Comments on: A closer look at the post-settlement timeline

By: tommyf15

tommyf15 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:30:59 +0000

mjkelly77 says:
Because without the structure of the union and CBA, there would be no salary cap or draft, and the large market teams would end up with the best players. The small market teams would at some point fold because they’d never be able to compete

No offense, but that’s just another doomsday scenario that discourages competition.

Let me ask you something- why would a small market team fold instead of just moving to Los Angeles? Or Washington? Or Dallas? With proper anti-trust rules in place a small market team could do exactly that.

By: mjkelly77

mjkelly77 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:52:10 +0000

The union is what provides anti-trust protection to the owners. But the players as well as the owners need the union. Because without the structure of the union and CBA, there would be no salary cap or draft, and the large market teams would end up with the best players. The small market teams would at some point fold because they’d never be able to compete. The fan base would erode. Eventually, the few oligopolistic large-market teams that remain would start to lower their salary structure and due to a smaller league, less players would be needed. The majority of the players would suffer eventually. It reminds me of Blazing Saddles when Cleavon Little holds a gun to his own head and says: “Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n!gger gets it!”
Well, the owners get it and even DeMoron Smith gets it. He’s Cleavon Little in this scenario. He just had no other leverage.

By: tommyf15

tommyf15 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:37:18 +0000

TIM says:
The owners didn’t lock anyone out of anything UNTIL the union walked out of the negotiations,where the owners had just made 8 concessions

What were those eight concessions?

By: tommyf15

tommyf15 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:21:47 +0000

tombrookshire says:
Amazing isn’t how fast they can get judicial system to work when there are billions at stake?

Not sure what you mean. The St. Louis court hasn’t done a thing since April.

By: TIM

TIM — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:11:38 +0000

Tom:
The owners didn’t lock anyone out of anything UNTIL the union walked out of the negotiations,where the owners had just made 8 concessions and were waiting for some counter offers from the litigation obsessed union. And then the union pulled the total sham of a decertification,where everyone and their brother knew they would reconstitute the union as soon as their Mommy the court system gave them what they wanted. And then they sued the owners to try to ruin everything the owners had sweated blood over the years to produce,the NFL as we know it.

And THEN and only THEN did the owners lock out their disgruntled employees,who were suing them and trying to ruin their business,like any sane business owner would do.

D. Smith could have had a fair deal done 3 Months ago,if he had not decided long ago that he was going to court and was never going to negotiate anything,unless he lost in court,which he has now done (why do you think he is back in talks ?)

By: tombrookshire

tombrookshire — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 15:33:38 +0000

Amazing isn’t how fast they can get judicial system to work when there are billions at stake? All the complicated legal mumbo jumbo can be cut through like a knife through butter when owners fear losing some money and are now ready to deal. I wonder how much they actually saved by locking out the players all winter and spring in facilities, insurance, salaries, utilities, maintenance, and various fees, taxes and more.

By: tmaczoozoo

tmaczoozoo — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 14:46:20 +0000

This is all this article needs to say…

“There izz a lot of junk dat needs to be done before any football – actchewly- it is so much that there ain’t gonna be football an’ Ol’ Jerrah be under the innastate asking for some food an’ cash-money!”

By: vetdana

vetdana — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:30:45 +0000

if there’s no union….why can’t the NFL just say “OK anybody who wants to play can sign up and this is what you will get”.?

They could….but they won’t,… because….they need a union to 1. protect both sides” corporate” interests and players minimum salaries and 2. the union and new CBA needs a vehicle to cover their anti- trust exemption, which is still important to the owners side of the negotiations. There are also more complex legal considerations that come into play.

By: dewalt2990

dewalt2990 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:50:24 +0000

I thought the retirees and their lawyer were gonna throw a wrench in it.

By: 7370355q

7370355q — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:33:22 +0000

@2011lockout

And you heard that where???

By: evrybdyhas1

evrybdyhas1 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 10:13:13 +0000

They are still deciding how to split the revenue from the pay toilets, a very personal seat license.

By: digirootune

digirootune — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:50:44 +0000

We may make a half-hearten attempt at giving you sh*t Mike, but thanks for keeping us posted. We all agree that the lockout sucks, but PFT has given us fans constant updates.

Thank you, PFT. We love you.

SGT Bacas, 1/507th PIR

By: huejackson

huejackson — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:48:42 +0000

ive said all along this is all BS, theres goin to be football, theres to much money to lose, the only ones that would reject it is the lazy players who are already rich and rather not play

either way there will be football and either way the OAKLAND RAIDERS WILL BE SUPERBOWL CHAMPS

By: 1kcfan

1kcfan — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:39:30 +0000

Yea, we’re fans and we love the game, but we are really sick of being taken advantage of by million/BILLIONaires…….cancel the season, cancel it all — go TRY to find a job…..welcome to REALITY.

By: timtheenchanter1

timtheenchanter1 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:32:48 +0000

rascalmanny says: Jul 2, 2011 9:31 PM

I don’t understand….

if there’s no union….why can’t the NFL just say “OK anybody who wants to play can sign up and this is what you will get”.?

