Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: New CBA?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,584
    Post Thanks / Like

    New CBA?

    I've seen the article of doom and gloom with the inevitable uncapped year but this was posted a few hours ago.

    [url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/351559-have-we-been-bamboozled-by-the-nfl-and-a-new-cba-is-closer-then-we-think[/url]

    Decent read.

    [QUOTE]Could it be that we are being bamboozled by the NFL? As if the combine, free agency, and the draft did not keep our attention long enough.

    Is the threat of an uncapped year in 2010 in the NFL nothing more than just a way to keep the league on the lips of every fan? Could the actuality of a lockout by the owners in 2011 be a myth just like the idea of “free healthcare”?

    Why would anyone think that all the posturing and bellowing from the NFL Players Association led by DeMaurice Smith and the owners be anything less? Especially after the NFLPA sent out a mass memo to the players and their agents yesterday, Feb. 24, saying an uncapped year looks inevitable.

    The owners and the NFLPA have until March 5th to reach a new collective bargaining agreement or the 2010 season will be uncapped and a lockout is possible for 2011. The NFLPA insists that a deal is miles away but NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believes a new deal will be in place before the new deal expires.

    While both sides are sticking to their particular rhetoric, could it be the last two days saw the owners tip their hand over the last two days? With a deal on the table that would keep the current CBA in place and talks set to resume Thursday, Feb. 26 at the NFL Combine, is a labor deal closer than the NFL would have us think?

    First, if the NFL does have an uncapped year in 2010 it will be the first uncapped year since 1993. The sports landscape has changed a lot since that last uncapped year and while the economy is in a downturn, the NFL still could see richer teams outspend their poor counterparts.

    If the richer NFL teams do spend more on free agents next season, the league might not ever be the same again. The competitive balance that the league has become known for could be lost forever.

    Doomsday prophecies abound about America’s favorite sport and the result of an uncapped year in 2010 and a lockout in 2011. All this speculation could be for not if we read into the actions of the Philadelphia Eagles and the San Diego Chargers in back to back days.

    Starting off the speculation with the Chargers, who on Monday cut the face of their franchise, LaDainian Tomlinson, after nine years with the team. Tomlinson’s production had been declining dramatically since 2007.

    San Diego would have owed Tomlinson three million dollars (more on the money involved later) if they had kept him on their roster, and owe Tomlinson a million dollars for cutting him. The million dollars is a guaranteed bonus if the Chargers cut him.

    The second tip of the owners hand came from Philadelphia who released the second best known player on their roster behind Donovan McNabb. Brian Westbrook, who had been with the Eagles for eight years, helped Philadelphia become one of the best teams in the NFL.

    By cutting Westbrook, the Eagles save 7.5 million next season. Due to injuries, Westbrook's production took a severe hit in the 2009 season.

    Now there are some similarities between Tomlinson and Westbrook. Both are 30 year old running backs, and history shows that at that age their production is going to decline.

    Also, both Tomlinson and Westbrook have been injury plagued the last few seasons. Another thing both players had in common was they both had what could be their worst season as professionals since they came into the league.

    Both Tomlinson and Westbrook were cut by teams that are more passing orientated than running orientated. Plus both Tomlinson and Westbrook have younger understudies behind them waiting to be the No. 1 guy.

    Here is how the owners have tipped their hand that a new CBA is closer than we think. Releasing Tomlinson and Westbrook was a standard football move.

    Think about this in a year that could be uncapped, the three million the Chargers would have owed Tomlinson could amount to a drop in the bucket. While Tomlinson’s production is down, there is no way San Diego could draft a running back or through free agency bring in a talent equal to L.T.

    The price is right to keep Tomlinson for the 2010 season if it will truly be an uncapped year. Also it is not like Tomlinson is washed up and should retire, he has some productivity left in him.

    Tomlinson sells tickets and is a fan favorite, so in a year with no salary cap why not keep him, and if there is going to be no football in 2011 cut him then. The case of Westbrook is not quite as clear cut.

    The Eagles would have owed Westbrook 7.5 million this season if they had not cut him. Again for a talent like Westbrook in an uncapped year, this price tag could be a steal.

