Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

What could happen after today's hearing

Posted on: April 6, 2011 8:44 am
 
Goodell Posted by Josh Katzowitz

If Judge Susan Nelson, who will hear arguments in a preliminary injunction hearing of the Brady v NFL case, eventually rules in favor of the NFLPA, the lockout would be lifted (temporarily at least) and players could go back to work.

Obviously, that would be ideal for fans.

But Albert Breer of NFL.com argues that a decision like that, assuming it’s held up in the appellate court system, might not be great for the state of the game. He writes, “the momentum the game has built over the last two decades in becoming to America what soccer is to Great Britain, or hockey is to Canada, could be slowed significantly.”

He writes that if Nelson grants the injunction, the NFL could conduct business without a CBA (or, at least, use the same guidelines that were in place for the 2010 season), and considering the NFLPA and the owners still will be embroiled in anti-trust litigation, that will hamper the ability for anybody to fully take advantage of the NFL’s popularity.

"It would be almost impossible to operate under those circumstances," one league executive told Breer. "Teams couldn't make any significant investments for the future. There would be no way to build stadiums, expand into new markets, increase television coverage, bring new technologies into play.

"There would be no way to do any joint marketing with the players. There would be no basis for improvements in retired player benefits. Conflict would be the norm."

D. Smith Of course, you have to remember that the NFL operated for years without a CBA after the players won their anti-trust suit against the NFL in 1987. And it's not like the league collapsed. Could a similar event happen this time?

Writes Breer:

The NFLPA contends that the G-3 fund -- which loaned money to clubs for stadium construction -- and other incentives to build new venues can be reinstituted by owners without player involvement. But the likelihood of that happening in the described conditions isn't good, which would leave the future of the league in places like Minnesota and San Diego on hold, and put those franchises on standby.

On top of that, AEG CEO Tim Leiweke told NFL.com two months ago that his project in downtown Los Angeles was contingent on the "right CBA." So without an agreement to speak of, the future of the NFL in the nation's second-largest market would also likely be delayed, putting the Staples Center project in peril.

Then there's the trickledown to the players. Last offseason, the Patriots, Colts and Saints all cited the uncertain labor future as a major obstacle to extending the contracts of their franchise quarterbacks (Tom Brady got his; Peyton Manning and Drew Brees didn't get theirs). Dozens of lower-profile players found themselves in similar situations, with a similar message from teams. On top of that, hundreds of fourth- and fifth-year players were hit by the change in free-agency rules during the uncapped year. It's likely those rules would carry over.

What is up for debate is how the league's growth in two areas -- sponsorship and advances in technology -- would diminish without a CBA. An NFLPA source put it bluntly in saying, "People invest in profitable businesses, and the NFL is highly profitable." The source also took the idea that spending was down as a result of the looming labor problem to task.


Of course, it’s impossible to know how everything will play out based on the way Nelson and, eventually, the appellate court rule. But the process begins today, and for both sides, it has to be a scary proposition as they step into the unknown of courtroom litigation.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed .

Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 9, 2012 8:32 am
 

What could happen after today's hearing

Terrific leftover surfing your ultimate working blog document once more, this has been a long time with luck. In plain english now this composing that particular i've been patiently waited in so that very long.


fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 3, 2012 9:20 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 7, 2011 9:55 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 5, 2011 10:30 am
 

What could happen after today's hearing

Hiya, Amazing procedure inside the web, it looks similar to that of fabulous. My organization is intending to book mark it all and will also ensure that check in general



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: April 7, 2011 9:47 am
 

What could happen after today's hearing

Sonnybono... boy oh boy.  Where do I even start with the crap you spew???
YES they Players would have to play under the 2010 rules which would require 6 year deals....BUT! thats with 20% Increases annually. lol

You believe what you said above benefits the players??  Here's an " LOL " for you then sir.    Because of the 6 years they have to wait instead of the 4, the above not only affects a lot of players today, but others that are at 3 years are affected because their respective teams won't even think about an early extension not knowing if a new cba will be in place the next year.   You have really good NFL players just coming off rookie contracts making peanuts compared to what they would see in free agency, and you think 20 percent makes a difference??? LOL  

The Owners will also be forced to actually RECRUIT talent out of college if they lose anti-trust.  You can't have it without a Union and thus the draft would be illegal.

