The new CBA

UhOh

I know the deadline is over a year away but is anyone else the smallest bit concerned we might not have football in 2011?

Just watching the Total Access SB coverage on NFL Network this week, they've had DeMaurice Smith on. The guy seems a bit of a clown & blabber mouth, not sure I'd want him as my union head.

eagle eye

It would be very stupid for both sides not to agree to a deal soon. Billions will be lost in revenue, players will get nothing for a year and College Football will probably fill the Sunday prime time slots along with NBA. The NFL would lose years of progress if they don't agree and they all know that too.

davyjose

God forbid, it might even be the last we see of Brett Favre...




Nah!!!!

Pherekydes

davyjose wrote: »

God forbid, it might even be the last we see of Brett Favre...




Nah!!!!

There's a lot of other guys who'd retire. The kind of guys who might be hanging on for one more year, or even two more. It could be devastating. As it stands, the NFL is the world's most competitive team competition. The CBA has a lot to do with that.

What would happen to those would-be draftees? They'd go play in some other league, or some other sport. A lot of them would be lost to the NFL, too.

Let's get it done...

raven136

from what i have heard and read the owners want the players to take a pay cut.Surely with all the money being made by owners and the Nfl some kind of agreement can be made.

One things for sure,the players union chief takes no sh## from what i have heard from him.

UhOh

I dont think it's as black & white as just a pay cut. From what I gather it's the owners wanting the players to have less of a cut of a bigger revenue pie. At the moment they have 60% of $8 billion, whereas with the new deal it's be 50% of $12 billion or something like that.

I dont know, I just think its bad form to hear the head of the NFLPA say publicly that on a scale of 1-10 the odds of a lockout in 2011 are a 14

_Buck Rogers

I read a good interview with Kevin Mawae a while back. According to his (likely bias) point of view, the players union have been trying to negotiate with a view to consolidating the value of upcoming rookie contracts and are just been told no. Will try find it, cant remember what site i read it on.

raven136

Got this from si.com

The question to DeMaurice Smith was simple, coming from Cincinnati receiver Chad Ochocinco, asking how serious he viewed the possibility of football not being played in 2011.

Smith did not hesitate.

"On a scale of 1 to 10," Smith said Thursday, "it's a 14."

With that, the executive director of the NFL Players Association painted perhaps the bleakest picture yet regarding prospects of labor strife in the league, which could be looking at a 2010 season with no salary cap and, if the collective bargaining agreement expires as scheduled in March 2011, a lockout that year.

"I keep coming back to an economic model in America that is unparalleled," said Smith, who often repeated phrases for emphasis. "And that makes it incredibly difficult to then come to players and say, on average, each of you needs to take a $340,000 pay cut to save the National Football League. Tough sell. Tough sell."

Smith said the NFL would receive $5 billion from its network television deals even if no games are played in 2011. He regarded that as proof owners are preparing for a lockout.

"Has any one of the prior deals included $5 billion to not play football?" Smith asked, referring to previous contracts that were extended or redone. "The answer's no."

Some of Smith's nearly hour-long question-and-answer session during Super Bowl week was spent reiterating past claims, such as team values increasing "almost 500 percent" over the last 15 years. There was also a call to have all 32 NFL teams open their books to show who was losing money and how much.

Smith also said he wanted teams to contribute what, ultimately, would be millions into what he called "a legacy fund" that would better support retired players.

Most of his focus, however, was on getting a new CBA.

"I really and truly in my heart believe we'll get a deal done," NFLPA president Kevin Mawae said. "But there's going to have to be some give and some take and not just taking from one side all the way."

The league's response, in part, said that teams like the Green Bay Packers -- whose audited financial statements are the only ones the union said it has seen -- have had a 40 percent decline in profits.

"In most businesses, that would be a serious cause for concern," said Jeff Pash, the NFL's executive vice president and chief counsel. "It would indicate a serious issue that has to be dealt with. You look at your single largest expense, which is player costs."

Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning, whom the Colts are planning to soon give a new contract that would make him the league's highest-paid player, acknowledged that he has concerns.

"I think as a player, I feel we have a pretty good thing going right now in the NFL," Manning said Thursday. "It would a shame for something to have to change along those lines. I understand kind of like when a player is holding out or a player contract, there is a business side of this that can be tough. It is not always pretty."

Smith said the latest NFL offer to the players would reduce their share to 41 percent of applied revenues from about 59 percent. He emphasized that the teams take $1 billion off the top of the estimated $8 billion the league generates.

