The NFL Players Association plans to utilize revenues generated via Players Inc., the marketing arm of the union, as part of the fund that will provide financial resources to players in the event of a work stoppage.

But now the NFLPA fears that the league will attempt to pilfer those resources by persuading players to assign rights to group marketing efforts before the players sign the union's Group Licensing Agreement.

"This may seriously harm the union and its ability to resist efforts by the owners to roll back the gains we have achieved in the last collective bargaining negotiations, by jeopardizing our Group Licensing Program since the company obtaining the player's name/image rights may attempt to use those rights in conjunction with 5 or more other players, thus undermining the exclusivity of our Group Licensing Program as to the same licensed product," the union explains in a memo to all NFLPA-registered agents.

The Group Licensing Program applies in situations where the images and/or names of five or more players are used. 

The notion that the league would intercept these rights before the Group Licensing Agreement is signed in order to hurt the union's bargaining position seems unduly paranoid, and even if there's no merit to the concern the mere fact that the concern exists speaks to a level of mistrust that could undermine efforts to work out a new labor deal.

As a result, the NFLPA is essentially ordering agents to guard their clients against those who might attempt to persuade the clients to sign marketing deals before signing the GLA.  Specifically, the memo states that "every Contract Advisor is required to: (a) not recommend, encourage, facilitate, enable, or support their rookie clients to sign any such marketing agreement before entering into a GLA; (b) recommend and encourage their rookie clients to first enter into a GLA before signing any such marketing agreement; and (c) immediately advise the NFLPA in writing if any rookie client is contacted, either directly or indirectly, by anyone (including, without limitation, the NFL) seeking to have the rookie client enter into such a marketing agreement before signing a GLA."

Frankly, something about this approach seems heavy handed at best, inappropriate at worst.  And we wonder whether this effort by the union to guard its GLA revenues will serve only to motivate and inspire those who might be inclined to try to make a run at the rights.

And because the players will be required to forfeit all of their Group Licensing Program revenues to the lockout fund, some players might be inclined to sign elsewhere and claim ignorance.

Former Colts and Buccaneers coach Tony Dungy, whose name undoubtedly will continue to surface from time to time for NFL jobs, has taken a new NFL job.

But not the kind of job for which his name will continue to surface.

The league has announced that Dungy will lead a new Player Advisory Forum, which will involve a regular series of meetings in NFL cities with current players. 

It's an evolution of the Player Advisory Council, which Commissioner Roger Goodell launched in 2006.

The Player Advisory Forum is aimed at providing input to Goodell on policies, programs, and other issues that affect the lives of players on and off the field, such as health and safety, personal conduct, game rules and procedures, career transition, and player development.

"Players continue to be an invaluable resource in providing direction and insight into a wide range of programs and policies," Goodell said in a release.  "Tony's experience and expertise in working with players makes him an ideal leader of the Player Advisory Forum and we appreciate his willingness to take on this important role."

Dungy will organize the meetings, identify the player attendees, and develop a list of topics for discussion.  Goodell will attend the meetings and the NFL Players Association has been invited to send a representative.

Look for the NFLPA to accept the invitation, given that this program is being launched at a time when the union collectively is telling the league what the players want.  Absent union representation, there's a chance that the players who participate in the meetings will stray off message.

And some might wonder whether the league is expanding the program now as a subtle way of softening the players' willingness to vote "no" on the last, best offer that the owners eventually make on a new labor deal.  Regardless of the motivation, the willingness of the league to listen to the players is nothing but good -- and good communications go a long way toward achieving and maintaining labor peace.  And that's a positive for the league, the players, and those of us who follow the sport.

A wide variety of groups and legal commentators have spoken out against the NFL's position in the American Needle antitrust case.  The league will now state its own case.

The NFL's written brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is due to be filed today.

The case focuses on the exclusive apparel contract given to Reebok by the league.  To avoid application of antitrust laws, which generally prevent independent businesses from banding together to set prices, the NFL claims that the 32 teams constitute a single, integrated operation.

Some fear that the league would attempt to parlay a favorable outcome before the Supreme Court into a broader effort to claim that the league is really one large business.  Most importantly, such an approach would potentially block any efforts by the NFL Players Association to decertify and then file an antitrust action against the league challenging uniform rules regarding player salaries and the draft, in the event of a lockout in 2011.