    There is a chance, however, after having a couple of concussions this season that Westbrook might not even return to the game. If he does, one would have to think that the Eagles landing a talent like Westbrook in the draft or through free agency is slim to none.

    Both the Eagles and the Chargers look like they could be contenders again in 2010. So if there is going to be no salary cap in 2010 and no football in 2011, why would you cut a player who if healthy could get you to what could be the last Super Bowl in the next two years?

    That is because the owners and the NFLPA are closer to deal then we think and the owners are getting ready for business as usual. By cutting Westbrook and Tomlinson it shows that the normal football cap moves are still going on like a normal year.

    But listening to the talk, this is not a normal year. It is armageddon and the end of pro football as we know it.

    The uncapped year and the chance of no football in 2011 should give owners pause before cutting talents like Westbrook and Tomlinson. Even if they are not the players they once were, they are still talented enough to help you win a championship.

    There is no question that if other big named players in the downside of their careers are cut before the March 5th deadline that a new CBA is nearly a done deal or that 2010 will be played with the old CBA extended for 2010 until a new deal is completed.

    One lasting thought to keep in your mind. If 2010 is an uncapped year and there is no pro football in 2011, what owner, general manager, and coach would not want the last image for the next two years be of them holding up the Lombardi Trophy.

    Keeping players like Westbrook and Tomlinson make it easier to achieve that image. Cutting Westbrook and Tomlinson shows that a new CBA is on the way and the owners are sticking to business as usual. But then again, I could be reading more into these two moves then what they really are. [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Clark University, by way of West Orange, NJ
    Posts
    1,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    This article says that keeping LT helps the Chargers win a championship. If the Chargers had a competent RB they probably would have beaten the Jets.

    Ignoring that, the two sides are incredibly far apart. Owners want players to help pay for new stadium costs and take a decrease in revenues despite the NFL's overall increase in revenues. Unfortunately, the threat of a lockout is very, very real

  3. #3
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=njherdfan;3507336]This article says that keeping LT helps the Chargers win a championship. If the Chargers had a competent RB they probably would have beaten the Jets.

    Ignoring that, the two sides are incredibly far apart. Owners want players to help pay for new stadium costs and take a decrease in revenues despite the NFL's overall increase in revenues. Unfortunately, the threat of a lockout is very, very real[/QUOTE]

    Your analysis is completely wrong and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of NFL economics.

    #1 - There will never be a NFL lockout. Exhibit A: the NHL and MLB recent experiences. Exhibit B: The NFL's TV contract and $$$ for both the owners and NFLPA. Nobody leaves that much money on the table.

    #2 - NFL's anti-trust exemption. I can assure you that if there is ever even a hint of a lockout, Congress, looking to curry favor with the unclean masses of NFL fans...who also happen to vote, will hold hearings in both the House and the Senate on the NFL's anti-trust exemption status. The threat of those hearings will be enough to nudge the NFL and NFLPA into an agreement. I don't even need to bring up the issue of federal and state tax dollars used for infrastructure improvements on new stadium building, but that is another hammer in the political tool box.

    #3 - The article failed to mention an important point about the NFLPA. Like all unions, they are weak and will cave to the NFL. I call this the Patrick Ewing theory of sports economics: "we make alot of money but we spend alot of money too." The NFLPA can't help itself - those knuckleheads will fold and the union busted like every other strike attempt the NFL has dealt with. Yes this would be technically a "lockout" but it really is a pre-emptive strike against the NFLPA by the NFL. The NFL is forcing the NFLPA's hand because they know they have the leverage in the deal. The threat of the lockout is to force the NFLPA to cave before the situation comes to a head. Trust me, it is alot easier to keep 32 owners in line than it is to keep 1600 players in line - especially when you are dealing with the Pacman Jones, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss chucklehead crowd. Sure the Tom Brady's of the NFL can comfortably survive lockout - but those contracts make up a small percentage of the NFLPA. Do you really think the UFAs, undrafted players playing for the league minimum can afford to not work in 2011? That is why they will cave.

