What do the players hope to win in court?

[Highlandfire]

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

[blackcatgrowl]

I am of the opinion that DeMaurice Smith's motives are not in the best interest of the players or the game, but political.

[Highlandfire]

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.

[blackcatgrowl]

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.

[riddel]

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?

[panthers55]

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.

[blackcatgrowl]

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.

[blackcatgrowl]

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.

[Squirrel]

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.

[blackcatgrowl]

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.

[riddel]

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

[Squirrel]

Well the best thing for us fans is for the judge to rules in the players favor. It will get the owners to negotiate more due to not having that income.

[riddel]

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!

[blackcatgrowl]

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.