The content of the league's brief could shed light on whether the NFL plans to attempt to apply a favorable outcome in other contexts.  So stay tuned.  Assuming you're still awake.

In a development that could go a long way toward working out the many issues that currently are percolating between the NFL and its players union, a source with knowledge of the dynamics of the collective bargaining process tells us that the two sides have established multiple subcommittees aimed at working through the various areas of dispute.

Per the source, nearly ten subcommittees have been established, with groups focusing on the drug-testing policies, injury issues, and other specific subjects.

The subcommittees already have begun to meet, and the meetings are continuing.

As the source said, it shows that both sides are serious about getting a deal done.  Indeed, the best news is that the union proposed the approach -- and the league agreed to it. 

So maybe there's hope that a work stoppage will be avoided.  Heck, we're starting to think that maybe a deal can get done by March 2010.

Then again, I'm still waiting for that damn Great Pumpkin to show up.

Though the NFL and the union have agreed not to talk publicly about their ongoing Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations, word of some of the details have been leaking out via private avenues.

Per a league source, there's talk that the NFLPA is willing to agree to the expansion of the regular season to 18 games. 

(We've long believed that talk from the league of an 18-game regular season was aimed at securing the addition of one game, moving the total number of games to 17.)

The source also says that, as an inducement to getting a deal done before the start of the uncapped year, the union is willing to adhere to the free-agency eligibility rules that will apply in 2010 absent a new labor deal.  Specifically, players whose contracts expire after the season would be required to have six years of service in order to be eligible for unrestricted free agency.

Though the players who will be restricted free agents under that scenario might not be too pleased, the reality is that they'll be restricted free agents if no deal is done at all.

When we received earlier this week a statement from the NFLPA regarding last week's tragic shooting at Ft. Hood, we read it, we thought it was odd for the NFLPA to be chiming in, and then we moved on.

Paul Domowitch of the Philadelphia Daily News, a confirmed grumpy old man who has directed his venom at us in the past, opted not to move on.

He gave the union a public "thumbs down" on Friday for chiming in on the matter. "Ever since [De] Smith was elected the NFLPA's executive director last March, he has acted more like a politician running for office than a guy who's supposed to be trying to get a new labor deal done," Domowitch writes.  "His release-happy PR people have had him weigh in on a number of nonfootball-related issues, with the only apparent purpose being to get his name in the news."

Though professional sports leagues often employ examples of carefully-engineered pandering for P.R. purposes, the best efforts in this regard involve actions, not words.  In this specific case, the words from the NFLPA have resulted in only negative P.R. for the union, since Domowitch was the only writer who, as far as we can tell, did anything with the release.

UPDATE:  We should have included the text of the NFLPA statement.  Here it is.  "In a month where our NFL players honor American service men and women across the country, we want to extend our deepest condolences to the families of the wounded and fallen as a result of this terrible incident."

NFLPA Executive Director De Smith was an accomplished litigator. 

But we doubt that he ever did very well at poker.

With the NFL, by all appearances, ready and willing to allow 2010 proceed without a salary cap, Smith is blinking more than Costanza after being squirted in the eye with grapefruit juice.

Earlier today, Smith made even more clear his desire to do a deal before the salary cap goes away in March 2010.

"The uncapped year is also a virtually 'unfloored' year as well," Smith said in an exclusive online chat with the Washington Post.  "In addition to the ceiling change, there is a significant change to the minimum salary for players.  The players have made it clear to me that they want a deal before the uncapped year, I agree with them that it is in the best interest of the game as well as the fans and the players."

Smith, in our view, has decided to risk creating the appearance that a bad deal can be crammed down the union's throat before March 2010 in the hopes of winning the P.R. battle that will be waged as 2011 approaches. 

And even though the general public has yet to pick a side in this battle between two fat kids over the last piece of pizza, Smith has drafted the fans into his camp.

"I will do everything to ensure [a work stoppage] does not occur but it will require us to work as one team with our fans, local officials, stadium workers (over 100K of them), and the families of our players," Smith said during the chat.