    #4 - One point missing from the article is that an uncapped 2010 is BAD for the NFLPA. First it eliminates the salary cap minimum which would allow the Bungles, Cards, Jags and Bills (cheap bastard teams) to screw their players. Incidently it is those small market teams that are screwing the NFL and the NFLPA. That is why those types of franchises need to move. Plus, an uncapped year means armageddeon to old over-priced players AND young high draft pick busts. Without a salary cap, it will be open season to clean up your cap mistakes in one year with no repercussions or penalties. That means alot of current NFL players are going to lose their jobs and get cut without an agreement in 2010. More importantly, teams will not be signing players to big contracts either as the supply of NFL players will be high and the demand and cost will be low despite the no salary cap limits. Sure you will have an idiot like Dan Snyder do something stupid (like sign LT to outrageous money), but that will be the exception rather than the rule.

    #5 - The stadium deal is a big concern but your are wrong about the impact. The TV contracts are rising over the next few years. The teams, because the days of publicly funded stadiums are over, need to set aside more money than usual to pay for 21st century price tags. The players are not going to be asked to take less money - just a smaller percentage of the bigger pie. Sure the percentage will be less, but the actual real dollar amount will still be more because that NFL revenue pie will be bigger. More importantly, the NFL will leverage this with the NFLPA because the NFLPA has been backing themselves into a corner on this issue for years. The NFLPA has wanted to sit at the table as an equal partner with owners for years. Now it is caveat emptor - you want to sit as an equal? Fine, than you pay your share of those wonderful stadiums and training facilities that you enjoy.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why do people continue to read/take anything that BleacherReport says as serious?

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=klecko73;3507428][B]Your analysis is completely wrong and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of NFL economics[/B].

    #1 - There will never be a NFL lockout. Exhibit A: the NHL and MLB recent experiences. Exhibit B: The NFL's TV contract and $$$ for both the owners and NFLPA. Nobody leaves that much money on the table. [/quote]

    LOL.

    You claim that the guy is completely wrong because you're doing your best Nostradamus imitation?

    Neither you nor I have any clue as to whether there will be a lockout in 2011. So for you to make the unequivocal statement that there will "never be a NFL lockout" is ludicrous.

    The NFL TV contract is guaranteed money, by the way. That means, the NFL still gets paid even if there is no football because of the lockout.

    You can't claim that someone else is wrong and doesn't know anything when your whole opinion is based on a guessing game.

    [QUOTE=klecko73;3507428]#2 - NFL's anti-trust exemption. I can assure you that if there is ever even a hint of a lockout, Congress, looking to curry favor with the unclean masses of NFL fans...who also happen to vote, will hold hearings in both the House and the Senate on the NFL's anti-trust exemption status. The threat of those hearings will be enough to nudge the NFL and NFLPA into an agreement. I don't even need to bring up the issue of federal and state tax dollars used for infrastructure improvements on new stadium building, but that is another hammer in the political tool box.
    [/QUOTE]

    The NFL doesn't have an anti-trust exemption. Only MLB does.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Clark University, by way of West Orange, NJ
    Posts
    1,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=klecko73;3507428]Your analysis is completely wrong and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of NFL economics.

    #1 - There will never be a NFL lockout. Exhibit A: the NHL and MLB recent experiences. Exhibit B: The NFL's TV contract and $$$ for both the owners and NFLPA. Nobody leaves that much money on the table.

    #2 - NFL's anti-trust exemption. I can assure you that if there is ever even a hint of a lockout, Congress, looking to curry favor with the unclean masses of NFL fans...who also happen to vote, will hold hearings in both the House and the Senate on the NFL's anti-trust exemption status. The threat of those hearings will be enough to nudge the NFL and NFLPA into an agreement. I don't even need to bring up the issue of federal and state tax dollars used for infrastructure improvements on new stadium building, but that is another hammer in the political tool box.

    #3 - The article failed to mention an important point about the NFLPA. Like all unions, they are weak and will cave to the NFL. I call this the Patrick Ewing theory of sports economics: "we make alot of money but we spend alot of money too." The NFLPA can't help itself - those knuckleheads will fold and the union busted like every other strike attempt the NFL has dealt with. Yes this would be technically a "lockout" but it really is a pre-emptive strike against the NFLPA by the NFL. The NFL is forcing the NFLPA's hand because they know they have the leverage in the deal. The threat of the lockout is to force the NFLPA to cave before the situation comes to a head. Trust me, it is alot easier to keep 32 owners in line than it is to keep 1600 players in line - especially when you are dealing with the Pacman Jones, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss chucklehead crowd. Sure the Tom Brady's of the NFL can comfortably survive lockout - but those contracts make up a small percentage of the NFLPA. Do you really think the UFAs, undrafted players playing for the league minimum can afford to not work in 2011? That is why they will cave.