Pash argued that the $1 billion reflects actual costs incurred, money "invested in things like NFL Network, NFL.com, putting games on overseas, all of which is intended to and has in fact had the effect of generating substantial additional revenues, 50 percent of which go to NFL players. And the union knows that's true, because the union has absolute rights to audit those expenses."

Echoing NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, Pash said Smith's assertion that players are being asked to accept an 18 percent pay cut -- the $340,000 per-player-average figure -- was among the "misrepresentations of what our proposal is."

"We have never said it would result in players having to take a reduction," Pash said. "The entire point here is to generate a pool of resources to have continued investment and continued growth, which would lead to higher salaries and benefits for players."

For now, some players say they're bracing for issues. Mawae said he even has recommended players save 25 percent of their salary next season "in the event of a lockout," though he noted "we can't make all 1,900 players save their money."

"We've told them, `Don't go out and buy a new boat. Don't go out and buy a new car. Pay off whatever debts you have,' " said Jeff Saturday of the Indianapolis Colts. "These are things we've been learning from history."

Smith and Mawae said that if next season goes forward with no salary cap, it would be highly unlikely to have a new CBA with a cap reinstated.

"Virtually impossible," Smith said.

"A very difficult task," Mawae said.

Asked about the owners' assertion that the 18 percent pay cut request was false, Mawae said did not hold back:

"That is not true," he said. "That is absolutely true they've asked for 18 percent."

Meantime, the union is increasing dues for now with the idea of returning the money as income to players, if needed, during a lockout.

"Our guys get it," Mawae said. "Our guys understand."



Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/super-bowl/02/04/nflpameeting.ap/index.html#ixzz0elm9HY9m
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

TheHeadhunter

Watched an interview with DeMaurice Smith on nfl.com and he was saying that the owners are stirring the ship towards a lockout. The owners backed out of the current CBA and also have negotiated a deal with the TV companies ensuring they get paid even if there is no football in 2011.

He was basically saying the owners are aiming for a lockout and aren't overly concerned with if they get a deal sorted or not.

Interview Here

bruschi

I know this is being talked about in parts on the wacky thread, but I can foresee the whole off season discussion taking place about the potential lockout so probably deserves a bump of this thread.

something I read on CBS that answers some questions

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14692952/simple-questions-answers-about-potential-nfl-lockout

mikemac

I'd agree, this probably does need its own thread

That article from CBS is excellent, I learned a lot from it anyway

tallaghtoutlaws

One of the lads on another site posted this very good breakdown which is up to date for the most part of the ins and outs of the problems.

Much has happened since January 12, so it’s time to look as 10 things to know right now, now that we’ve slapped together 10 things to know.

And, yes, there’s some repetition. But most of it is new. And all of it is stuff that you need to know right now.

Starting . . . . now.

1. A lockout is virtually certain at this point.
Last time around, we explained that a lockout would happen long before September. It’s now clear, given the comments of NFL lawyer Bob Batterman and subsequent remarks from Commissioner Roger Goodell, that a lockout will begin on March 4.

Goodell says that 490 players due to become free agents on March 4 won’t become free agents absent a new deal. Though Goodell has been reluctant to admit that free agents won’t become free agents only if the league implements a lockout, the message is clear.

Without an agreement, a lockout is coming on March 4.

There’s another reason to expect a lockout. ESPN’s Chris Mortensen pointed out during a Friday appearance on Mike & Mike in the Morning that the league wants, as we’ve surmised, to escape the jurisdiction of Judge David Doty. It will happen if the current agreement expires. And if the current agreement expires, the league will implement a lockout, pending the negotiation of a new deal that wouldn’t fall under Doty’s umbrella if it’s finalized after the current agreement expires.

Of course, the union could agree before the current deal expires to an extension that would fall beyond Doty’s jurisdiction, but at this point we can’t imagine either side agreeing to anything without getting something in return.

2. The union still has the ability to try to block a lockout.
During the 2010 regular season, the NFLPA embarked on a series of meetings with players from every team. Systematically, the union obtained advance approval to decertify in the face of a lockout.

Derided by the NFL as a decision to “go out of business,” decertification would prevent the league from locking out the players by converting the NFLPA from a legally-recognized union into a collection of individual, non-union workers. Some think that the NFL would challenge the maneuver as a sham, but such an approach would entail P.R. risks, since the NFL would be using litigation in order to force a lockout on the players. Given that the NFL has repeatedly criticized the union for using litigation in place of negotiation, it would be a challenging exercise in double-talk for the league to resort to litigation against the union.