We think the far better approach would be to meet the league's nonchalance regarding an uncapped year with equal nonchalance, and to defer for now any effort to persuade the fans to pick sides.  The free agency that the players long coveted has resulted in most fans -- as Billy Crystal puts it -- rooting for laundry.  So if push comes to shove, fans will be far more likely to align with the teams, not the players.

Smith's approach also entails plenty of irony.  His predecessor, Gene Upshaw, salivated for the chance of getting to an uncapped year.  Now that more and more people have realized that the uncapped year won't be utopia for the rank and file, the union is sprinting in the other direction.

Regardless, Smith's words and actions are setting the stage for the union to do a bad deal, if the union truly wants to do a deal before the salary cap -- and the salary floor -- disappear. 

Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that Judge David Doty will continue to preside over the labor agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association, rejecting an effort by the league to remove Doty.

The development is testing the tenuous truce that arose last week, when the league and the union agreed to stop the public posturing and bickering regarding the effort to negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

"Our focus is on negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with the players and the court's decision should not impact the negotiations in any way," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told us via e-mail.  "The Eighth Circuit's opinion also upheld the district court's bonus forfeiture ruling in large part because it found the CBA forfeiture provision ambiguous.  That is something that we will seek to change at the bargaining table to ensure that bonus payments are paid to players who comply with their contracts and perform on the field."

As to the first part of Aiello's statement, we agree with him -- only if the league doesn't try to obtain via the bargaining process that which it was not able to achieve through the court system.  If, obviously, the league would ask the union to agree to a new judge (or no judge at all), the NFL would have to make an equivalent concession.

Meanwhile, NFLPA spokesman George Atallah is stirring the pot, Twitter style.  Regarding today's ruling, Atallah says the "8th circuit decision means NFL is not above the law.  NFL filed to extinguish courts' oversight and were told no."

Frankly, the ruling doesn't mean the NFL "is not above the law," and the NFL wasn't trying to behave (in this instance) as if it is "above the law."  It only means that, in this specific case, Judge Doty had not done enough to warrant his removal.  But as we pointed out earlier today, the appeals court explained that Judge Doty would have been wise to say nothing publicly about the issues he has handled in connection with the NFL and the players union.

Atallah also twists the league's tail, with a partial quote from the written opinion:  "A motion to recuse should not be withheld as a fallback position to be asserted only after an adverse ruling."

Look, we aren't going to avoid a work stoppage in 2011 if the two primary parties in this relationship can't resist the urge to act like 12-year-olds when the score a victory in court, or elsewhere.  Aiello's words are fine -- we asked him for a comment and he gave us one.  The next time the union scores a win, however, Atallah would be wise to opt for the high road.

The current labor agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association arose via the settlement of an antitrust lawsuit filed by various players (led by the late Reggie White) in the months after the failed 1987 players' strike.  Because the CBA also represents the resolution of a complex piece of litigation, the judge who handled the case has presided over certain disputes arising in connection with the interpretation of the original CBA and all subsequent versions of it.

Last year, the NFL made the extraordinary move of accusing Judge Doty of having an impermissible bias in favor of the union.  The league asked Judge Doty to remove himself from further handling of the case, based specifically on comments Judge Doty had made to the media and an alleged private meeting between Judge Doty and union lawyers and representatives.

For example, Judge Doty talked about the league's complaints regarding the interpretation of the CBA with SportsBusiness Journal in January 2008.

"[NFL Owners] pretend they're getting beaten around.  Well, they did, initially, but they had a position that was not legally sound," Doty told SBJ.  "I think if you ask [former Commissioner Paul] Tagliabue, he would say, 'The whole thing has come out our way.'  Because, even though they complain about it . . . all they've done is make tons of money."

Judge Doty refused to step aside, and the league appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over federal trial courts in Minnesota, site of the lawsuit.

The Eighth Circuit has now rejected the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or any other conduct that would make Judge Doty unable to continue.

That said, Judge Doty received a mild rap on the knuckles for choosing to talk to the media about the case. 