    #4 - One point missing from the article is that an uncapped 2010 is BAD for the NFLPA. First it eliminates the salary cap minimum which would allow the Bungles, Cards, Jags and Bills (cheap bastard teams) to screw their players. Incidently it is those small market teams that are screwing the NFL and the NFLPA. That is why those types of franchises need to move. Plus, an uncapped year means armageddeon to old over-priced players AND young high draft pick busts. Without a salary cap, it will be open season to clean up your cap mistakes in one year with no repercussions or penalties. That means alot of current NFL players are going to lose their jobs and get cut without an agreement in 2010. More importantly, teams will not be signing players to big contracts either as the supply of NFL players will be high and the demand and cost will be low despite the no salary cap limits. Sure you will have an idiot like Dan Snyder do something stupid (like sign LT to outrageous money), but that will be the exception rather than the rule.

    #5 - The stadium deal is a big concern but your are wrong about the impact. The TV contracts are rising over the next few years. The teams, because the days of publicly funded stadiums are over, need to set aside more money than usual to pay for 21st century price tags. The players are not going to be asked to take less money - just a smaller percentage of the bigger pie. Sure the percentage will be less, but the actual real dollar amount will still be more because that NFL revenue pie will be bigger. More importantly, the NFL will leverage this with the NFLPA because the NFLPA has been backing themselves into a corner on this issue for years. The NFLPA has wanted to sit at the table as an equal partner with owners for years. Now it is caveat emptor - you want to sit as an equal? Fine, than you pay your share of those wonderful stadiums and training facilities that you enjoy.[/QUOTE]


    Talk about irony here. I'm completely wrong, but let's go over some of your points.

    1. Obviously it wouldn't be a good idea for the NFL to have a lockout, yet everything anyone with any insight into the situation has said is that the 2 sides are incredibly far apart. A strike would be detrimental to the league, but the NFLPA might think that's the only way to get what they want.

    2. The NFL doesn't have an anti-trust exemption, you just made that up.

    3. The NFLPA takes dues that are put aside specifically to help its members in the case of a strike. Obviously it wouldn't be great for a lot of players if there was a strike, but there are strikes in a variety of other businesses, and those strikers also have to struggle economically. That's the basis of a strike.

    4. Your point here is flawed. You're saying that teams with cheap owners would like to take the opportunity to cut overpriced draft busts. These cheap owners are the people who WOULDN'T to that, because all of the money accelerates to one lump sum. Of course this being an uncapped year has been bad for the NFLPA, because it's kept about 200 players from being UFA and being tendered instead. That's why both Kevin Mawae and DeMaurice Smith have gone on record as saying that they want NO salary cap in the future. Hopefully that won't happen.

    5. I'm not sure what your point is here. You're talking as if you're the owners legal counsel. Both sides definitely have valid points, but do you expect the owners to say something along these lines to the NFLPA negotiators, and the negotiators will just agree?

  7. #7
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    The NFL has an anti-trust exemption based upon the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Check your facts first. This is what gives the NFL the ability to pool broadcasting rights and blackout games - hence the ability to sign that lucrative TV deal.

    So I didn't make up anything!!!

  8. #8
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SMC;3507457]LOL.

    You claim that the guy is completely wrong because you're doing your best Nostradamus imitation?

    Neither you nor I have any clue as to whether there will be a lockout in 2011. So for you to make the unequivocal statement that there will "never be a NFL lockout" is ludicrous.

    The NFL TV contract is guaranteed money, by the way. That means, the NFL still gets paid even if there is no football because of the lockout.

    You can't claim that someone else is wrong and doesn't know anything when your whole opinion is based on a guessing game.



