“Players drop the lawsuit. Owners end the lockout.
Keep the 50/50 split but the players take over pension plan and insurance costs. Slot all rookie contracts but make contracts 4 years for 1st and 2nd round players and 3 years for everyone else.”

And why would this be accepted by the players?
_____________________________

If the players truly want to be 50/50 partners, they should decide how much goes toward former players and it should come from players. The owners will always look to screw them anyway possible. Also for insurance, the players union would be allowed to find the best deal for themselves, instead of owners saying here is what you get.

Now the owners would no longer be receiving 1 billion off the top nor the 2 billion they are currently seeking.

Players take care of player needs. Teams take care of team needs. It is a long term solution.

Let’s look at what did happen in the NHL. The league and the NHLPA failed to negotiate a new CBA and the current CBA expired. The union got caught with their pants down as the owners locked them out. Without income from playing the players were forced to accept a new CBA with a hard salary cap reducing the clubs labor cost. NHL teams could and did raise ticket prices and kept the additional revenue. This is a fight about money. The NFL owners are not happy with the current split (CBA) even though they are not losing money as the NHL claimed in 2003. The NFLPA is happy with the current CBA and would like to continue with something similar. The NFL opted out in 2008 of the CBA and hired the architect (Bob Betterman) of the NHL’s lockout to work for them. The NFL tried to prepare for a lockout by negotiating a TV contract (4 billion USD) in violation of the CBA because it did not maximize the benefits for both parties in that only the owners received revenue if there was a lockout. The NFLPA was able to prepare for an expiring CBA through decertification and litigation. Without decertification the players would have remained in a lockout state until they would have run out of money and forced to accept a new CBA of the owners choosing. The owners have made this a litigation issue and the 2011 is in the hands of the courts.

—————————–

You are wrong about many things except for this fight being about money. Of course it’s about money.

The special master, who is the one who is supposed to have jurisdiction over the lockout insurance, said the owners TV money was not a violation. The players, not liking the answer, went to Doty, who has never ruled against them and got a favorable verdict. The owners have the option of going to the 8th circuit to appeal his ruling and most likely Doty’s decision will be overturned if they decide to go that route. Just because a Minnesota district judge makes a ruling doesn’t make it right or final.

The NFLPA was supposed to wait 6 months after the expiration of the CBA before they decertified. It was spelled out in the CBA and that is why the owners should win this one. The owners could only have maintained the lockout until the players LEGALLY DECERTIFIED after 6 months. Not indefinately. The problem is the players don’t want to lose any money whereas the owners are prepared to lose some money.

If the players had not decertified and litigated maybe they would’ve negotiated and that’s the point.

And why would this be accepted by the players?

*yawn*

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

Opting out of the CBA was contractually available to both parties. The potential lockout was always there, but would never have happened if the UNION had not Decertified.
————–

You know this is simply incorrect, right?

Please look up the thousands of articles/sources over the course of the football year guaranteeing that the owners were going to lock out the union at the expiration of the CBA. It was common knowledge.

By the same token the “Union” made sure that verbage was in the CBA stating that The League could not use the Sham defense if the Union decertified. BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF PLANNING FOR THE LOCKOUT, therefore, it is simply CORRECT! Check all of the facts.

You just made the the following team owners vomit on their shoes with your statement:

Jacksonville
Baltimore
Indianapolis
Detroit
Green Bay
Arizona
Buffalo
Cleveland
Cincinatti
St. Louis
Minnesota
Denver
Tennessee
Miami
Kansas City
San Diego
Carolina
New Orleans
Tampa
Seattle

Probably 90% of those teams above would vote against what you are suggesting, perhaps all of them. I could only guarantee 2 owners (Snyder and Jones) voting for free market capitalism.

Get some knowledge about how this works / needs to work to ensure 32 viable franchises and parity.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

Opting out of the CBA was contractually available to both parties. The potential lockout was always there, but would never have happened if the UNION had not Decertified.
————–

You know this is simply incorrect, right?