"We recognize," the appeals court wrote, "that aside from creating a perception of bias, there is a danger that may flow from even seemingly innocuous statements to the press.  Judges should not create the impression that they covet publicity. . . .  When judges make gratuitous public comments on issues closely related to judicial duties, they risk giving the impression that they have an uncommon interest and degree of personal involvement in the subject matter. . . .  Self-interested behavior in submitting to press interviews may also lead to accusations that a judge will be motivated to decide issues in a way that prompts favorable media attention. . . . 

"Thus, although we do not believe that the articles created a reasonable perception of bias . . ., the district judge would have been well advised not to opine publicly about his role in enforcing an ongoing consent decree. "

In English, "Judges who talk to the press might come off as judges who want attention, and judges who want attention might be accused of making decisions aimed at getting more attention.  So judges shouldn't talk to the press."

The appeals court also affirmed Judge Doty's ruling in the Mike Vick case, which prohibits teams from recovering a portion of roster bonuses if a player defaults on his contract after receiving the roster bonus.

The ruling gives leverage to the union in conjunction with the ongoing CBA negotiations.  If the NFL wants to fully and finally conclude the litigation and adopt a private interpretation and enforcement mechanism not involving Judge Doty, the union will be entitled to an equivalent concession for agreeing to the change in the status quo.  Likewise, if the NFL wants to be able to recover portions of previously paid roster bonuses, the league will be required to give up something else in return for that right.

Last week, we reported that the most recent bargaining session between the NFL and the players union entailed the first discussion of financial terms.

Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the league's proposal during the November 4 meeting included a rookie wage scale and an adjustment to the current salary-cap system that takes certain expenses into account.

Currently, the player payroll fund arises from revenues only, forcing the 32 teams to run the rest of their businesses with the 40.4 cents on each dollar generated.  Some owners have complained that the retained revenues do not generate in a sufficient profit, after all expenses are paid.

So the new system proposed by the league apparently would be aimed at ensuring that the owners realize an adequate return on their investments.

Though we don't disagree with the logic, the proposal seems to bolster the union's position that, in order to fully and fairly assess the situation, the league should open its books.

As to the proposed rookie wage scale, the specifics haven't been revealed.  Currently, a de facto wage scale has arisen via the slotting process.  Beyond the first ten picks, the league has no issue with the present system.  The concern comes from the windfalls paid to unproven players taken at the top of the draft.

The union has characterized the situation as the league's problem, presumably in order to ensure that the league will make some sort of equivalent concession in order to fix the flaws in the current system.

Moving forward, it's possible that little or no specific information will be provided until a deal is done.  We reported that the league and the union have agreed to stop talking to the media about the negotiations, and Mullen obtained quotes confirming the new code of silence.

As NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told Mullen, "We are not commenting on the negotiations." NFLPA spokesman George Atallah offered a similar message.  "The NFLPA is not discussing the CBA negotiations in an effort to maintain the integrity of the talks," Atallah told Mullen.

With two big-name college players whose seasons already are over making it known that they plan to crash the April 2010 instant millionaire party known as the NFL draft, it remains to be seen how many of the guys still playing in 2009 -- and who could still continue to play for one or two more seasons -- will make the cash grab sooner rather than later.

As Keith Arnold of NBC's Inside The Irish recently pointed out, Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis has acknowledged that quarterback Jimmy Clausen and receiver Golden Tate have a tough decision to make, since both will be eligible to bolt from South Bend.

(And, yes, I'm pushing the NBC Notre Dame blog today because I'm on the halftime show of the Notre Dame game.  We all know it.  So why not admit it?)

The problem, as we've recently explained at SportingNews.com, is that a flood of underclassmen will make it harder for any of them to get paid, since there are only so many big-money slots at the top of the draft.

The safer play for the players, then, might be to let everyone else rush for the cash, and to wait until 2011, when the pool will be less crowded.

Then again, if there's a work stoppage or an NBA-style rookie wage scale by then, there also might be something floating in the pool other than a Baby Ruth.

That's why we continue to believe that the NFL and the union should find a way to get these players to realize that they don't need to rush for the exits.  The best solution?  The league should agree to keep the current rookie compensation system in place, and the union should make an equivalent concession in some other area of the negotiations.

It might be much easier said than done, however.  Since paying rookies represents a significant aspect of the system for paying all players, and given that the league seems poised to revolutionize the current salary-cap approach, one can't be done without the other.
 