    The NFL doesn't have an anti-trust exemption. Only MLB does.[/QUOTE]

    My opinion is no more ludicrous than a blanket statement that the NFL will be locked out.

    As far as the NFL's anti-trust exemption, I would recommend that you check out the following:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961[/url]

  9. #9
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=njherdfan;3507469]Talk about irony here. I'm completely wrong, but let's go over some of your points.

    2. The NFL doesn't have an anti-trust exemption, you just made that up.
    [/QUOTE]

    Really, I just made that up? :eek:

    I am the one that is completely wrong? :eek:

    Hmmm, not so sure about that one.
    Perhaps you need to do a bit more research before you accuse me a making something up...

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961[/url]

    [quote]The Sports Broadcasting Act was passed in response to a court decision which ruled that the NFL's method of negotiating television broadcasting rights violated antitrust laws. The court ruled that the "pooling" of rights by all the teams to conclude an exclusive contract between the league and CBS was illegal.

    The Act overrules that decision, and permits certain joint broadcasting agreements among the major professional sports. It permits the sale of a television "package" to the network or networks, a procedure which is common today.

    The law has been interpreted to include the so-called "blackout rules" which protect a home team from competing games broadcast into its home territory on a day when it is playing a game at home. It also, in effect, protects high school football and college football game attendance by blacking out pro football games locally on Friday evenings and Saturdays during those sports' regular seasons.[/quote]

    We can continue this fine debate once you have retracted your statement that I "just made that up."

  10. #10
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    Of course I could be wrong here, but if I was, then why did Congress write Title 15 Chapter 32 as "Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of profession football leagues"?

    [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001291----000-.html[/url]

    [quote]TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1291
    Prev | Next § 1291. Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues

    The antitrust laws, as defined in section 1 of the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730) [15 U.S.C. 12], or in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (38 Stat. 717) [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], shall not apply to any joint agreement by or among persons engaging in or conducting the organized professional team sports of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, by which any league of clubs participating in professional football, baseball, basketball, or hockey contests sells or otherwise transfers all or any part of the rights of such league’s member clubs in the sponsored telecasting of the games of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, as the case may be, engaged in or conducted by such clubs. In addition, such laws shall not apply to a joint agreement by which the member clubs of two or more professional football leagues, which are exempt from income tax under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(6)], combine their operations in expanded single league so exempt from income tax, if such agreement increases rather than decreases the number of professional football clubs so operating, and the provisions of which are directly relevant thereto. [/quote]

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Clark University, by way of West Orange, NJ
    Posts
    1,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=klecko73;3507473]My opinion is no more ludicrous than a blanket statement that the NFL will be locked out.

    As far as the NFL's anti-trust exemption, I would recommend that you check out the following:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961[/url][/QUOTE]

    I didn't make a blanket statement. I said there's a real chance of a lockout. You made a blanket statement and said I was completely wrong. As for the sports Broadcasting act, it seemed as if you were referencing some kind of Antitrust act similar to baseball's, that could conceivably be used to stop players from striking.

    It's common knowledge that teams are able to auction off their television rights. Since that has been in place since 1961 and has yet to stop a league from striking, I fail to see the broadcasting exemption's relevance to this.

  12. #12
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=njherdfan;3507486]I didn't make a blanket statement. I said there's a real chance of a lockout. You made a blanket statement and said I was completely wrong. As for the sports Broadcasting act, it seemed as if you were referencing some kind of Antitrust act similar to baseball's, that could conceivably be used to stop players from striking.

    It's common knowledge that teams are able to auction off their television rights. Since that has been in place since 1961 and has yet to stop a league from striking, I fail to see the broadcasting exemption's relevance to this.[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't referencing Antitrust as it pertains to baseball, because the players are not the ones threatening to strike in 2011. There it has no applicability, as it is the owners threatening to lockout the players.

    IF you want to create leverage to prevent the NFL from locking the players out, Congress certainly does have leverage to get them to the table through the NFL's anti-trust exemption. It is a big deal because it is this exemption that enables the NFL to sign those big tv contracts - the same one that is the guaranteed income for the owners in case of a lockout in 2011. If you don't think that is a big deal or relevant, I don't know what to say.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=klecko73;3507480]Of course I could be wrong here, but if I was, then why did Congress write Title 15 Chapter 32 as "Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of profession football leagues"?

