Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What do the players hope to win in court?


Highlandfire

Recommended Posts

Ok they decertify tonight, nothing happens till the owners decide to try and have free agency etc. At which time they will file an anti trust/ collusion suit.

Ok some folks on another board says the courts will fast track the lawsuits. I say bull poo. Any lawyer worth his salt can drag these out for a year.

But lets say the courts rule collusion then what? Nothing. Ok you win. I guess the guys under contract can play but those as free agents can't. By winning collusion you block free agency essentially screwing your fellow players in the NFL. BTW those that are franchise players, well they can't sign contracts either since there is no CBA so...

Those who are hoping franchise tags are dropped so they can become free agents, well how can you with teams not having the ability to?

As for as the courts, they can't force the NFL to pay anyone a certain amount so that is moot.

Bottom line they need to cut the bull poo, and sit down and negotiate out how big a pay cut they are going to take (and they are going to take one) and get it over with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. D Smith has political aspirations and that is all there is to it. He never wanted to negotiate, he wants to crush the NFL and make a name for himself. All he is doing is hurting the players. I feel the NFL can hands down prove the NFLPA esp. Smith never tried to negotiate in good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. D Smith has political aspirations and that is all there is to it. He never wanted to negotiate, he wants to crush the NFL and make a name for himself. All he is doing is hurting the players. I feel the NFL can hands down prove the NFLPA esp. Smith never tried to negotiate in good faith.

Totally agree.

Unfortunately, I fear the courts are Smith's battleground. He's an established Federal lawyer, with ties to some really powerful people. I believe the NFL could produce a video of him saying directly that he'll never agree to a contract, but it would get thrown out on a technicality or even just simply ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree.

Unfortunately, I fear the courts are Smith's battleground. He's an established Federal lawyer, with ties to some really powerful people. I believe the NFL could produce a video of him saying directly that he'll never agree to a contract, but it would get thrown out on a technicality or even just simply ignored.

Dude. Richardson announced to on March 2010 to all the NFL owners, that they were going to take back the NFL from the players and lock them out if they would not agree to the owners terms. The NFL worked for two years to secure a TV contract war chest of $4 billion dollars and they held back $300 million in a savings pool by not offering full medical benefits.

Who exactly is guilty of collusion here and bad faith bargaining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they hope to gain is for the Judge to rule against the TV war chest which strips away the money the owners would receive. The players have won the monopoly argument before and the whole antitrust issue would be in play. What the players want is for the judge to pressure the sides to work something out rather than tie it up in court for a year or two which he will threaten. Last time it went to the courts, the players won free agency and pensions. Dody will be fair to all which frankly means the players will come out on the winning side. The owners will do better to keep this out of court and they know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude. Richardson announced to on March 2010 to all the NFL owners, that they were going to take back the NFL from the players and lock them out if they would not agree to the owners terms. The NFL worked for two years to secure a TV contract war chest of $4 billion dollars and they held back $300 million in a savings pool by not offering full medical benefits.

Who exactly is guilty of collusion here and bad faith bargaining?

How is it collusion exactly, for stakeholders in a league, to determine they want to run a more profitable business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

There's nothing "illegal" about anything Richardson has said. Stupid sounding maybe, but not illegal. And if it were "secretive" then you damn sure wouldn't have his words to quote.

It would be like saying "OMG, the Board of Directors for a major company are colluding to reduce the pay of their employees because they are making a very low profit!"

And as far as bad faith bargaining goes, Smith and NFLPA didn't even come to the table until a couple weeks ago. They had YEARS to start formal negotiations. Instead, we got tweets and reporter interviews stating that the NFLPA was going to sue. Which they did. Which is bad-faith bargaining on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they hope to gain is for the Judge to rule against the TV war chest which strips away the money the owners would receive. The players have won the monopoly argument before and the whole antitrust issue would be in play. What the players want is for the judge to pressure the sides to work something out rather than tie it up in court for a year or two which he will threaten. Last time it went to the courts, the players won free agency and pensions. Dody will be fair to all which frankly means the players will come out on the winning side. The owners will do better to keep this out of court and they know it.

So they want to destroy a major source of income for the owners of the teams? Never mind that could cripple the league? Nevermind that could force some of the less profitable clubs into bankruptcy?

The circumstances of the monopoly argument were different before. There was no existing CBA. There was no legal option out of it for the owners to decide on.

The owners aren't going to be bullied here. Worst case scenario... the NFL as a whole may close shop and re-open as a new league, with predetermined rules on player compensation to give the players the middle finger and establish what they will pay and won't pay.

How would you like that? No more NFL. No more "Super Bowl". No more AFC/NFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they want to destroy a major source of income for the owners of the teams? Never mind that could cripple the league? Nevermind that could force some of the less profitable clubs into bankruptcy?

The circumstances of the monopoly argument were different before. There was no existing CBA. There was no legal option out of it for the owners to decide on.

The owners aren't going to be bullied here. Worst case scenario... the NFL as a whole may close shop and re-open as a new league, with predetermined rules on player compensation to give the players the middle finger and establish what they will pay and won't pay.

How would you like that? No more NFL. No more "Super Bowl". No more AFC/NFC.

No you are missing the point. The owners get paid by the broadcaster if there is a season or not. The players are trying to get some of that. So the collusion is between the league and the networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you are missing the point. The owners get paid by the broadcaster if there is a season or not. The players are trying to get some of that. So the collusion is between the league and the networks.

That wasn't clear in his post.

Judge to rule against the TV war chest which strips away the money the owners would receive.

This sounded like an attempt to block the funds to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it collusion exactly, for stakeholders in a league, to determine they want to run a more profitable business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion.

In a decision that could surpass the collusion rulings against Major League Baseball in terms of its importance to professional sports, and have a significant impact on the NFL’s ongoing labor dispute, U.S. District Judge David Doty has ruled in favor of football’s player’s union, the NFLPA, regarding claims that the league negotiated television contract extensions that were designed as “lockout insurance” as opposed to growing total revenues – revenues that determine the salary cap for the league (read the entire filing by the NFLPA).

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/...l-labor-talks/

There are literally hundreds of pages with articles that detail the collusion charges....but.....I really didn't think linking you to them all was necessary...although if you quote wiki again, I may just quote every collusion article on the internet that shows the owners committed this act against the players union.

UGH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a decision that could surpass the collusion rulings against Major League Baseball in terms of its importance to professional sports, and have a significant impact on the NFL’s ongoing labor dispute, U.S. District Judge David Doty has ruled in favor of football’s player’s union, the NFLPA, regarding claims that the league negotiated television contract extensions that were designed as “lockout insurance” as opposed to growing total revenues – revenues that determine the salary cap for the league (read the entire filing by the NFLPA).

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/...l-labor-talks/

There are literally hundreds of pages with articles that detail the collusion charges....but.....I really didn't think linking you to them all was necessary...although if you quote wiki again, I may just quote every collusion article on the internet that shows the owners committed this act against the players union.

UGH!

I'm not really interested in a legal debate. Suffice to say, if the owners know the NFLPA is hostile, and not willing to negotiate in good faith, I don't see how it's a problem that they are preparing to modify their contracts in the event of a lockout/strike. That's just good business sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...