What do the players hope to win in court?

[Highlandfire]

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!

Well they can cry collusion all they want, they have the right to say 'we aren't paying x % of our money to you anymore'. That's all there is to it.

[riddel]

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.

Well apparently, your good business sense, includes collusion.

[riddel]

Well they can cry collusion all they want, they have the right to say 'we aren't paying x % of our money to you anymore'. That's all there is to it.

say wuuuut?

Dude defined collusion and said the NFL wasn't a part of it, dude was wrong. What are you talking about again?

[Highlandfire]

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.

Winner winner chicken dinner! now someone else says what I have thought all along. The NFL can in fact stop doing business and close up shop and reopen as a new business under new articles and rules. Where else are the players going to go? There is no other league, it has been tried.

[Highlandfire]

say wuuuut?

Dude defined collusion and said the NFL wasn't a part of it, dude was wrong. What are you talking about again?

It was good business to put that money aside. You can't tell me if the NFLPA couldn't have done something similar they wouldn't have?

Look the opt out clause was agree to by both parties, the owners opted out. No court, not congress, no one is going to force the NFL to keep paying players the % they are, they just legally can't.

[riddel]

Winner winner chicken dinner! now someone else says what I have thought all along. The NFL can in fact stop doing business and close up shop and reopen as a new business under new articles and rules. Where else are the players going to go? There is no other league, it has been tried.

Better do some homework before you jump on this bandwagon. You can't just close up shop unless you can show finacial distress and by show, I mean open up the books and show it in a court of law. If this were the case, then every business would close the doors on contract holders and reopen with new contracts. You can't just move next door, because you don't like your contracts, you have to show how the contracts have made it impossible for you to continue or you could sell......that's a great option...all the owners that don't like the deal can sell and the ones who are making a profit can continue with new owners who's goal is to make profits and win...

[riddel]

It was good business to put that money aside. You can't tell me if the NFLPA couldn't have done something similar they wouldn't have?

Look the opt out clause was agree to by both parties, the owners opted out. No court, not congress, no one is going to force the NFL to keep paying players the % they are, they just legally can't.

The collusion part has to do with the TV contracts. They are illegal and the fact that the NFL set them up the way they did, shows bad intent on the NFL side. It shows they were preparing for a lockout. You can't do that and bargain in good faith.

I don't know what you're talking about with the opt out clause. The NFL can opt out, but they must still bargain in good faith, how is that being done, if they intend to lock out the players unless they get their demands? Bargaining is give and take, not take and take.

[Snake]

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.

Not really, it just means the NFLPA can dig in longer. Still this ruling will be over turned on a appeal, So it will be back to square one.

[Highlandfire]

Not really, it just means the NFLPA can dig in longer. Still this ruling will be over turned on a appeal, So it will be back to square one.

Exactly. Look its being reported they are extending the deadline that means both are hopefully saying POP and pulling their heads out of their asses. Even if the NFLPA wins, they lose. They still have to come back to the table and they still are going to take a paycut

[blackcatgrowl]

The collusion part has to do with the TV contracts. They are illegal and the fact that the NFL set them up the way they did, shows bad intent on the NFL side. It shows they were preparing for a lockout. You can't do that and bargain in good faith.

I don't know what you're talking about with the opt out clause. The NFL can opt out, but they must still bargain in good faith, how is that being done, if they intend to lock out the players unless they get their demands? Bargaining is give and take, not take and take.

They are illegal according to one judge's opinion. An opinion which I'm sure will be appealed.

Again, not getting into a legal debate, but you haven't "proven" the TV contracts are illegal or even a form of collusion, apart from citing one judge's opinion. Which could in all likelyhood, be overturned.

[riddel]

They are illegal according to one judge's opinion. An opinion which I'm sure will be appealed.

Again, not getting into a legal debate, but you haven't "proven" the TV contracts are illegal or even a form of collusion, apart from citing one judge's opinion. Which could in all likelyhood, be overturned.

This is not some random judge. He is the same judge that has ruled over the majority of NLF labor disputes....

see link

http://www.google.com/search?q=David+Doty+Judge+history+with+NFL&hl=en&prmd=ivnso&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=tONvTcDnJ8PflgfLkunnBw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEoQ5wIwCg

[panthers55]

That wasn't clear in his post.

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

If you have been following along the players are accusing the owners and league of giving the TV broadcasters a good deal in the past for consideration if there was a lockout. In other words we won't ask for as much money as we deserve as long as you agree to give us 5 billion if there is a lockout. The players are saying they should have shared in the profits that could have made in past years if the league had gotten all they could have. They colluded with the broadcasters to cut out the players in this deal regarding the lockout money. The players want some of that money.

As for the monopoly and antitrust thing, the courts already ruled that the NFl was a monopoly in the apparel case last year and ruled against the league in 1987 during the last work stoppage. Dody was the judge then as well. So it is clear the players will win in court so it is in the best interest of the owners to negotiate this out of court.

[blackcatgrowl]

This is not some random judge. He is the same judge that has ruled over the majority of NLF labor disputes....

see link

http://www.google.com/search?q=David+Doty+Judge+history+with+NFL&hl=en&prmd=ivnso&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=tONvTcDnJ8PflgfLkunnBw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEoQ5wIwCg

You've proven my point. David S. Doty, a judge who has a long history of ruling against the NFL, is ruling against them again. Predictable biased ruling. And that still doesn't "prove" the NFL is guilty of collusion.

In fact, the NFL has asked him to recuse himself from cases involving players on the grounds of bias. Why he continues to be involved in their cases, and is now involved in this CBA issue, throws up some big red flags imho.

I'd say someone has positioned him into the system against the NFL, or has otherwise bribed him for a political agenda.

[panthers55]

The old "this is their business and they can do what they want" would apply if there were any competition and there were a free market. But the NFl is the only business which buys and sells professional football athletes. So they are a monopoly and subject to laws and oversight just like ATT used to be before they broke up.

The NFL is a monopoly and subject to antitrust rules and other oversights. So as such apparently they can't just say this is the way it is, take it or leave it. Apparently.