    [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001291----000-.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    FYI, the exemption you linked has to do with the telecasting as the name implies. The antitrust exemption you referred to in the earlier post has to do with the collective bargaining process. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Thus, the NFL [B][I]does not[/I][/B] have an anti-trust exemption.

    [QUOTE][B][SIZE="4"]Supreme Court seems disinclined to give NFL antitrust exemption
    [/SIZE][/B]
    By Robert Barnes
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, January 14, 2010

    Supreme Court justices Wednesday showed little support for exempting the National Football League from federal antitrust laws, a longtime goal of the league and other sports organizations.

    The court considered a lawsuit challenging the NFL's decision to give a sole contract to Reebok to manufacture hats, T-shirts and other apparel bearing the logos of the league's teams. But the bigger question was whether the NFL should be considered a "single entity" -- rather than a collection of 32 independently owned teams -- and thus shielded from the Sherman Antitrust Act. A single company cannot be guilty of conspiring with itself to harm consumers.

    [B][SIZE="4"]Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the NFL's attorney, Gregg Levy: "[I]You are seeking through this ruling what you haven't gotten from Congress: an absolute bar to an antitrust claim[/I]." Among sports leagues, only Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption. [/SIZE][/B]

    [/quote]

    [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011304394.html"]Link[/URL]

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,584
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanInSec230;3507432]Why do people continue to read/take anything that BleacherReport says as serious?[/QUOTE]

    Just sharing an article. What you choose to do with it is on you.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    THe idea that the NFL wouldn't have a lockout/strike because "they saw what happened in baseball" is ridiculous for a lot of reasons.

    The most obvious... THE FANS CAME BACK IN LESS THAN 5 SEASONS!

    Sure the TV ratings were down. But fans, for the most part, have not shown any inability to stay away. When you combine that with the idea that a lot of small market teams are losing a lot of money (Bills, Jaguars, etc) AND that the owners will make money next season no matter what (guaranteed contract of $1B from DirecTV), I don't think fan sentiment is a high on the radar for owners or players (Which is not to say they won't talk about it as rhetoric)

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,584
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the bottom line is a lockout really isn't in anyones best interest. The owners are greedy, selfish SOB's (that how they became rich to begin with)! They aren't crying that their not making money their crying that they should be making more! We'll see what happens but in the end the only ones who will benefit from all of this are the owners.

  17. #17
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SMC;3507511]FYI, the exemption you linked has to do with the telecasting as the name implies. The antitrust exemption you referred to in the earlier post has to do with the collective bargaining process. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Thus, the NFL [B][I]does not[/I][/B] have an anti-trust exemption.



    [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011304394.html"]Link[/URL][/QUOTE]

    The NFL DOES have an anti-trust exemption that allows them to pool telecasting rights. I never said the NFL has a full-blown anti-trust exemption such as MLB...you are trying to put words in my mouth. And my statement is correct - the NFL DOES have an anti-trust exemption, it just is not a full one that provides "an absolute bar to an antitrust claim" such as the one Congress provided to MLB.

    Once again, the issue here is that the owners are considering locking out the players and this exemption DOES have an impact.

    Do you really think the networks, with all that money in the deal are going to sit by idlely and allow the NFL to collect money for a product that isn't being delivered?

    Do you think the NFLPA won't break ranks when push comes to shove with the threat of empty pockets and full NFL coffers in 2011?

    Do you think that Congress will sit by and watch this spectacle unfurl the year before an election? Absolutely not - those knuckleheads will get involved just like the did with MLB and the steriod issue. Especially the year before a presidential election when their phoney-baloney jobs are on the line.

    So yes, I do believe this issue will play a factor in how things go out and is one of the major factors that will ultimately end this nonsense and a CBA deal will be signed.

    Whether you agree with me or not, is another issue. But the fact still remains that the NFL does have an anti-trust exemption provided by Congress - just not the MLB version.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    7,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    Both sides want the world handed to them, and they'll bicker back and forth until some sort of agreement is reached.

