Lockout : next important date = April 6

[Zod]

On April 6 the federal judge hears the case involving the lockout is legal.

The players are arguing now there is no union so individuals have the right to work. They claim by forcing the players back into collective bargaining talks the owners are forcing them to join a union, which is illegal.

The owners are claiming that the NFLPA s still a union and that their decertification was only a way to bring the issues to the court, and once settled will be back to business as usual.

The court sided with the players the last time this happened.

[Highlandfire]

Ok so help me here, the players want it both ways? They don't want to be a union so no lockout meaning they get paychecks, benefits etc. But at the same time they are filing an antitrust suit to keep owners from putting rules in place for free agency, contract signing, cap etc?

No way, can't have it both ways. I think what they want is to have no cap, no restrictions at all and have Jones, Kraft and Snider sign all the stud players to 3 teams or so and everyone else get poo. Problem is when other owners don't pay what the big 3 do we will have even more suits saying claiming collusion because the other teams can't afford to pay what the big 3 do. This will = teams shutting down meaning less jobs for players to have.

I don't think the courts go the players way this time, I just can't see it with Doty off the case. They are a union, they had no basis what so ever to decertify and I think the judge rules its a sham and the lockout is in place. If they do the NFLPA will be back to the table in no time and we move on.

I am still wondering this though. 1800 members in the NFLPA right? What if 1500 of the lesser paid player say 'enough of this bull poo' and get together and form a new union? They go to the owners and accept a deal and are ready to play ball. What happens to the 300 rich players like Manning etal? That would be a real kick in the nuts for the top end players wouldn't it? :-) I have a feeling that is what is going to happen, or something like it, shortly after a ruling for the owners came down.

[Pantherman]

MY opinion even if the players do win this case on April 6 and Temp. stop the lockout. All the owners have to do is appeal it and the lockout will keep going. The owners will fight this all the way. That or until the players get tired of been poor or not having pay checks coming every week. Those players will fold and give up and say lets sign the damn CBA and get it over with. I don't side with neither group now. Because all this is getting out hand and it just a bunch of wealthy guys fighting over money. Some players might not be as rich. But aleast half the football players are wealthy. But in the end the owners I think will win when these players who don't get paid much each week will fold and give in. Guys like Tsutt or Mike Goodson or AE. Guys like that play for the league Mini. :dupe:

[panthers55]

If there is no union and therefore and each player is on their own, then theoretically the owners should be able to just negotiate with each of them independently or tell them they can work at whatever price they negotiate. In other words no CBA and everyone is a free agent. It seems to me that if there is no union and no lockout, the flip side is that everything the union negotiated or the rights and salaries of the players no longer applies as well. Frankly I don't know how they benefits the union at this point.

[riddel]

The owners can not lock out a union that doesn't exist. The judge will file in favor of the players and the 2010 CBA will be set in place until the owners and individual players antitrust lawsuits are settled. There is no union and can not be a union for several years now. Unions are not allowed to decertify and simply recertify a couple months later. Once a union has decertified they have to wait several years before a new union can be formed.

What may happen is the 2010 CBA goes into effect until a new union can be created, which would be several years or once the antitrust law suits are resolved, the players/owners will negotiate directly and there will be no union (richest owners win superbowl every year)

[Highlandfire]

The owners can not lock out a union that doesn't exist. The judge will file in favor of the players and the 2010 CBA will be set in place until the owners and individual players antitrust lawsuits are settled. There is no union and can not be a union for several years now. Unions are not allowed to decertify and simply recertify a couple months later. Once a union has decertified they have to wait several years before a new union can be formed.

What may happen is the 2010 CBA goes into effect until a new union can be created, which would be several years or once the antitrust law suits are resolved, the players/owners will negotiate directly and there will be no union (richest owners win superbowl every year)

What I see happening is what I described earlier. The top rich teams will have all the talent. The others won't be able to pay for top talent so their teams do poo. and When they can't pay top talent players sue for collusion saying they schemed against them to not pay blah blah blah.

Its all BS. I say shut the league down for a year, reopen under a different business model.

[riddel]

Its all BS. I say shut the league down for a year, reopen under a different business model.

Yeah..yeah....I've heard that ridiculous statement several times.

The NFL does not have the authority to shut it down. The federal government is involved and they will not allow a $9 billion dollar industry simply shut the doors for a year, because they don't know how to split the pie.

That is exactly why the players are in court today, because the owners think they control the NFL, when if fact, it is bigger than the owners. The residual effects of shutting down a $9 billion dollar industry could be around $50 billion to the US economy (Lost jobs, homes, hospitality, tax revenue, airlines, cars, retail, advertising, TV contracts...the list goes on and on) The feds are going to get involved and then Richardson will learn who really controls his fate.

[Mr. Scot]

Not sure how the ruling will go, but I take the whole "there's no union" claim about as seriously as I do mobsters saying there's no mafia.

[Tom]

Section 3. CBA Expiration:

(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a ma- jority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining sta- tus of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termina- tion by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.

Not necessarily indicative of the way it will go, but it looks the Owners waived the right to question any decertification of the NFLPA.

[TylerVagyler]

I wish the players would go ahead and give in. It's gonna happen eventually.

[JGib23]

Not necessarily indicative of the way it will go, but it looks the Owners waived the right to question any decertification of the NFLPA.

You missed the key point, the players decertified before the CBA expired, which nullifies that clause.

[JGib23]

Some of the qoutes by the players are just idiotic!

Decertification, the league says, proved the players did not want to negotiate in good faith and is a step used whenever it serves the union's purposes at the bargaining table.

The 57-page court filing includes statements from the players themselves that the league says backs its argument.

"We decertified so that we could fight them from locking us out and go back to work," Jeff Saturday , the NFLPA vice president, said the day after the March 11 decertification, according to the court filing. "And we feel like ... we can still negotiate this anytime you want."

According to the filing, NFLPA president Kevin Mawae said in a Sept. 29 interview that decertification was an "ace in our sleeve" that worked in the late 1980s in favor of the players.

"It's been a part of the union strategy since I've been in the league," Mawae said.

The league also cited comments from Baltimore Ravens receiver Derrick Mason nine days before the union was dissolved.

"So are we a union? Per se, no. But we're still going to act as if we are one," Mason, an NFLPA player representative, said on March 2, according to the court filing.

[Tom]

You missed the key point, the players decertified before the CBA expired, which nullifies that clause.

Yeah I did. I was thinking the CBA had expired but the union decertified about eight hours before expiration.

[Hoenheim]

to hell with the damned lockout!