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!

     

Understanding the NFL, NFLPA, CBA and the Lockout Year

mountainpantherfan

Recommended Posts

panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

The owners are the NFL. You can say that the NFL is separate and a non profit but that is semantics. The NFL is essentially the owners. Who votes on rule changes every year? The owners. Who is the chief spokeperson for the owners? Roger Goddell the comissioner. The NFLPA is a labor union but do you think they are separate from the players. Goddell doesnt mediate between the owners and the players. He interprets the rules and enforces them. He is voted into his position by the owners. And he serves at their will.

If you listen to Smith he says the owners want to scale back to 41% but the owners counsel, Pash says it is more like 9%. He predicts that as revenues increase as they have every year, the players pool of money will rise just not as fast as it has since the last CBA agreement. He also said that they want the players to put in a pot of money 1 billion to help refurbish stadiums and for investments in the league (won't ever happen given employees rarely share in employer costs unless they have an ownership stake). Here is a good discussion.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81636c80&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

If there is a lockout, the players won't strike. They will decertify the union like they did before under Upshaw. Here is a breakdown by the guy who contended with Smith for the head of the NFLPA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wm-david-cornwell-sr/there-will-not-be-a-locko_b_463803.html

The TV contract guarantees to pay the owners 5 billion dollars even if there is a lockout. The thought is that money would have to be paid back. I have seen no clause or provision that says we would be playing with scrubs or that they would play with replacement players. We did that back in 1987 when the players last went on strike but wouldn't do it again.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/02/nfl-tv-money-has-to-be-repaid-in-the-event-of-a-lockout/1

Nothing above indicates anything about whether Richardson is having a firesale or not having one. He is dumping veteran and older players while trimming millions off the books. It is hard to say what it means until we see what he picks up and how his total payroll shakes out for the year.

And he is not putting the good of the league ahead of his team. His team is the league and what is good for the league is good for his team. They are essentially one and the same. What hurts the league hurts the team and vice versa. Think of each team as a division within a giant corporation. They all can vary in their profitability but they are all dependent one each other and part of the bigger whole. Anything Richardson does for the NFL is because he will benefit directly as a part of the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mesmer Newbie

Mesmer

Posted
Posted

The one thing for sure about a lockout year? I can promise you that David Stern and Gary Bettman are praying for it lol.

The NFL is a monster, and it would be very interesting (shitty, absolutely losing nfl football for even just a year would suck) to see what happens if this were to go into effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadHatter Rookie

MadHatter

Posted
Posted

what i dont understand is how can the owners opt out their contract early without any punishment.antiono gates said the same thing in usa today last week.

Because both sides agreed to this under the old CBA. The players signed up for this...they just did not expect it to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadHatter Rookie

MadHatter

Posted
Posted

ok. here goes. when he said scrubs he was talking about players coming in after the lockout for owner to satisfy there tv contracts. i for one will be trying out for the defensive back or safety. :D

this is not the movie "The Replacements".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadHatter Rookie

MadHatter

Posted
Posted

wouldnt it be awesome though!!!!:D

i was actually explaining to les grosman why i said he lacked reading comprehension.

I would rather have no football....and not have to pay for my season tickets.

I would hate to pay full price for season tickets and watch replacement players.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mountainpantherfan Newbie

mountainpantherfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Great additional info P55! I was only coming from the standpoint of what is seen as legal. Like you said, the NFL and the owners are one in the same but legally...Actually, there are several court cases across the country that pending of the outcome could change the way the government views the NFL as a non-profit organization.

And you are correct, the third option for the players would be to decertify but really that would be the same as striking as it still would mean no games until a new CBA is worked out. The only think I disagree with you on is the TV contracts. The way I read it says that the money would be paid back if there were no games. Putting games on with scrubs would still allow the owners to keep that money and as I said in the OP the networks would then have to go after the players to get money back. Very complicated stuff but if the owners get paid that money then why would a owner have to have a fire sale when he is going to make money in 2011 no matter what?

But honestly, thanks for adding all of that info. I was just seeing too many people making comments that showed they had no idea what was really going on. I don't care if we (me and you) disagree on finer points but there needs to be a basic understanding first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...