    But in the end, the fan will get the shaft. He always does.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    245-A
    Posts
    3,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81695a40&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true[/url]

    [SIZE="4"][B]League, union begin another bargaining session over labor deal[/B][/SIZE]

    Associated Press
    NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith began their latest negotiating session for a new collective bargaining agreement Thursday in Indianapolis.

    As the NFL Scouting Combine got under way, the two sides met in a hotel ballroom. Both sides arrived shortly before 9:30 a.m., and Smith was joined by several players' representatives, including Colts center Jeff Saturday.

    Goodell appeared to be in good spirits. He smiled and hugged one player before negotiations began. [B]Goodell has said he believes the two sides can reach a new deal before March 2011, when the CBA expires[/B].

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Elizabeth, NJ
    Posts
    3,447
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=klecko73;3507428]Your analysis is completely wrong and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of NFL economics.

    #1 - There will never be a NFL lockout. Exhibit A: the NHL and MLB recent experiences. Exhibit B: The NFL's TV contract and $$$ for both the owners and NFLPA. Nobody leaves that much money on the table.

    #2 - NFL's anti-trust exemption. I can assure you that if there is ever even a hint of a lockout, Congress, looking to curry favor with the unclean masses of NFL fans...who also happen to vote, will hold hearings in both the House and the Senate on the NFL's anti-trust exemption status. The threat of those hearings will be enough to nudge the NFL and NFLPA into an agreement. I don't even need to bring up the issue of federal and state tax dollars used for infrastructure improvements on new stadium building, but that is another hammer in the political tool box.

    #3 - The article failed to mention an important point about the NFLPA. Like all unions, they are weak and will cave to the NFL. I call this the Patrick Ewing theory of sports economics: "we make alot of money but we spend alot of money too." The NFLPA can't help itself - those knuckleheads will fold and the union busted like every other strike attempt the NFL has dealt with. Yes this would be technically a "lockout" but it really is a pre-emptive strike against the NFLPA by the NFL. The NFL is forcing the NFLPA's hand because they know they have the leverage in the deal. The threat of the lockout is to force the NFLPA to cave before the situation comes to a head. Trust me, it is alot easier to keep 32 owners in line than it is to keep 1600 players in line - especially when you are dealing with the Pacman Jones, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss chucklehead crowd. Sure the Tom Brady's of the NFL can comfortably survive lockout - but those contracts make up a small percentage of the NFLPA. Do you really think the UFAs, undrafted players playing for the league minimum can afford to not work in 2011? That is why they will cave.

    #4 - One point missing from the article is that an uncapped 2010 is BAD for the NFLPA. First it eliminates the salary cap minimum which would allow the Bungles, Cards, Jags and Bills (cheap bastard teams) to screw their players. Incidently it is those small market teams that are screwing the NFL and the NFLPA. That is why those types of franchises need to move. Plus, an uncapped year means armageddeon to old over-priced players AND young high draft pick busts. Without a salary cap, it will be open season to clean up your cap mistakes in one year with no repercussions or penalties. That means alot of current NFL players are going to lose their jobs and get cut without an agreement in 2010. More importantly, teams will not be signing players to big contracts either as the supply of NFL players will be high and the demand and cost will be low despite the no salary cap limits. Sure you will have an idiot like Dan Snyder do something stupid (like sign LT to outrageous money), but that will be the exception rather than the rule.

    #5 - The stadium deal is a big concern but your are wrong about the impact. The TV contracts are rising over the next few years. The teams, because the days of publicly funded stadiums are over, need to set aside more money than usual to pay for 21st century price tags. The players are not going to be asked to take less money - just a smaller percentage of the bigger pie. Sure the percentage will be less, but the actual real dollar amount will still be more because that NFL revenue pie will be bigger. More importantly, the NFL will leverage this with the NFLPA because the NFLPA has been backing themselves into a corner on this issue for years. The NFLPA has wanted to sit at the table as an equal partner with owners for years. Now it is caveat emptor - you want to sit as an equal? Fine, than you pay your share of those wonderful stadiums and training facilities that you enjoy.[/QUOTE]
    your #4 is completely wrong. there are still penalties for cutting salary in an uncapped year providing a cap is instilled for future years in the new cba. teams are not willing to risk that.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us