The union had the right to strike. Legally, there is no union, now. So the players cannot strike and the owners cannot lockout. This is no longer a collective bargaining arrangement. And the owners cannot collude to control the job market. What teams and players can do now is negotiate individual contracts on a per player basis. Now, in theory, it is a "free market," for both jobs and labor clear of market intervention by the league and the former union.
Why do you engage in berating like this? Why do the mods tolerate it? How about a simple "I disagree"? This was not a dispute over a contract interpretation. The contract had expired. The coercion is forcing one party to engage in business (the NFL), which this injunction does. Roger Goodell on today's decision:
Fail...the players have legally enforceable contracts with the teams which is one of the reasons why they have standing in the first place...player contracts, against the backdrop of labor & antitrust laws, is the absolute heart of the dispute, and that's what courts exist to do. But to answer your first question....It's simply uninteresting to me sit here and explain things like this to you, as some kinder souls might - to make up for either your inability or unwillingness which you could find out by doing some research. So via simple metaphor I wile away a few minutes... In fact it's a disservice to both you and me for you to be treated like an innocent - you're simply past that point - perhaps a good hiding will quell the deep magma well of stupid that you erupt upon us, ergo I beg you to STFU. Though probably not, if history is any guide, and you will flow onward into more and more dumb.
Only the vision of baseball you pretend exists. Anyway, this article is so disingenous. The players have been wanting to negotiate the entire time and were not asking for any concessions in the first place. The owners opted out of a deal, not the players. The owners wanted to drastically change the fundamentals of the deal that Goodell claims has worked so wonderfully for everyone for a decade, not the players. The owners locked out the players, they didn't strike. This lawsuit and the decertification came about as a last card to play in order to break the owner's hardline negotiating position that has served them well so long: take our deal or we'll lock you out. Now the owners have to negotiate in good faith for the first time and they are crying.
What? LOL Negotiations are 100% fair now because there is no "force" of leverage being used by the owners saying "take our deal or earn no living." Now they have to negotiate in good faith where they actually have to find agreeable terms if they are to ever play games again and generate revenue.
Because a deal will ultimately be reached between the owners and the players, and regardless of what the owners like to pretend, they are absolutely colluding together to achieve the most desirable outcome for the ownership post collective bargaining agreement. On top of that, it's doubtful that a new agreement would allow a grandfather clause that would protect teams from salary cap implications on deals they signed during this timeframe. So when the season started you probably would have to get back under the cap anyway.
Soon (today or tomorrow?) we'll get a decision on whether the League will get a stay granted on the Judge's ruling that lifted the lockout. If the stay is granted, the lockout continues it will be all quiet on the western front until the appeal is ruled on some time next month. If the stay is not granted, we will see more negotiating (I would think) happening over the next month while the appeal is waiting to be ruled on... especially if the higher court is the one that does not grant the stay (instead of Judge Nelson). The owners are starting to sweat a little bit, the longer this goes on, the more power they seem to be losing... if the stay isn't granted, we might see a deal done soon, and if not... if the appeal gets denied, then we'll see a new CBA happen very shortly thereafter I would think.
This is from Goodell's article linked up on the page. What a load of crap. I can't even believe he would put this in writing. If the collectively bargained system has "worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans" all this time, why did the owners opt out of the deal they had in place and why did they argue for major changes to the structure of the deal? Goodell should be lambasted for that article which implies the players are the ones opposing labor peace.
And yet those players are not being allowed to use any of the equipment or resources at the facilities. This is such a joke.
Great article on the ruling and what it means going forward http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/04/25/nfl.lockout/index.html
Here's my simple question: What is the risk now of an owner signing a free agent (say Tom Brady) to a $25 Million one-year contract right now? I understand that a huge long-term contract would mean salary cap hell under whatever CBA is agreed to, but there are restrictions on free agency right now, so the big name free agents ought to strike while the iron is hot, right?
From the article link I posted. I imagine If an owner breaks rank and starts signing free agents (especially players that would have been considered restricted free agents under the old CBA), that owner will make 31 blood enemies instantly. It would seemingly weaken the position of bargaining for the owners. So I suspect that we will see a new CBA done before any FAs get signed... which should happen before the season starts, because, as the article points out, if the season starts and no FAs have been signed, it would be inviting a bunch of anti-trust suits from those unsigned free agents, and the NFL would likely lose those cases. This may end quicker than we thought, as each day goes by, the owners stand to lose more and more bargaining power... the ruling on the appeal will probably decide the fate of the 2011 season. If it is upheld, we'll get a full season and a new CBA, if it isn't, we'll likely get a shortened season or no season at all.
There will be a salary cap this year most likely. If they sign a deal right now and then when the deal is reached that team has to get under the cap that player will be cut anyway. The only benefit to a player is to get a signing bonus. But the owners are stupid either. All sides are going to negotiate as if CBA is eventually going to be reached. The owners aren't going to give a player some huge deal knowing they will have to cut the player to get under a cap and then be out the signing bonus. And if any of the owners WERE willing to take the risk, I can tell you one owner who wouldn't...
Yeah, FAs will ultimately get signed, but the market will still act in accordance to the market that existed when there was a salary cap. (This is assuming no stay, and no new CBA)
