Decertification

[ncbobcat]

"If you were a player and stood to "possibly" make less money would you interpret financial records in favor of the owners? "

Yes, if through a process of negotiation the hit was considerably less than what was first offered and "gained" some revenue back from that original offer...in addition to the perks that was left on the table.

[Happy Panther]

Jerry was leading the negotiations for the Owners... they didn't have to.

You reckon he represented all the owners with this fabrication?

His statements were made in a Panthers press conference...

[Anybodyhome]

After 5pm the union could not decertify because the courts would be closed....the current CBA would have expired at 12am.....the players union would not be able to decertify for 6 months once the CBA expired.....they players union waited to the very last minute to decertify....the owners refused to open the books and show a loss....the players union decertified so now the courts will force the owners to show a loss...if the owners don't show a loss, then the entire negotiations were a scam and the owners will lose antitrust lawsuits....somebody better get to cooking the books...quick!

I don't know of a court ruling anywhere, including the Supreme Court that would order a privately owned company to show their books to anyone. There may be some legal machinations that indirectly deal with the owners refusing to bargain openly because they didn't open their books, but to specifically order a privately owned company to make public their financial dealings is a precedent no judge in their right mind would set.

[riddel]

I understand what you are saying. I am saying that legally the owners could claim the same thing. The union had decertified while listening to a new proposal (as per the NY Giants owner). That could be seen as "not in good faith".

If the owners wanted to present a proposal, then they should have done it with ample time for the union to decertify....the owners set the proposal forward with too little time and in many ways stalled the owners in an attempt to prevent the players from being able to decertify and then come 12am, the owners would have been able to lockout the union...now there is no union to lockout....this was a chess match...not checkers...

[rmoneyg35]

Ok they decertified, what does this mean? I don't understand this legal mumbo jumbo.

I think they decertified meaning they broke up the players union so their wasn't a lockout, now what is going to happen next?

[ncbobcat]

After 5pm the union could not decertify because the courts would be closed

Really, even though they filed in Minnesota?

[Jaxel]

You reckon he represented all the owners with this fabrication?

His statements were made in a Panthers press conference...

Was he not the leader of the NFL Owners when he was giving that press conference?

[Cyclonus]

If the owners wanted to present a proposal, then they should have done it with ample time for the union to decertify....the owners set the proposal forward with too little time and in many ways stalled the owners in an attempt to prevent the players from being able to decertify and then come 12am, the owners would have been able to lockout the union...now there is no union to lockout....this was a chess match...not checkers...

No offense man. But you come off as a pro-union guy who can't be impartial at all.

[panthers55]

Furthermore....decertification enables the players to prevent a lockout....meaning the courts will not allow the owners to lockout a union that no longer exists...the players actually did the owners a favor in that now a judge can reinstate the 2010 CBA conditions while the antitrust cases go through the courts...meaning we could have football if the judge finds that it losing the NFL for a season would cause the economy financial hardship....so....we should thank the players....a judge will definately tell them to play to prevent economic distress....

The owners may not lockout, because it is worthless to lockout at this point.....it would only be a formality....who are they locking out? The union no longer exists.

That was what I was wondering. If the union doesn't exist, the owners don't need to lock out anyone. Players are on their own so owners can just proceed under their last best offer. If they don't want to work, then don't come to work.

[ncbobcat]

Why should the players take less money? Someone please tell me why? Because the owners "claim" they are losing money on the deal? SHOW ME! The owners played poker and they lost.....now they will show the courts.

You say the owners played poker. They may have, but you are convinced of it.

I don't know of one company where the owners are in a financial bind and the employees don't have to make any concessions.

That's right, unions don't take pay cuts, only unrepresented citizens.

[OBXPantha]

If the owners wanted to present a proposal, then they should have done it with ample time for the union to decertify....the owners set the proposal forward with too little time and in many ways stalled the owners in an attempt to prevent the players from being able to decertify and then come 12am, the owners would have been able to lockout the union...now there is no union to lockout....this was a chess match...not checkers...

Sure, they probably should have. I'm not taking sides on this. In my mind, Billionaires and Millionaires bickering over money equals pure greed. I'm just saying I can see that the owners may try and say the NFLPA did not negotiate in good faith. That is all I'm saying. And you are right that the players association could claim the same thing against the owners. But I do agree with ANybodyhome that no judge is going to make an employer show their employees their financial records so the the employees can use it against them.

[blackcatgrowl]

If the owners wanted to present a proposal, then they should have done it with ample time for the union to decertify....the owners set the proposal forward with too little time and in many ways stalled the owners in an attempt to prevent the players from being able to decertify and then come 12am, the owners would have been able to lockout the union...now there is no union to lockout....this was a chess match...not checkers...

"Was" a chess match? The game's hardly over.

In the end, the owners are the ones who make the rules. If the NFL is told to pay their players X number of dollars, and they don't make the profit they want, they could, in theory dissolve the NFL as a league.

Yes, that's what's at stake here. It's happened time and again in the U.S. The government/courts tells a business owner "You're going to pay your employee's this much money." Then they look at their books and see they aren't making what they want in profit, they'll fuging close up shop or find another source of labor.

It's happened with the textile industry.

It's happened with the automotive industry.

Now, it COULD happen with the NFL.

A big factor for the state of our economy was the allowance of aggressive union court and legislation tactics. Now it's manifest in our country's favorite sport. Just look at the textile industry for a worst case scenario. The U.S. nearly doesn't have one anymore.

[rmoneyg35]

I still don't understand, what is going to happen now? what plans can be made for the NFL to exist next season?

[Grammer]

Interesting article here:

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

According to this guy (who clearly knows a shitload more about labor law than I do) there will be no lockout ...

The owners can declare an impasse and "unilaterally impose new rules for wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment that will be, as required by labor law, substantially similar to the last proposal made to the NFLPA prior to negotiations reaching impasse."

They will then be hit with antitrust lawsuits that will take, according to this guy, five years litigate while continuing to play football under the unilaterally imposed more owner-friendly pay scale.

As the litigation progresses, they try to make a deal.