It remains to be seen whether the union will decertify. If the union fails to decertify, it will prove that the effort was a ruse aimed only at making the NFL think that decertification could occur.

If decertfication happens, the league then would be compelled to craft across-the-board rules regarding free agency, the draft, and player salaries. The union would likely respond by filing an antitrust lawsuit, arguing that the league consists of 32 separate businesses that cannot work together to place common limits on its workers. (This is why the American Needle case was viewed as being critical to the labor situation, even though the facts center on marketing deals. If the league had secured a ruling from the Supreme Court that it is one business, an antitrust claim based on labor rules may have been doomed from the start.)

We’ve heard that the union possibly won’t decertify because the union is concerned that the rules implemented by the league for a non-union work force would have a much better shot at withstanding an antritrust lawsuit than the rules employed after the failed strike of 1987. If the union decertifies, files an antitrust lawsuit, and then loses the case, the players will be in a much worse position than they are right now.

3. The owners still have an alternative to a lockout.
Just as the union may be bluffing about decertification, there’s still a chance that the owners are bluffing about a lockout.

It’s a remote chance, but it’s still a chance.

If a new agreement isn’t reached by March 4, the owners aren’t required to lock out the players. The owners can declare an impasse and then implement the last, best offer as the new set of rules, pending a formal agreement.

In an appearance last month on PFT Live, NFL lawyer Bob Batterman made it clear that, absent a new deal by March 4, the alternatives will be imposition of a lockout or declaration of an impasse.

If the league declares impasse and imposes the last, best offer, the union then would have to decide whether to work under those rules, or whether to strike. With the union repeatedly insisting that it won’t strike, some nifty P.R. moves would be required in the event the union decides to walk out in the face of a decision by the league to “let them play” under the terms of the NFL’s final offer.

Some think that the league prefers a lockout because the players at some point would agree to the terms of that last offer for several years beyond 2011, presumably after they miss one or more game checks. By implementing the last, best offer, however, the league would be getting what it wants, at least in the short term.

Likewise, the league would be able to claim the moral high ground in the event of a work stoppage. No longer would the owners be locking out the players; if football goes away for all or part of the 2011 season, the players would be the ones to make that happen.

Still, the players could strike at any time, like at the outset of the postseason or two days before the Super Bowl.

4. The league is counting on a free agent uprising.
It’s widely believed that, once the players start missing game checks in September, they’ll fold the tents and cry “uncle” to their NFL sugar daddies.

The league has been trying, in hardly subtle fashion, to remind the 490 players due to become free agents that, for them, they’ll start missing checks in March.

Fueling the effort was Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie, who’d like to parlay his solid season into a signing bonus that will help feed the many mouths relying on him. Cromartie’s strong comments brought into focus the fact that nearly a third of the league’s players will see their potential bonus checks delayed. If, ultimately, the labor situation is resolved in August or September, few if any players will receive big-money deals in 2011.

Thus, if enough of the 490 realize that they’ll be hurt by an offseason lockout like all players will be hurt by an in-season lockout and if enough of them speak out, the union could end up facing a ton of pressure to get a deal done before the end of March.

5. The player-acquisition process will be bass-ackwards.
In a normal year, teams have the opportunity to acquire veteran players via free agency or trades in March, weeks before the draft.

This year, an offseason lockout would make the draft the first, and perhaps the only, tool for adding new players.

So if a team enters the offseason needing a quarterback, the team may have to reach for one in the draft because there may be no opportunity to otherwise get one. That said, the possible absence of team-managed offseason workouts and minicamps will make it even more important to find rookies who could walk right in and be ready to play in September — and who can be trusted to work out on their own without team supervision, until the lockout is resolved.

Either way, teams routinely use the draft as a way to address any lingering immediate needs after free agency and to build for the future. In 2011, those immediate needs will be even greater in April.

6. Fans need to wake up regarding the lack of an offseason.
We’ve heard plenty of folks in the media contend that fans don’t care and won’t care about a lockout until September, when regular-season games are missed. On this point, those folks in the media just don’t get it.

The NFL currently has the most robust and intriguing offseason of any sport. With the arrival of the current free-agency system in 1993, the NFL has made baseball’s hot stove league look like a used match in a bucket of rain water.

An offseason lockout would wipe it all out. No free agency, no trades, no OTAs, no minicamps, no training camps, no preseason. Nothing, with the exception of the three-day April oasis known as the draft.