How can the union sue if there’s no union?

Why can’t the NFL say “we can’t discuss anything unless there is a union”?

If there’s no union it’s just a matter of dealing with individuals.
—————————

So, how has life been under that rock?

This is the whole point of the Brady v NFL lawsuit. Without the union, the owners are subject to anti-trust law and any set of “this is what you will get” rules are likely to ultimately be found to be a violation if players sue and carry it all the way through.

It’s a giant game of chicken, and we’re all in the middle. Without a cba, the owners could get their ass handed to them in the long run through anti-trust law. However, in the short term, because of the lockout the players will likely fall apart when they start missing game checks.

By: timtheenchanter1

timtheenchanter1 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:23:56 +0000

SpartaChris says: Jul 2, 2011 7:59 PM

Resurrecting the union would prove the decertification was a total sham to begin with. Hopefully further decertification attempts will be prohibits as evidence will have shown two decertifications and reunions.
——————————

Just like after the Reggie White case, this would be at the demand of the OWNERS, not the players. It does not prove the decertification was a sham in any way.

Unlike most other businesses, because sports leagues are defacto cartels of individually owned companies, they NEED there to be a union to establish uniform pay restrictions without having to defend against never-ending anti-trust actions. Otherwise, as MF mentions in the article, some player or players could get pissy and go off the reservation and sue the teams for anti-trust violations. Or it becomes the wild wild west (as tommyf15 seems to want) and you have such drastic salary disparity that the game suffers irreparably.

The unions are the sports league OWNERS’ security blanket.

By: tommyf15

tommyf15 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:45:37 +0000

rascalmanny says:
I don’t understand….

if there’s no union….why can’t the NFL just say “OK anybody who wants to play can sign up and this is what you will get”.?

The individual teams would have the option of doing exactly that if the NFL or the courts lift the lockout.

rascalmanny says:
How can the union sue if there’s no union?

They aren’t. Ten individual players are involved in the anti-trust suit.

By: lovesportsandsurfing

lovesportsandsurfing — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:40:19 +0000

Your first line is misleading…”At some point the lockout will end”…you are saying that insinuating it will end at some point this year and there will be a full season,…now hear this: NO NFL IN 2011!!!!…Iv said it for two years and Im more sure of it today then I was when I predicted it two years ago…happy holidays!!!

By: chatham10

chatham10 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:09:24 +0000

I thank you for this update but the insiders at ESPN and the NFL Network paint a different picture and they think the time frame is in a longer time frame then a week, they have mentioned three to four weeks, I like your report better.

By: oldbrowndawg

oldbrowndawg — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:18:03 +0000

What an incredible mess! See? Get a bunch of lawyers to “help” and a crevice suddenly morphs into the Grand Canyon! Lawyers creating a complex morass out of a rather straightforward situation. Who would have ever thunk it?

And now the lawyers are going to facilitate the ending of the mess they’ve made? What could possibly go wrong with that?

By: woakland

woakland — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:14:28 +0000

I think it’ll be the busiest/highest traffic day in PFT history, although the first day of free agency will break that record anyway.

By: woakland

woakland — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:13:11 +0000

I’m thinking more like: “Report: Agreement Reached”

By: peester15

peester15 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:11:46 +0000

Is anyone else getting more “action” at home due to this lockout?

By: vetdana

vetdana — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:05:57 +0000

it could all be accomplished in a week, possibly less.

” And I thought April fools day was in April” !

By: 2011lockout

2011lockout — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:50:16 +0000

According to my sources an initial announcement will be made on Wednesday the 6th. The final agreement to end the lockout will be on the 14th.

By: Deb

Deb — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:43:05 +0000

No, the court already lifted the lockout once and it didn’t mean anything. Just tell me IT’S OVER. You could throw in a photo of a sailor kissing a nurse in the street, but I’d settle for headlines about free-agent signings.

By: rascalmanny

rascalmanny — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:31:32 +0000

I don’t understand….

if there’s no union….why can’t the NFL just say “OK anybody who wants to play can sign up and this is what you will get”.?

How can the union sue if there’s no union?

Why can’t the NFL say “we can’t discuss anything unless there is a union”?

If there’s no union it’s just a matter of dealing with individuals.

By: vikescry1

vikescry1 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:23:26 +0000

seriously the last few years it’s been all about favre and this year the lockout… will there ever be another normal offseason? just get the deal done!

By: Soulman45

Soulman45 — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:59:36 +0000

I don’t see a end in site the lawyers will drag it out as long as possible so be ready.
They get paid by the hour no hurry for them only the fans are in a rush, like me.

By: Rhode Island Patriots Fan

Rhode Island Patriots Fan — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:46:37 +0000

“…subject only to the question of whether she will have jurisdiction over the final CBA.”

I predict Judge Nelson will have jurisdiction over the next CBA. I’m as confident of that as I am in believing that Jerry Jones is not a fan of revenue sharing.