According to Adam Schefter...

[pantherfan81]

Additionally, undrafted free agent market will be open for business beginning when draft ends if no stay is granted. Fascinating.

Tom Curran

[Fiz]

also it should be pointed out that any noise a player rep makes against salary caps, whether for teams or for drafts, is just hot air intended to create leverage in a situation where they originally had none.

even the players union wants a salary cap on the draft, and no one thinks that taking away the salary cap will lead to some horrible dystopia where peyton manning is paid 120 million a game and everyone else gets peanuts.

there will always be horrible owners that will overpay, but those owners exist now. football isn't like basketball or baseball where you can just buy a team, regardless of its economic structure.

[panthers55]

I doubt this means anything except that the owners will have to give more up than they had hoped for. It won't be the end of the NFL or everyone acting as their own team independent of a league. Teams made money under the ols system and will keep making money in the future.

As for not using the weight room it is likely because no players are under contract since there isn't a CBA. Therefore you can't risk injuries to players who are not under contract who are using the facilities with your blessing. Until this all gets settled you can't do much of anything, I would think.

[Floppin]

in the same pdf at the bottom they explain it's just against a rookie wage scale.

also i said salary cap earlier, i meant free agency.

Actually no, as the PDF is just an Q&A, the last question in the document is specifically directed at rookie players entering the league, hence the direct response to rookie wage scale. No where does it say that it is their singular goal concerning anticompetitive initiatives.

Regardless, it's a minor point.

[Fiz]

Actually no, as the PDF is just an Q&A, the last question in the document is specifically directed at rookie players entering the league, hence the direct response to rookie wage scale. No where does it say that it is their singular goal concerning anticompetitive initiatives.

Regardless, it's a minor point.

yeah it is because obviously the nflpa doesn't want to get rid of the draft or salary cap.

[mav1234]

And in that year one of the teams with the lowest payroll won the super bowl. No teams went insane with free agent spending.

do you think that would be typical? I thought it was because of the looming CBA/lockout mess, but hey, I could be wrong.

this was all contingent upon the players being in a union, however. after the owners blew up the CBA (the one that helped make the nfl the most profitable sports league in human history) they effectively lost their anti trust exemption and the courts backed that up.

yeah, and now that the players aren't in a union, aren't things like the draft and regulated free agency basically subject to anti trust litigation?

and if the owners really believe the previous CBA was unsustainable, why would they go back to it?

i'm not going to read a pft article

thats fine... Daniel Kaplan, from Sports Business Journal met with Kessler and Kessler said the draft was an antitrust violation... only legal way to handle it would be to have no free agency restrictions, NFL teams should recruit players coming out of college. Gene Upshaw actually kept him in check and kept this from being brought up in the past supposedly.

no one thinks that taking away the salary cap will lead to some horrible dystopia where peyton manning is paid 120 million a game and everyone else gets peanuts.

With no union, how exactly do you prevent that kind of thing from happening?

[mountainpantherfan]

this doesn't make any sense.

so because the courts have ruled against them after they blew up the most profitable sports league in the world they're going to.....blow it up further? because they'll have to go back to the rules used in the horrors of their most profitable season ever in 2010?

Most successful as far as total revenue, yes. Most profitable, not even close. Profit and revenue are two different terms.

Also, the NFL is not a monopoly because of the exempt status that is only recongized because of the previous CBA and the union's willingness to allow that exempt status to stay. The current law suit basicly is now challenging that status.

And yes, this law suit is directly challenaging the draft, salary cap, free agent restrictions and franshise tags. Should the players win this law suit the NFL will be forced, just like Nelson just forced the lockout to end, to stop the draft, salary cap, free agent retrictions and use of franshise tags.

The players have made clear what they want the last CBA or no CBA. The owners have made is clear they will not continue under the last CBA. I'm not sure how anyone can come to a conclusion other than a no CBA NFL.