So when August rolls around and it’s time to start putting together that fantasy draft board and you have no idea how to prioritize the players because there was no free agency and no trades and no offseason workouts and no buzz about who’s looking good and who isn’t, you can blame yourself for not making it clear to the league and the union that, for the fans, the process of disconnecting emotionally and financially from the game begins far earlier than the moment the first regular-season game is missed.

7. The union arguably has nothing to lose by waiting.
When the NFL and the union issued a joint statement on Saturday, February 5 suggesting the that two sides were committed to doing a deal by March 4, we were encouraged. For months, we’d been saying that a deal can’t be done until the two sides agree to the moment on which the clock strikes 12. It previously was believed that the league considered that deadline to come in early March, and that the players were targeting a much later date.

For the league, there are plenty of reasons to do a deal before March 4. Apart from the disruption to the normal offseason activities, it’s much easier to sell tickets and do deals with sponsors if the doors haven’t been padlocked shut.

For the union, there’s no real reason to do a deal now. Sure, the money lost during an offseason lockout is money from which the union won’t take its cut, but that’s a shared burden, and it shouldn’t squeeze the union into doing a bad deal.

That’s the sense that’s currently emerging. The NFL clearly wants to a deal. But the NFL wants to do a deal on its terms.

Although the league claims that the goal remains to negotiate an agreement that the players will regard as a fair deal over the long haul, it could be that the league wants the players to swallow a so-so deal and simply to think it’s a good deal about which the players won’t complain for a generation or longer. Thus, if the NFL wants to do a deal so badly, the only real leverage at this point that the players have is to wait.

Though the league has threatened that the deal will get worse once March 4 comes and goes, threats like that are made all the time. The question becomes can the union do a better overall deal later than it can now.

In many respects, we simply won’t know until time passes. As mentioned below, public opinion could be tilting toward the players. Also, perhaps some of the pending legal claims will be resolved in the players’ favor.

Either way, the union gains nothing by doing a deal now, but for avoiding the potential outcry from the 490 looming free agents. If those men can be placated, the union will be able to dig in.

And why shouldn’t they? The current deal was deemed to be a good one by 30 owners five years ago. Since then, the league has become more popular and more profitable. In the end, it’s possible that management doesn’t think the league is making enough money. It’s possible that management merely thinks the players are making too much.

8. Revenue sharing continues to lurk.
When the current labor deal was negotiated in 2006, the owners squabbled over the issue of revenue sharing. Basically, the NFL decided long ago to share core revenues like box-office receipts and TV money. Over time, many teams have discovered and exploited new forms of revenue that aren’t shared, like luxury suites.

Last time around, a debate raged over the impact that a player-compensation model based on total football revenues would have on the teams that generate relatively low amounts of total football revenue. Bengals owner Mike Brown argued at the time that the new system could eat into his profit margin by raising his overall labor costs, since the salary cap and salary floor would be determined by the revenues generated not only by the Bengals but by high earners like the Cowboys, Patriots, and Eagles.

Former NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw insisted that the last labor deal include an agreement among the owners regarding supplemental revenue sharing, even though such an accord arguably was irrelevant to the union. In the end, the owners did the deal, in large part because the teams found themselves squeezed by restrictive rules of the last year with a salary cap, which was set to launch if a new labor deal hadn’t been reached.

Today, the owners want to squeeze back, and they’ve done a great job of keeping under wraps the lingering disagreements regarding supplemental revenue sharing. But multiple league sources have told us that a major potential fight among the owners regarding revenue sharing lurks just beneath the surface.

So how do the owners avoid that fight among themselves? Ravens cornerback Dominique Foxworth nailed the owners’ strategy: “Let’s take it from them.” Mike Brown doesn’t care if Jerry Jones is making too much money; Brown wants only to be making what he deems to be enough for himself. So by giving the players a smaller slice of the pie, Brown’s team will receive enough cash each year to offset the effect of high-revenue teams on labor costs.

With the union searching for viable pressure points aimed at getting a new deal done, the best strategy would be to expose the notion that the owners are simply hoping to give the players less money in order to permanently solve the problem of supplemental revenue sharing. To the amazement of some owners, the union has yet to make that argument, and possibly won’t.

The union should. We’re told that the owners hope to continue to keep their internal disputes under wraps, and then to work out a long-term solution to revenue sharing after getting the best deal possible from the players.

9. It takes only nine owners to kill a deal.
It’s widely believed that a group of hard-line owners want to push the union to the breaking point and beyond, even if it means losing an entire season.

Though the number of owners who potentially feel that way isn’t known, it only takes nine owners to block any proposed deal.

Unlike the union, which can push a new agreement through via a simple majority vote, 75 percent of the owners must agree to the move. With 32 owners, 24 votes are needed to approve an agreement.

And that means (abacus engaged) nine votes can keep the league from agreeing to terms with the players.

10. The NFL is starting to bungle the P.R. war.
During the February 11 ProFootballTalk Live, a portion of the monologue was devoted to the question of whether the league could be starting to lose the P.R. battle with the players.

Here’s the condensed version.

For months, both the league and the union have tried to win the hearts and minds of the fans and the media via various public relations strategies. And all of them have failed.

Folks who get it won’t be falling for the notion that the Commissioner is cutting his pay to $1, or for the efforts of the union to align with real unions that represent people who make far less money than pro athletes. But with the news that the league stormed out of the room after the union reportedly made a reasonable opening proposal to collect 50 cents of every dollar that passes through the cash register, the pendulum finally has swung toward the players — even if it happened without the players trying to make it happen.

Coupled with the Super Bowl ticket fiasco, folks seem to be starting to turn on the owners, making everyone more willing to scrutinize everything the NFL is saying and doing in an effort to abandon a deal that, as of five year ago, the league happily embraced.

mikemac

Just thinking about players out on IR with long term injuries.

If there is a lockout next month, are players barred from facilities? And then there are the staff they were working with for rehab

You might be asking players to pay their own medical bills.
What a mess

adrian522

The League and the union have been involved in 7 days of mediation (still ongoing)

The NFL have called a meeting of all the teams GM's and Head coaches in Indy this Thursday.

Read into that what you will.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6149970

jdivision

Cut rookie salaries in first round (particularly top 10, after that it's not so bad) and give the savings in benefits to retired players. Cut players income to 53% of total income and you have a deal I think. Bad teams have been hurt for too long by taking expensive 1st round draft players who are all hit and miss. The league will be more competitive if they do cut the salaries. And yes I am a Lions fan and we're going to be destroyed by the old rules, just like we have been before. But think about it, if there's a new salary cap will the Panthers take a flyer on Cam Newton. Well they're more likely to cos if they're wrong they don't get screwed up for years. It'll make the league a bit more exciting methinks.

Itssoeasy

26 hrs and counting. 4.59am irish time is the deadline.

adrian522

This is a very good piece on what is likely to happen next, though it's not altogether encouraging..


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110302

GoldFour4

Tom Brady , Peyton Manning and Drew Brees agree to be named the plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL if the union decertifies

Peyton Manning

24 hours extension agreed.

Itssoeasy

Tom_Brady wrote: »

24 hours extension agreed.

Always thought this would happen if I'm honest. Either they are close to agreeing something or depending on who proposed it they could use against the other side if they don't get anything sorted, in a "we asked for more time but they refused to agree anything." kind of way.

adrian522

Apparently the 24 hour extension is to give them time to negotiate a 7 day extension.

Hazys

Make or break day for the NFL:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-cbacriticalphase030311

Sources on both sides of the conflict agreed on one basic premise: If enough progress is made that another short-term CBA extension – perhaps a week, perhaps two – is announced by Friday night, the players and owners will almost certainly be headed for a settlement that will result in a multi-year deal before the end of this month.

Hopefully the get the deal in the works in the next 15 hours or its going to be a long summer.

adrian522

Adam Schefter on Twitter:

"Two sides still roughly $25 millon apart per team. Doesn't sound like much but it's a $750-$800 million gap that must be closed"

Sounds like some progress has been made but a lot of work still to be done.

Hazys

Things are looking up already, fingers crossed the meetings keep up this momentum...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/04/second-extension-moves-closer-to-reality/

mikemac

Lock the doors and turn off the air conditioning until this gets done!

It's March, I want free agency dammit!

adrian522

Less optimistic reading of events over at nfl.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e9a6e6/article/while-union-waits-league-mulls-terms-to-stop-the-clock?module=HP_headlines

eagle eye

I cannot believe these greedy people have let it get this far. They will all end up losers in this.

adrian522

Greed is good in NFL labor talks

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304

Mr. Guappa

adrian522 wrote: »

Greed is good in NFL labor talks

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304

Thanks, wasted 150 seconds of my life reading that

adrian522

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Thanks, wasted 150 seconds of my life reading that

No one forced you to read it

Hazys

Some big news and even bigger news according to Adam Schefter:



Big News: CBA will be extended till next friday



Even Bigger News: Chad Ochocinco will keep his 2nd name

GoldFour4

According to Adam Schefter the two sides are roughly $25 million apart per team . $750- $800 million in total to try and cover .

