Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TruCatzFan

According to Adam Schefter...

93 posts in this topic

beginning to get worried the owners will just go, "ok, we'll operate as 32 separate teams so we are no longer a monopoly." would destroy the game.

No offense but the fact that so many fans are just now only "begining to get worried" about this outcome is sad. And for those who think this isn't an option are just fooling themselves.

After this ruling, that in all honesty was the correct ruling, the only option for the owners may be to stop acting as one league. The current CBA just isn't sustainable for the owners and the players are unwilling to give back anything they got in the last CBA. The majority of owners probably can operate better without profit sharing and a salary floor/cap. The ones that can't will have to relocate or the league may have to retract. With LA not having a team and the want to expand the NFL into forgien markets, relocation will probably be very doable.

Keep an eye on what happens in the Minnesota legislature as well as the courts. The Vikings simply do not have the capital to build a new stadium. The only option now is for the tax payer to front the bill. If they say no, the Vikings will be leaving Minnesota and IMO that, along with this ruling, will be the start of the great migration of NFL teams to more sports friendly states/cities/regions. Jacksonville, Buffalo, Cinncy, New Orleans, Carolina, Tampa, San Diego, St. Louis, Indy, Oakland and San Fransisco would all be likey teams to relocate due to a NFL without profit sharing. Probably only 5 or6 would actually relocate as some teams like Carolina may be able to sustain without a salary floor but only time will tell with those teams. A team like Buffalo would relocate to Toranto by 2012. The Vikings would also be in LA by 2012.

Contrary to popular belief the NFL could be successful without profit sharing and a salary cap/floor but the problem is that a lot of these smaller market teams just could not sustain themselves. I think ideally the best makeup for this type of NFL would be 24 teams instead of 32. The players would also like this model since there would be more money for them (the ones at the top I mean.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clausen needs to be in the damn film room at six am

He should've been pulling a Rudy and sleeping there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about that lawsuit was designed to change the draft or free agency?

Pulled directly from the Q&A pdf sent around to players to explain the lawsuit. This is from the opening summary paragraph.

"In, addition, the suit challenges the imposition by the NFL of any anticompetitive restrictions after the lockout is lifted, such as any salary cap, rookie wage scale or unreasonable restrictions on free agency."

The rest can be found here

http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2011/04/22/class-counsel-crafts-a-brady-v-nfl-qa/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as in, a year with no salary cap and no salary floor... I dunno, I could see that as destroying parity in the league, along with the fact there may not be another draft after 2011. hopefully that won't be the case.

And in that year one of the teams with the lowest payroll won the super bowl. No teams went insane with free agent spending.

I was under the impression it *was* a monopoly but it was exempt from most antitrust issues unless it was expressly hindering football business (like the UFL or XFL) somehow.

well technically yeah it is but legally it's not.

they got an anti trust exemption because they were collectively bargaining with the Players association. This gives the players protection with the form of the union, and allows the owners to avoid collusion charges (ie salary cap, trading players, draft, etc).

this was all contingent upon the players being in a union, however. after the owners blew up the CBA (the one that helped make the nfl the most profitable sports league in human history) they effectively lost their anti trust exemption and the courts backed that up.

hmm, shows me getting info from articles and interviews on PFT, guess I'm wrong. There was a big thing on PFT not long ago that made me think that was Kessler's goal (but not necessarily the players) (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/22/many-players-apparently-dont-realize-that-kessler-is-attacking-the-draft/)

i'm not going to read a pft article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DeAngelo Hall:

I wonder what percentage of the Players feel this way?

Should we listen to a guy who is consider overrated?? Interesting! :eek:

And about the news.......

ScoobyRuh-Roh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mountainpantherfan, I get it... you are completely right in your first paragraph!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulled directly from the Q&A pdf sent around to players to explain the lawsuit. This is from the opening summary paragraph.

"In, addition, the suit challenges the imposition by the NFL of any anticompetitive restrictions after the lockout is lifted, such as any salary cap, rookie wage scale or unreasonable restrictions on free agency."

The rest can be found here

http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2011/04/22/class-counsel-crafts-a-brady-v-nfl-qa/

in the same pdf at the bottom they explain it's just against a rookie wage scale.

also i said salary cap earlier, i meant free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we listen to a guy who is consider overrated?? Interesting! :eek:

As always, a top notch post.

Whether D Hall is overrated or not (and who really thinks he's that good?), he is still a well known player. I really don't care how good of a player he is... but isn't he basically saying what all of us deep down want to believe?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, undrafted free agent market will be open for business beginning when draft ends if no stay is granted. Fascinating.

Tom Curran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also it should be pointed out that any noise a player rep makes against salary caps, whether for teams or for drafts, is just hot air intended to create leverage in a situation where they originally had none.

even the players union wants a salary cap on the draft, and no one thinks that taking away the salary cap will lead to some horrible dystopia where peyton manning is paid 120 million a game and everyone else gets peanuts.

there will always be horrible owners that will overpay, but those owners exist now. football isn't like basketball or baseball where you can just buy a team, regardless of its economic structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt this means anything except that the owners will have to give more up than they had hoped for. It won't be the end of the NFL or everyone acting as their own team independent of a league. Teams made money under the ols system and will keep making money in the future.

As for not using the weight room it is likely because no players are under contract since there isn't a CBA. Therefore you can't risk injuries to players who are not under contract who are using the facilities with your blessing. Until this all gets settled you can't do much of anything, I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the same pdf at the bottom they explain it's just against a rookie wage scale.

also i said salary cap earlier, i meant free agency.

Actually no, as the PDF is just an Q&A, the last question in the document is specifically directed at rookie players entering the league, hence the direct response to rookie wage scale. No where does it say that it is their singular goal concerning anticompetitive initiatives.

Regardless, it's a minor point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites