Wilbon on PTI just said...

[Wither]

I read somewhere that Goodell has ruled out using replacements like they did in 87.

Just wait until they see my moves!

[GSO_Pantherz]

Sign Shane Falco!!

[thunderraiden]

It's not a strike

Do you even bother to read before you post?

There not. They got a great deal under the old CBA. The owners are the ones backing out of the deal and now forcing a new one to be settled on.

The players don't want any changes to the old CBA and would be just as happy to see it stay the same (aside from the fact the old CBA gave the league the right to go to a 18 game regular season, players aren't mentioning that one right now.) The owners are the ones that want changes made. The dumb move was that the NFLPA gave the owners the right to do this in the old CBA. The players were banking on the "fact" that owners would allow an uncapped year in fear of never again having the cap.

The players and the NFLPA took a deal back in 2006 that really set them up come 2011. The owners hold all the cards right now and the players gave them to the owners.

There's not going to be a lockout by the way. Either the owner will make their "best, last offer" or the NFLPA will decertify. Eitherway a lockout will not happen.

This is the case. Everyone read this to understand whats going on. There will be no lockout. They will force the union to strike to make the union look like the bad guys to the fans.

[Zod]

I think if there is a lockout there should be a blue collar league. Men who actually live in that city doing everyday blue collar jobs but gearing up on Sundays to play ball. Imagine that, your landscaper or roofer, or tile layer out there playing for the Carolinas on TV.

Honestly, I would watch it.

[riddel]

i think if there is a lockout there should be a blue collar league. Men who actually live in that city doing everyday blue collar jobs but gearing up on sundays to play ball. Imagine that, your landscaper or roofer, or tile layer out there playing for the carolinas on tv.

Honestly, i would watch it.

xfl

[riddel]

The biggest myth right now in the NFL is that the only option for the owners is to force a lockout. That is not the case.

The owners and claim that the negociations have stalled (and the NFLPA is playing right into the owners hands on this one) and present to the Labor board their "last, best offer". At this point in time the NFLPA will have two options, accept the deal or strike.

If they strike, the owners will use replacement players just like they did in 87. It's not about needing to use them to make money off the games being played, it's the fact that America will watch them and thus the use of them will become a negociating weapon in bringing down the NFLPA.

The players never had much of a chance in this. They are placing all of their hopes in that the US court system will defy all past rulings and see the NFL as one corperation and a group of owners. Thats the only way the players will get what they want and those chances are not really likely.

Very close, but the players do have a chance if they can prove to the courts that the owners didn't satisfy the good faith bargaining obligation, which is reasonable efforts demonstrated by both management and labor during labor negotiations. Boulwarism is a "take it aor leave it" bargaining technique and if the players union can show they were held in an untenable position of not being able to negotiate, then the act is illegal. Secondly if they players can show that surface bargaining or the owner is simply going through the motions of negotiatiing withoug any real intention of arriving at an agreement, then the owners are in violation. Lastly, if the players OR owners can show delaying tactics to avoid a collective bargaining then either party is in violation.

The NFL has a vested interest in placing an agreement on the table, now whether that agreement is in good faith is a completely different story. If the NFL can place the last offer on the table and prove that it is in "good faith", then the players don't have a leg to stand on. They can strike, but the owners then have the right to replace the players and satisfy their TV contract obligations. If the NFL doesn't satisfty their obligations, then they will face lawsuits from the TV companies. I do not know if the TV contracts state that replacement players are unacceptable, but unless those contracts read that way, then the owners can replace whoever they want once a strike takes place.

[Highlandfire]

"There will be football next year, even if they have to put scrubs on the field."

What the hell is he talking about? If the owners follow through with the lockout, there will be no football.

there will be NO LOCKOUT. None, zero, zip.

[cookinbrak]

I think if there is a lockout there should be a blue collar league. Men who actually live in that city doing everyday blue collar jobs but gearing up on Sundays to play ball. Imagine that, your landscaper or roofer, or tile layer out there playing for the Carolinas on TV.

Honestly, I would watch it.

So would all of the PSL owners. They'd have to, whether they like it or not.

[carolinarolls]

I welcome the scrubs. I will watch regardless.

[mountainpantherfan]

Very close, but the players do have a chance if they can prove to the courts that the owners didn't satisfy the good faith bargaining obligation, which is reasonable efforts demonstrated by both management and labor during labor negotiations. Boulwarism is a "take it aor leave it" bargaining technique and if the players union can show they were held in an untenable position of not being able to negotiate, then the act is illegal. Secondly if they players can show that surface bargaining or the owner is simply going through the motions of negotiatiing withoug any real intention of arriving at an agreement, then the owners are in violation. Lastly, if the players OR owners can show delaying tactics to avoid a collective bargaining then either party is in violation.

The NFL has a vested interest in placing an agreement on the table, now whether that agreement is in good faith is a completely different story. If the NFL can place the last offer on the table and prove that it is in "good faith", then the players don't have a leg to stand on. They can strike, but the owners then have the right to replace the players and satisfy their TV contract obligations. If the NFL doesn't satisfty their obligations, then they will face lawsuits from the TV companies. I do not know if the TV contracts state that replacement players are unacceptable, but unless those contracts read that way, then the owners can replace whoever they want once a strike takes place.

The problem is that the NFLPA has made the case for owners. The NFLPA has all but said "We are not doing a deal until after you lock out." It's the players who have anticipated a lockout foolishly and played right into the owners hands.

All the players hopes rest on the court system.

[Floppin]

The NFLPA has wavered from the "Code of Good Faith" as it pretains to The Employment Relations Act of 2000, in more ways than one, which can severely weaken any stance they may seek in a court of law.

http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/goodfaith/code.html

[riddel]

The problem is that the NFLPA has made the case for owners. The NFLPA has all but said "We are not doing a deal until after you lock out." It's the players who have anticipated a lockout foolishly and played right into the owners hands.

All the players hopes rest on the court system.

Not really. Bargaining requires concessions. If the owners are unwilling to make any concessions and are simply jamming their new CBA offer down the players throats, then that would be a clear case of boulwarism. The owners are the ones who have threatened the lockout, but as you stated earlier, I don't believe they will go through with it. They will simply push their deal through as a "final offer" and make the players strike. If the courts find that the owners used the "take it or leave it" technique, then the owners could be in violation of the "good faith test" and the courts may rule in favor of the players.

The owners can not simply say take 18 games, 18% reduction in pay, ect ect....they must make an attempt to bargain with the players per the National Labor Relations Act and enforced by the National Labor Relations Board.

[riddel]

The NFLPA has wavered from the "Code of Good Faith" as it pretains to The Employment Relations Act of 2000, in more ways than one, which can severely weaken any stance they may seek in a court of law.

http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/goodfaith/code.html

The "Nature of the Duty" or the the good faith efforts test, which was established by the Wagner Act (Nationa labor Relations Act) states the following:

1) Active participation in deliberations with an intention to find a basis for agreement

2) A sincere effort to reach a common ground.

3) Binding agreements on mutually acceptable terms.

The totality of conduct test states that, "if in total conduct a party has negotiated with an open mind in a sincere attempt to reach an agreement, isolated acts will not prove bad faith. However, actions that are not per se unfair labor practices may indicate bad-faith bargaining when viewed in the totality of the bargaining process." This does not mean either side must concede or agree but rather to show reaonable intent to set the terms of employment in a collective bargaining agreement.

I believe the players have an excellent case, if the owners choose to jam their CBA down the players throats and push the players into a strike. The owners must make an effort to meet in the middle. I haven't seen them make a concession yet. This will be very interesting, because Goodall things he can force the players hands come March 4 and he may find out that by doing this, the owners have committed an illegal act called boulwarism.

[Floppin]

The "Nature of the Duty" or the the good faith efforts test, which was established by the Wagner Act (Nationa labor Relations Act) states the following:

1) Active participation in deliberations with an intention to find a basis for agreement

2) A sincere effort to reach a common ground.

3) Binding agreements on mutually acceptable terms.

The totality of conduct test states that, "if in total conduct a party has negotiated with an open mind in a sincere attempt to reach an agreement, isolated acts will not prove bad faith. However, actions that are not per se unfair labor practices may indicate bad-faith bargaining when viewed in the totality of the bargaining process." This does not mean either side must concede or agree but rather to show reaonable intent to set the terms of employment in a collective bargaining agreement.

I believe the players have an excellent case, if the owners choose to jam their CBA down the players throats and push the players into a strike. The owners must make an effort to meet in the middle. I haven't seen them make a concession yet. This will be very interesting, because Goodall things he can force the players hands come March 4 and he may find out that by doing this, the owners have committed an illegal act called boulwarism.

The other side of the coin, however, is that by refusing to meet and negotiate the players are breaching their obligation for a "sincere attempt to reach an agreement", hence forcing the owners to force the last best made offer on the table.