[Fiz]

do you think that would be typical? I thought it was because of the looming CBA/lockout mess, but hey, I could be wrong.

you cannot buy a team in the nfl. it will always be about player scouting, development, coaching, and random poo that happens you can't predict, and you can already spend as much on coaching and whatever as you want.

yeah, and now that the players aren't in a union, aren't things like the draft and regulated free agency basically subject to anti trust litigation?

they'll most likely just go back to last years rules and just sorta pretend the nflpa (which is now technically a trade association) still exists. it's a status quo decision like i said earlier which are fairly common.

remember this suit was just to end the lockout, nothing (really) more.

and if the owners really believe the previous CBA was unsustainable, why would they go back to it?

court order.

also i firmly believe the nfl owners knew it was sustainable (why wouldn't it be) and just used the pretext of a bad economy whatever the fug that means to try to milk 18 game seasons out of the players but i can't prove that.

With no union, how exactly do you prevent that kind of thing from happening?

buying players doesn't guarantee success. the nfl is much more complicated than baseball and basketball. you have to have players that fit your system, and with the injury situation the way it is it's much better to have depth than splurge at one or two positions.

and even in the mlb where you can buy anyone, it doesn't guarantee success by any stretch of the imagination. nor does a small payroll doom you to failure, as evidenced by the rays or marlins.

[Fiz]

Most successful as far as total revenue, yes. Most profitable, not even close. Profit and revenue are two different terms.

if only there were a way for the nfl to prove this. if...only.....poo, i had it. lost it.

Also, the NFL is not a monopoly because of the exempt status that is only recongized because of the previous CBA and the union's willingness to allow that exempt status to stay. The current law suit basicly is now challenging that status.

the current lawsuit is actually challenging the lockout with a bunch of other poo thrown in.

fun stuff, the owners cannot legally challenge the nflpa because of what they themselves wanted in 1993 lol

Since 1993, the Players and the League have operated under the SSA. Among the negotiated terms of the SSA, the Players, who had de-certified their union in order to bring antitrust claims, acceded to the NFL’s demand that they re-certify their union within 30 days. As an apparent form of quid pro quo for that accession, the NFL agreed to waive any right in the future to assert the non-statutory labor exemption, after the expiration of the CBA, on the ground that the Players’ disclaimer was a sham or otherwise ineffective to end the labor exemption. In fact, Eugene Upshaw, who had served as the Executive Director of the NFLPA since 1983, has stated that the “only reason” he “agreed to recommend that the NFLPA be converted from a trade association back into a union” was “because the owners demanded that as a condition for the Settlement Agreement,” but only in exchange for the owners’ agreement that they would not challenge any subsequent election to again decertify the NFLPA as their collective bargaining representative.

And yes, this law suit is directly challenaging the draft, salary cap, free agent restrictions and franshise tags. Should the players win this law suit the NFL will be forced, just like Nelson just forced the lockout to end, to stop the draft, salary cap, free agent retrictions and use of franshise tags.

that's just a dog and pony show. this suit is about ending the lockout because the nflpa knows the nfl has no case.

[TruCatzFan]

"Big influence in judge Nelson's decision: V. Jackson. Vikes willing to pay him $18 million for 2 seasons; Chargers paid him $682,000 for 1."

I'd be pretty damned pissed too!

[Fiz]

lol yes minnesota buy high on a wr again

[mav1234]

and even in the mlb where you can buy anyone, it doesn't guarantee success by any stretch of the imagination. nor does a small payroll doom you to failure, as evidenced by the rays or marlins.

Oh I know, but it certainly seems like the teams that spend more are competitive more often for longer than the teams that spend less when it comes to baseball but maybe that feeling is just a consequence of being stuck between New York and Boston.

I understand your argument about complexities of the NFL but I think you are underestimating the amount certain owners would pay in order to build up a team. Maybe I'm wrong though.

they'll most likely just go back to last years rules and just sorta pretend the nflpa (which is now technically a trade association) still exists. it's a status quo decision like i said earlier which are fairly common.

remember this suit was just to end the lockout, nothing (really) more.

I hope you are right... though I'd rather not have last year's rules either because I like the salary cap/salary floor.

[Fiz]

nobody went crazy though in 2010 without a salary cap.

the only team that really bailed on payroll were the panthers, and they had a ton of other poo going on that led to their demise.

the nfl will just never be a league where you can immediately profit by signing every single player you can.

[mav1234]

nobody went crazy though in 2010 without a salary cap.

the only team that really bailed on payroll were the panthers, and they had a ton of other poo going on that led to their demise.

the nfl will just never be a league where you can immediately profit by signing every single player you can.

I just don't think 2010 is a good representation. The owners knew there was an impending fight over the CBA/lockout.