to lock out the players. Negotiations may continue and, at some point, the league can declare an impasse in the talks — and implement its last, best offer as the new set of rules, pending a formal agreement.

The union then would have to decide whether to work under those rules, or whether to strike. ”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/12/ten-things-to-know-about-the-labor-situation/

Hey, Tree Stump. Fence Post. Jack_wss.
It’s in Arlington, not Dallas.

——————-

Yeah because people from all over the country, much less the world, will recognize the Mid-Cities…

Why don’t hold it in front of Esparza’s?

But hey, you proved that you know something – right?

Hey, Tree Stump. Fence Post. Jack_wss.
It’s in Arlington, not Dallas.

See response to this post here http://wp.me/pxHih-9P

They can prove me wrong, by demanding a 12.5% across-the-board pay increase for all players currently under contract (in that they will be playing 12.5% more games – at least 12.5% more games that actually count anyway) – but they haven’t done this yet. Why?

Many players have bonuses due by the first game … roster bonuses, for example.

If the NFL declares an impasse, the union’s best strategy wouldn’t be to strike immediately.

It would be to strike after the first game, or the eighth. After its members have collected a few paychecks, and before the owners get to collect their playoff television money.

Hell, strike in week 16, and threaten the Super Bowl. The owners would be apoplectic.

And that’s why the owners can’t risk declaring an impasse.

You have no clue what you are talking about..

The NFLPA will de-certify to protect itself against both an impasse and a lockout. The league cannot impose unilateral rules from 32 separate business entities with a collective bargaining agreement, which would supercede any anti-trust laws.

Being wrong is one thing. Correcting someone and being wrong is another. You’re the lowest form of human.

You have no clue what you are talking about..

There is a difference between the league calling for a lockout or declaring an impasse..

The Union is going to lose this fight
====================

Nope- you’re the one who’s clueless. I understand very well the difference between a lockout and an impasse.

If there is a lock out, there is no contract between any parties, just the league telling the players basically not to come to work. Decertification would have no effect on the league’s ability to lock out the players.

Decertification is used when a league tries to impose a contract upon a union, which would be the case if the owners declared an impasse and imposed terms.

Once the union decertifies, there is no union to impose a contract on, and the players become 2,000 independent contractors. The league would theoretically be required to negotiate a deal with each of them separately, or be in violation of anti-trust laws.

Glad I could clear that up for you, Einstein.

The only problem here, again as stated, is the union will take to court saying that the owners did not do enough to negotiate. If
the courts agree, the owners will have no choice but to lock out, then we will go the decertification route. Then it is again back to court for violating anti-trust laws.

Either way the union is going to lose this battle in the long run. Which is the way it should be. Who ever said that employees are DUE a certain amount of an owners income. It is the owners investment on the line, it is the owners money paying for everything, they risk it all and should in return make the profit when it is there. Players are employees, nothing more. And by all accounts, they are very well compensated for their labor.

You have no clue what you are talking about..

There is a difference between the league calling for a lockout or declaring an impasse..

The union won’t decertify unless the owners declare a lockout, the owners know this and will instead declare an impasse.. Which means the players will be playing under the last best offer.. Forcing the union to either strike or deal with the “best” offer..

The Union is going to lose this fight

2011 is the year of the replacement players.

The membership has already voted to allow decertification, specifically for this exact possibility.

The league can’t impose rules on the players without violating anti-trust laws, because the players at that point would be independent contractors.

350 words and not a single mention of this, despite your posting an article every time a team voted to allow decertification last summer.