The good news emerging from the most recent collective bargaining session between the NFL and the players union is that, according to a source with knowledge of the talks, the two sides agreed to quit talking to the media about the negotiations.

The bad news, from our perspective, is that they agreed to quit talking to the media.

But, in balance, we'll take the good news.  We want to see a deal get done; even if it means that the information will slow to an enlarged-prostate intermittent trickle, we'll take it. 

Meanwhile, the source tells us that, finally, the two sides began to discuss financial terms, which surely will be the battleground in the broader effort to maintain 22 years of labor peace.

On Tuesday night, we caught wind of rumors that frustrations regarding the NFL's apparent unwillingness to negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the start of the uncapped year in March 2010 were giving rise to talk of a players strike for the playoffs.

When acknowledging the rumors, we also pointed out that it could never happen, due to a clear term in the CBA preventing a strike by the players or a lockout by the owners prior to the expiration of the contract that both sides signed.

On Wednesday, Patriots linebacker Adalius Thomas denied, strongly, that there has been talk of a postseason strike.

"To be blunt, it's a flat-out, bald-faced, capital-letters lie," Thomas told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports.  "We're not the ones who are interested in not playing.  We want to play.  We're not going on strike.  We signed this agreement and we're fine with it.  We're happy.  We don't want to stop playing football."

With all due respect, Adalius, it's not a "flat-out, bald-faced, capital-letters lie."  Or any other type of lie.  The rumor exists.  We heard it from a league source who has connections with many players, teams, agents, and -- yes -- the union.

Speaking of the union, NFLPA spokesman George Atallah declined to respond to Cole's request for comment on the rumors of a playoff strike.  And, frankly, that's disappointing.  All Atallah had to say was, "We fully intend to honor our contractual commitments."  [Editor's note:  To make it clear, Atallah didn't actually say this.  He just should have.]  His reluctance to say anything about the situation makes us wonder whether he feared a follow-up question that might have forced him to admit that, yes, all options have been considered and that, indeed, the possibility of a postseason walkout was discussed, but ultimately rejected.

So, as we had hoped, this rumor will apparently die a quick death.  But Thomas' words shed further light on the leverage that the owners possess in this situation.

"You play the entire season to get to the playoffs," Thomas told Cole.  "That's when, as a player, you want to play the most.  You want to go to the Super Bowl and you have four weeks to get there.  You think we want to stop that?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard."

In other words, the players want to play NFL football -- and the only way they can play NFL football is if the owners let them play NFL football.  As of 2011, the only way that'll happen is if the players accept whatever deal the owners are willing to give them.

Before we go any farther with this one, we need to point out that the chances of it happening are ridiculously small.

That said, the NFLPA's inability to coax the league into displaying a greater sense of urgency regarding the negotiation of a new labor deal prior to the start of the uncapped year in March 2010 has prompted new rumors that the union is considering the possibility of launching a walkout once the 2009 regular season ends.

The only problem?  The Collective Bargaining Agreement plainly states that a strike by the players or a lockout by the owners is not permitted during the term of the deal.  And since the deal currently lasts through the current season and the next one, the players simply can't refuse to work.

Of course, they technically can go on strike.  But the strike would be illegal, and the players would face multi-million-dollar fines and damage awards, if the action ultimately were to disrupt the postseason and prevented playoff games from occurring.

The mere fact that the rumor is being floated -- not necessarily by union leadership -- speaks to the level of frustration that many of the players currently are feeling.  They're now close enough to the uncapped year to see that it's a mirage.  With the NFL showing no willingness to finalize a new CBA before the uncapped year arrives, those who are desperate to avoid it have begun the process of throwing reckless ideas against the wall in the hopes of finding something that might stick.

A postseason strike simply won't.

Apart from being illegal, it would be a gigantic public-relations blunder for the players, who instantly would be viewed as villains by a public that has yet to cast blame upon either side.

Still, while it most likely will never happen, the talk is out there.  And the talk needs to go away as quickly as it bubbled to the surface.

Usually, captains of private industry who are dragged before Congress prefer that the nation's primary lawmaking body refrain from sticking its nose into the private industry's business.