Please look up the thousands of articles/sources over the course of the football year guaranteeing that the owners were going to lock out the union at the expiration of the CBA. It was common knowledge.
———————————————–

Actually he may be right, its just an unusual situation because normally they could only have a lockout if there was still a Union. They initiated the lockout after decertification for several reasons, in my opinion.
One, to show they consider the decert a sham and do not recognize it.
Two, they virtually HAVE to lock players out because sham or not, technically the Union doesn’t exist therefore any regulations or actions of the teams that are commonly enforced around the league are subject to anti-trust litigation. How can you conduct an organized, regulated, meaningful camp or free agency deals when all the rules are considered collusion? The Brady case happening right now is proof of that.

Do you believe every thing you read/hear in the media?

I put about as much faith in what the media says as I did in the “rapture” that was predicted for last week. (and I read/heard about it everywhere)

Sit down with a copy of the National Enquirer and read it. You know, the alien baby in Brazil, etc. That is how much faith you should have in the media….headlines and conjecture is all they produce.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

Opting out of the CBA was contractually available to both parties. The potential lockout was always there, but would never have happened if the UNION had not Decertified.
————–

You know this is simply incorrect, right?

Please look up the thousands of articles/sources over the course of the football year guaranteeing that the owners were going to lock out the union at the expiration of the CBA. It was common knowledge.

————–

Wow – this is stupid.

The union voluntarily decertified – so if you hate unions – why would you want the owners to win the “sham” decertification argument and force the union to act as a single entity again?

If you love your capitalism/anti-union position so much – get rid of the antitrust exemption the owners enjoy and make them work under the normal rules of capitalism. Let the union dissolve and act as normal private employees.

You, and those that believe the stupid things you say, and living contradictions.

The verbage in the old CBA is in my mind no different whatsoever than the owners securing lockout insurance from the TV contracts. They did not intend to bargain in good faith, intended to sham decertify, and placed language in the contract to protect themselves against the deserved punishment for the sham. The fact that that verbage was put there in 2006 shows the players were preparing for litigation much sooner than the mock decertification vote that was held at the beginning of last season. They know damn well the owners would opt out of the ridiculous deal in favor of the players. The NFL took steps via TV contracts to balance out the leverage during work stoppage and suddenly THEY are the ones accused of bad faith negotiating? Ha. And the fact they at least tried to negotiate should say something.

So if they decertified “on expiration” that means the deal was expired, officially, when then the anti trust lawsuit was filed.

But WAIT, there’s more:

“Due to the presence of language forcing the players to wait six months to file an antitrust lawsuit if they fail to file before expiration of the CBA”

So they decertified “on expiration” of the CBA and then went back in time as a non union entity in order to file an anti trust suit during the CBA so they didn’t have to wait 6 months.

Can’t have it both ways, and I think the fact that they actually tried to have it both ways will hurt them the worst here.

Either way you look at it, they did something incorrect and/or backwards.

Players, please give in now. It’s going to happen, so save all of us the time and just get it over with.

‘The union* left behind an assoc. within the meaning of the Nor-Lag Act, n/w/standing the decert. Hence it remains a labor matter free from judicial (Nelson) intervention. Ergo, the 8th Cir. vacated her enjoining the stay.’

M.F./above: ‘The NFL focused extensively on the plain language of the Nor-LaG. Act which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions in labor disputes.’

At least the NFL reads PFT.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

Opting out of the CBA was contractually available to both parties. The potential lockout was always there, but would never have happened if the UNION had not Decertified. Note to Players Association; RESPOND TO AT LEAST ONE OF THE OFFERS FROM THE LEAGUE. Oh, that’s right you don’t know who your actual representatives are and only a handful of you are on the same page. Here is a thought . Have another random player throw some darts at the League, Roger Goodell, one of the Owners or their Legal Counsel. That certainly will get the ball rolling. IDIOTS!!!

Well, the same court that wanted to lift the lock-out has ruled that the NFL is a single entity during the STAR-CAPS incident the last two years. If they are infact seperate entities, then Pat and Kevin Williams would not be facing suspension because the would fall under Minnesota Law for drug testing.

I hope they decide to reconstitute if the lockout isn’t lifted. If they go the ‘death of a thousand cuts’ route with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, then there certainly won’t be football in 2011.