Skip to content

Report: NFL crafting alternative to 2010 rules

The fences are locked in front of the Great Hall of the People ahead of the opening ceremony of the National People's Congress, in Beijing AP

Perhaps Ray Edwards won’t have to be paid less than his backup.

Daniel Kaplan of the SportsBusiness Journal reports that a working group of NFL types have been at work crafting posible 2011 free agency rules that will not necessarily replicate the 2010 rules in place.

Many folks have assumed that the league would go back to 2010 rules if he courts force the league to re-open for business.  Kaplan explains that would still remain on the table, but the NFL is preparing a possible alternate plan.

Kaplan can explain what this all means on PFT Live, which is rolling as we type this.  Tune in to get more details.

Permalink 17 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
17 Responses to “Report: NFL crafting alternative to 2010 rules”
  1. tjp2033 says: May 9, 2011 12:42 PM

    When are we going to get this ruling on the “stay”? It was due Wednesday and now its Monday of the next week.

  2. drunkmonkey918 says: May 9, 2011 12:54 PM

    PFT reported that we might not get a stay. Sorry, can’t find the link.

    How many pictures of locked gates do you guys have? And why are you using the gates in front of the National People’s Congress in China? That’s not the NFL. That’s China!!!

  3. upperdecker19 says: May 9, 2011 12:57 PM

    Rule 1: Excluding Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, collude to lessen player salaries

    Rule 2: See rule 1

  4. stevecmh says: May 9, 2011 1:01 PM

    If we are to believe what we read here, the NFL is either planning to shut down the league if the lockout injunction is affirmed OR they will open for business with new free agency rules.

    The ‘reporting’ on this site is getting more bizarre from one day to the next.

    Let’s start a contest to predict tomorrow’s lead story…

  5. bunjy96 says: May 9, 2011 1:05 PM

    The media is the one who said when.

    The court has never said one word other than the June 3 date to listen to more arguments.

  6. blackheld says: May 9, 2011 1:07 PM

    OK, so I’m unclear on the specifics here…but…

    What I got from the Kaplan interview, and from Mike’s comments, is that if the lockout insurance payment to the NFL is ruled to be an ‘egregious” violation, then the players would potentially receive whatever damages they’d normally be due, plus three times that in punitive damages.

    So…if the lockout insurance fund was 4 billion bucks, and the players should get 59.6% of that, then the players should receive $2.38B napoleons, plus a further $7.14B as a hand slap.

    Folks, that’s potentially $9.52 billion dollars. A whole year’s NFL profits.

    That’s a lot.

  7. dryzzt23 says: May 9, 2011 1:13 PM

    I’d like a ruling on the validity of the “de-certification”

    In fact, the NFL should put specific language in the next CBA that expressly addresses an instance in which the “union” would de-certify and what actions would/could be taken by the league. The NFL should have some recourse legally b/c this is the second time the “union” has done this (which is a sham and makes a mockery of labor laws).

    The owners should have the ability, in case of a strike or “union” de-certification, to cancel all contracts immediately but allow teams to keep the rights to their current players, and hire replacement players until the strike or work stoppage is resolved.

    After all if the players have legal recourse to force an end to the lockout, the owners should have some recourse to keep a lockout in place, or to end a strike/work stoppage caused by the players

    I am so tired of the players getting everything whatever way they want it while the owners get screwed by the courts

  8. bearskoolaid1985 says: May 9, 2011 1:14 PM

    One could only speculate that the NFL is going to incorporate what they were willing to give the players on their last proposal. The proposal that the player walked away from instead continuing negotiations.

  9. bleedgreen says: May 9, 2011 1:27 PM

    Since there is no union, and thus no CBA or real rules, can’t the league essentially say ‘Here are the rules, doors are open. If you don’t like it, don’t play, but everything is open for business’. If players don’t show up, then its THEM deliberately choosing to not work, owners get all the goodwill from the public, etc.

  10. CKL says: May 9, 2011 1:42 PM

    Ok maybe it’s been answered somewhere but I haven’t seen it: how would any rules the NFL makes not be challenged by the players as antitrust violations in the current suit? Could the NFLPA* lawyers sign off on it if it would allow football to go forward? I hope so. I don’t think it would be fair to back the owners into a corner saying lift the lockout AND anything you do instead to allow football to happen we can still sue you over.