This time around, the NFL is applying a much different approach.  The NFL is asking Congress to pass a law that will close a glaring loophole in the league's substance-abuse policy and testing program, due to drug-testing statutes in states like Minnesota.

In a transcript of the remarks that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will make to a Congressional committee exploring the StarCaps litigation, which has enabled multiple Vikings and Saints players to avoid four-game suspensions after testing positive for a banned substance, Goodell advocates "narrow and specific legislation that would confirm the primacy of federal labor law and respect agreements on this important subject."

We agree.  As we pointed out several days ago, "By passing a narrow law declaring that the terms of a collectively-bargained drug-testing program applicable to businesses operating in interstate commerce preempt any state laws that might otherwise apply, the loophole would be forever closed."

Our only regret is that the NFL continues to overplay its hand in this regard, incorrectly blaming the union for supporting a lawsuit that the union was compelled to support. 

As the league would have Congress -- and anyone else who cares -- believe it, the NFLPA betrayed the league by assisting the efforts of the members who faced suspension based on the consumption of StarCaps, an over-the-counter supplement that had been secretly spiked with a banned substance.  But the evidence in this case supports a finding that the league knew that StarCaps had been spiked with a prescription drug, that the league knew players had been taken StarCaps, and that the league issued no specific warning to the players that taking StarCaps could be hazardous to their careers -- and more importantly to their health.

As we've said many times in the past, the fact that the the internal appeal process tilts so heavily toward the league forced the union to help its members.  Failure to do so could have resulted in a potentially viable lawsuit for breach of the duty of fair representation.

So our preference would be for the league to take a big step back from the legal niceties of the case, acknowledge that the league's information regarding the truth about StarCaps should have been specifically shared with the union, and realize that the NFLPA's role in the matter didn't amount to slapping the league in the face with a white glove.

The union was merely doing its job.

If the league can't or won't accept that, then maybe we all really should be making alternative plans for the months of September 2011 through early February of 2012.  Indeed, if the league and the union can't get on the same page regarding such a basic concept, they'll never be able to hammer out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

On Tuesday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA Executive Director De Smith are meeting at a Congressional committee regarding the StarCaps case and its impact on the league's steroids policy.

On Wednesday, the two men will meet for a fifth time as they continue the very early stages of working out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.  According to Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal, the talks will be held in New York.

The last time around, the two sides met at the union's headquarters in Washington.

In a statement released after the fourth session in late September, the union implied that the league had made a series of non-economic proposals.  At the time, the NFLPA suggested that a response would be provided at the next meeting.

The current labor deal expires after the 2011 draft.  The union recently has suggested making an intensive effort to work out a new agreement in January 2010, prior to the commencement of the uncapped year in March 2010.

Last week, NFLPA Executive Director De Smith suggested that the league and the union engage in five days of intensive negotiations in January 2010 in order to reach agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the start of the uncapped year in March 2010.

And the league has rejected this offer.

"We proposed a 'lock-in' to avoid a lockout," NFLPA president Kevin Mawae told Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal, "and we were met with, 'That is not going to happen."

Though the phrase "'lock-in' to avoid a lockout" might have some appeal to trial-lawyer types like Smith, it's misleading.  The labor agreement doesn't expire until after the 2011 draft.  The better title would be "'lock-in' to avoid a player mutiny once the uncapped year arrives and player salaries get dumped and teams cut spending as the salary floor evaporates and players who thought they were going to be free agents aren't free agents." 

But that's a bid too wordy.

We've pointed out multiple times that the best deal gets done when both sides agree that the clock is close to striking 12.  For the union, that moment appears to be the start of the uncapped year.  For the league, there's no sense of urgency to do a new deal before March 2010.

Comments from NFL spokesman Greg Aiello to Mullen confirm that the league is prepared to treat the expiration of the current CBA as the true deadline for doing a new deal.

"Our only goal is to reach an agreement, and in order to do so we will meet with the union as often and as intensively as possible," Aiello said.  "Artificial deadlines are not useful in collective bargaining and we don't think setting one here is in anyone's interest."