Itssoeasy

I heard Adam Schefter say the word "Armageddon" will come to the football world if nothing is agreed by 4:59am Saturday morning Irish Time. Lads it doesn't sound good.

adrian522

NFL Network just reported that the union had decertified, then quickly backtracked saying someone has asked for a delay and some very last min negotiations taking place.

Expect a decision one way or the other very soon.

EDIT:

De Smith: Met with owners till 4. Discussed proposal. Significant differences remain. Informed owners they need more info. Want answers by 5

edit2: The Union has now apparently decertified, real possibility of shortened season now.

mikemac

Back to Federal court so

Shame on both sides, they had over two years to get this sorted!

GoldFour4

Nooooooooooooo

Itssoeasy

Well Im sorry and I know there is a censor on language. But **** **** **** BOTH sides for ****ing up the season for all us football fans. I dont want to have to watch Americas game for the season.

EDIT: as good as Americas game is BTW.

Leslie91

Greedy SOB owners.

Itssoeasy

http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/nfl-statement/

NFL statement.

adrian522

Leslie91 wrote: »

Greedy SOB owners.

And players

mikemac

Leslie91 wrote: »

Greedy SOB owners.

The owners and players are as bad as each other

ReacherCreature

I'm lost. What does this mean?

mikemac

ReacherCreature wrote: »

I'm lost. What does this mean?

As is my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong!)

The union decertified so it's not just one single entity now and can't be locked out. You would have to lock out every single player individually and that would never happen.

It goes back to federal court for yet more litigation
When the owners launch their case, it will name Peyton Manning, Brady and Brees on the case. They've been put forward by the union for this.

adrian522

feelingstressed wrote: »

As is my understanding

The union decertified so it's not just one single entity now and can't be locked out. You would have to lock out every single player individually and that would never happen.

It goes back to federal court for yet more litigation

There will be a class action anti trust law suit with Manning, Brees, Brady and others as plaintiffs. They will request an injunction against a lockout.

There will be lengthy court battles, there will be no trades or free agency.

There will be no preseason or off season activities until this is all sorted.

There is a high probability of a curtailed season in 2010.

Very tough on all teams from a football perspective, particularly if they have a new coach and/or new QB as they can't learn the new system.

mikemac

Big losers here are the free agents

Right now Nnamdi or Jonathan Joseph and others should be taking offers of big contracts.

The union may represent all players but the FA have lost out badly here.

As it is now, they are still under contract and nobody can approach them

adrian522

It also makes the draft much more important than usual as you can't rely on trades to fill areas of need.

also you can't trade draft picks for players only for other draft picks making it more difficult to trade up or down.

LuckyGent88

What a bunch of greedy p****s. :mad::mad:
Both sides dont seem to care about the fans one bit.

LuckyGent88

feelingstressed wrote: »

Billionaires vs millionaires
Isn't strictly true but sums it up pretty well.

They'd do well to remember it's fans buying their $90 jerseys on the nfl shop website and £80 tickets in Wembley for example

Not forgetting there are thousands of security and service staff in 31 stadiums who face losing their jobs

Its a disgrace that Brady,Manning and Brees are all putting there names to the lawsuit. They get paid over $20 million a year and all have that Super Bowl ring so why do they have to put themselves into this mess.
They always so the fans are the most important part of the game and this is how they re-pay them. :mad:
If we eventually get football played later on in the season, i hope the American fans boycott the first few matches just to show who really are the most important part of the NFL.

When a lockout happened in the NHL a few years back, the fans deserted the sport and are only now coming back.

mikemac

I'd deleted my last post as I've posted here too often tonight, just angry over it all

Just in case you're wondering why my last post was gone :pac:

Mr. Guappa

Up until today I was on the players side in this dispute but going by some of the reports emerging at the moment it appears that the owners were willing to make many concessions to get a deal done and the NFLPA were not budging from their position as they felt they could get a better deal through the courts. Basically the NFLPA had no interest in doing a deal at this stage and was set to decertify all along.

On the shortened season question.. I'm under the impression that play would resume/continue while the whole process goes through the courts?? I'm unclear as to how free agency is affected by this whole litigation process.. does the old CBA stay in place until a new agreement is reached or are those FA's in limbo?

Edit: PFT reporting that free agency could start tonight!!

mikemac

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Edit: PFT reporting that free agency could start tonight!!

I was certainly not expecting this!
It's good news if it goes ahead.