  11. dkrause71 says: May 9, 2011 2:17 PM

    OK, so I’m unclear on the specifics here…but…

    What I got from the Kaplan interview, and from Mike’s comments, is that if the lockout insurance payment to the NFL is ruled to be an ‘egregious” violation, then the players would potentially receive whatever damages they’d normally be due, plus three times that in punitive damages.

    So…if the lockout insurance fund was 4 billion bucks, and the players should get 59.6% of that, then the players should receive $2.38B napoleons, plus a further $7.14B as a hand slap.

    Folks, that’s potentially $9.52 billion dollars. A whole year’s NFL profits.

    That’s a lot.
    ————————————————–
    The 9B is revenue, not profits. We have no idea what the profit margin is. And frankly, its the big financial question mark

  12. thefiesty1 says: May 9, 2011 3:10 PM

    Stop reporting until the court rules or until a deal is in place. Enough already!

  13. hawkeye6 says: May 9, 2011 3:22 PM

    At this point they need to open the doors and start the offseason (if they expect to have a decent all around product for this upcoming season). Pick whatever rules, and go with it for this season only – and continue negotiations for next season.

    This should have been done during last season. IMO, this is all procrastination, like the government shutdown threats – something that should have been done WAY before it got to the 11th hour.

    For the players, their families, the league, the owners, the fans, and all the employees involved with the NFL – it’s time to do SOMETHING instead of the nothing that’s occurred for the majority of this lockout.

  14. mick730 says: May 9, 2011 3:50 PM

    “Folks, that’s potentially $9.52 billion dollars. A whole year’s NFL profits.

    That’s a lot.”

    Good grief. Is the difference between revenues and profits that hard a concept for some of you people? What have we got here, a bunch of music majors????

  15. eagleswin says: May 9, 2011 4:00 PM

    hawkeye6 says:May 9, 2011 3:22 PM

    At this point they need to open the doors and start the offseason (if they expect to have a decent all around product for this upcoming season). Pick whatever rules, and go with it for this season only – and continue negotiations for next season.

    This should have been done during last season. IMO, this is all procrastination, like the government shutdown threats – something that should have been done WAY before it got to the 11th hour.

    For the players, their families, the league, the owners, the fans, and all the employees involved with the NFL – it’s time to do SOMETHING instead of the nothing that’s occurred for the majority of this lockout.
    ————————————-
    The NFLPA* is to busy filing lawsuits to have time for anything else. If the players and their families just want to play they can drop the lawsuits and negotiate in good faith for the first time. The lockout would be over in a week.

  16. eagleswin says: May 9, 2011 4:07 PM

    bearskoolaid1985 says:May 9, 2011 1:14 PM

    One could only speculate that the NFL is going to incorporate what they were willing to give the players on their last proposal. The proposal that the player walked away from instead continuing negotiations.

    ————————

    I’d speculate the NFL would incorporate their initial offer instead of their latest offer. The reason being that the latest offer contained concessions aimed at enticing the players to not go to court. The players went to court anyway so why shouldn’t the offer be rolled back? It’s not like the players would be grateful either way so if they are going to be upset regardless you might as well craft it more to your liking.

  17. tufflynx says: May 9, 2011 7:16 PM

    This mess is definitely created because both sides are pig-headed, greedy, and arrogant. You can’t really place the blame squarely on either side because it really does take both sides to dig in their heels for this kind of thing to happen.

    The bottom line in my mind is pretty clear, however. The owners are indeed entitled to some privileges for being the owners. Employees get paid for what they do and if they are not willing to work for what they are getting paid they can find a different profession.

    The players are employees. Nobody says they have to be football players. There are a lot of other jobs out there. If I don’t like what I would get paid for flipping burgers then I probably should choose a different career. Pro football players are compensated VERY well for what they do.

    The players try to say that they take risks with their health and that justifies the big paychecks. But policemen, firemen, and soldiers take more risk and get paid much less. That is not a valid argument by the players.

    The players also like to say they have short careers and that should justify their high pay, but that is just ridiculous. Just because they do not play football any longer does not mean they cannot do a different job. The idea that a few years of playing pro sports should allow you to be wealthy your entire life is just a joke.

    On the other hand, the owners being jerks is just how businesses are. I think all of us have had to deal with bosses that suck. There is no reason the players should be exempt from that part of business reality.

    In other words, the players are spinning everything to push buttons they really should not be pushing. They really should be thankful for the wonderful lives they are getting from playing a game and stop being such crybabies.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!