This doesn't mean that a deal can't get done before the start of the uncapped year.  But since the union has now demonstrated a clear desire to do a deal before the start of the next league year, look for the NFL to take full advantage of the resulting leverage, and to make an offer that tilts heavily toward the league's interests. 

If, as it appears, the union fears a player uprising in 2010 once the realities of the unfloored year begin to emerge, the union might take the last, best offer the league makes before March 1.

Many of you have asked us whether, upon the conclusion of his two-week suspension, the Chiefs will tell running back Larry Johnson to take the rest of the year off, with pay.

The Chiefs might prefer to do that, but they can't.

The Eagles' decision to suspend receiver Terrell Owens without pay for four games in 2005 followed by a paid suspension for the balance of the year caused the NFLPA to slip through the owners' collective five hole a CBA term prohibiting such measures moving forward. 

So, as of March 2006, a team can suspend a player without pay for up to four games at a time for conduct detrimental to the team.  But a team cannot suspend a player with pay.

Of course, if the player agrees to go home with pay, it's not an issue.  But since Johnson is a vested veteran, he'd get the balance of his $4.55 million salary if he's released.  He'd then be able to climb aboard the bandwagon of a playoff contender with a record far better than 1-6, and he'd be able to collect a salary from his new team -- and to keep the full amount of his termination pay from the Chiefs.

As a result, look for the Chiefs to try to find a way to keep Johnson, but possibly to marginalize him.  And if he chooses to be disruptive in the hopes of getting cut, they'll probably suspend him again.

At the end of the day, the Chiefs would at worst be required to pay Johnson if they lose the inevitable grievances.  But if they cut him, they'll pay him, too.  So why not come up with a way to pay him and keep him from getting to the playoffs -- and possibly winning a Super Bowl -- with a team that would be able to provide him with the kind of blocking that would allow Johnson to make good use of the remaining tread on his tires?

The possibility that Johnson decided to act up now in the hopes of getting cut will likely make the Chiefs even less inclined to give L.J. his way.  The only question is whether and to what extent the Chiefs are willing to tolerate the distraction.
 
Since there's no concern that any distraction will keep them from qualifying for the postseason, look for the Chiefs to dig in their heels, if necessary.
 

At a time when the NFL and its players union can't seem to agree on anything, they've finally agreed on something.

Per a league source, the two sides recently have come together on a "side letter" that formalizes the procedures that will apply if a team has a swine flu outbreak that requires the short-term call up of members of the practice squad.

The agreement, formalized on October 22, permits teams with six or more cases of confirmed or suspected swine flu to bring up members of the practice squad, pay them a game check based on the minimum salary based on their years of service, and then send them back down to the practice squad without exposing them to waivers.

And if the player suffers an injury during the game, he'll continue to be paid at the same rate until he is again healthy.

To implement these procedures, all practice-squad players have signed an addendum to their current contracts, which means they won't have to sign a new contract if/when they are needed on short notice.

It's hardly a groundbreaking negotiation, but it shows that, despite the rhetoric and chest thumping, these two parties can still communicate efficiently and effectively when needed.  Let's hope they direct some of that to the much bigger issues that need to be resolved in order to avoid a work stoppage in 2011.

Oklahoma State Dez Bryant, a day after being suspended for the rest of 2009 for lying to the NCAA, won't say whether he'll give up his 2010 eligibility and enter the draft.

But he doesn't have to.  Given the cash grab that underclassmen will be making in 2010 due to fears of a lockout or an NBA-style rookie wage scale in 2011 and his experiences with the entity that will be able to screw up his resumed college career in 2010, Bryant will be making the jump.

As a league source reminds us, even if Bryant says now that he plans to make the jump to the NFL, no agents are permitted to communicate with the underclassman until his team's final regular-season game, the team's conference title game, or December 1, whichever is latest.

(In contrast, agents may communicate with Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford now.  Even though he has one year of eligibility remaining, he is in his fourth year with the program.)

Meanwhile, yours truly invaded CFT last night to post a quick blurb regarding the NCAA's motivations in suspending Bryant for the balance of the year.

Put simply, the NCAA has limited investigative powers, and no control over those who don't fall within the scope of its jurisdiction.  So when someone within that jurisdiction doesn't tell the truth, it becomes even harder for the NCAA to do its job.