Pretty sure the league has the resources to "recruit" talent and find many ways to get that done.  But you forgot something though.  Without a union there might not be a draft but there is something else the players can't do a thing about.  There is no collusion either.  So the owners can recruit players, especially their own rookie cap and parameters behind the scenes and there isn't anything anybody can do about it.  
he Owners because they refuse to SHOW what they say ( Because they CANT ) are about ti KILL the GOOSE that lay the golden egg.

This one was one of my favourites.  You are such a union little boy... you're like sheep... a follower that believes what he's told to believe. The owners agreed to show EVERYTHING and COMPLETELY open their books.... but for a 3rd party and not for the union.    A third party is allowed to see anything he or she needs and wants to see to help them come up with a resolution.  What the owners will NEVER do is let their financials become public so YOU get to see them.  I know you stay awake at night wanting to know what Jerry Jones spends his money on but that's none of your business. 
Good Owners and Good Management teams will THRIVE in a truly free market, while complacent owners will see their teams decline due to a lack of talent, and they'll be forced to sell out or move their franchises and will  have to buck up and spend or lose. Better owners will come and they will spend even MORE.

I saved the best for last, that's for sure.  You are a funny little person.  So let me get this straight.  You think "complacent" owners will be "forced" to move or sell their teams if there is no cap???? Wow... another LOL for you sir.   First of all, it's their team and they are never forced to do anything.  Second of all no cap means no floor as well so owners in bad shape financially will pay players pennies.  They'll still get their fair share of advertising and sponsorship dollars from the NFL and they'll be fine.   And lets say for a second that even part of your nonesense is true.  What makes you believe in that idiotic mind of yours that better owners will make a committment to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to enter the NFL when there is no CBA in place and with tremendous uncertainty and volatility for the future????  
I know you're thinking in your pea brain mind that when it comes to owning an NFL team there will never be any risk.  But you must not know anybody that has any money in your little world because that's not how it works.  Billionaires didn't become billionaires by simply spending hundreds of millions of dollars making purchases when they don't even know the terms they'll be operating on.....  that'll never happen.  They would have to get into the NFL for next to nothing and you would see contraction in the NFL before you would ever see that happen.  And contraction would mean less teams and hundreds of players losing their jobs.   Once again another thing terrible for the players. 
If you want to believe the owners are going to be in trouble and suffer without the NFL then you keep believing that crap.  The owners are set for life with other successful business ventures... 13 of them are billionaires for God sakes and the rest worth hundreds of millions... the owners other businesses are protected and so is everything they own personally..... they can't lose long term... the players sure can though;



Since: Oct 20, 2006
Posted on: April 7, 2011 5:12 am
 

What could happen after today's hearing

This is UTTER DRIVEL Redwing.

The REASON the players are doing what they are doing...and the REASON the Owners are fighting it IIIIIIIIIIS the Players will NOT be screwed.

The bottom line is this: The NFL without a CBA and no CAP will ultimately do what people do when they have no contrait.  They cannot collude and thus Salaries will go out of control. SEE MLB or the NBA. lol

SCREWED?  I THINK NOT.

YES they Players would have to play under the 2010 rules which would require 6 year deals....BUT! thats with 20% Increases annually. lol

OH WELL.   And with no CAP you will see the top teir players Salaries shoot thru the roof just like in the NBA.  This will pull up the Median salaries.

The Owners will also be forced to actually RECRUIT talent out of college if they lose anti-trust.  You can't have it without a Union and thus the draft would be illegal.

SCREWED?  Who's SCREWED!!?!??!! LOL

The Owners because they refuse to SHOW what they say ( Because they CANT ) are about ti KILL the GOOSE that lay the golden egg.

Good Owners and Good Management teams will THRIVE in a truly free market, while complacent owners will see their teams decline due to a lack of talent, and they'll be forced to sell out or move their franchises and will  have to buck up and spend or lose. Better owners will come and they will spend even MORE.

Screwed?   You clearly dont see what's going on here.



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: April 6, 2011 10:42 am
 

What could happen after today's hearing

To me, this is still clearly a no-win situation for the players. I may be looking at this wrong, but even if the lock-out is ruled unjust, and the CBA is put back in place, the players will still have to play under the rules of 2010 - which clearly sucked for them.

You're looking at this exactly as you should be and you are right.... the players are screwed either way.   Sure if they win this particular case and the appeals that would follow they'll probably be playing football again this year and won't miss any checks.   But that's the only thing the players benefit from because almost everything else is terrible for them.  No cap means no floor either which equates to players making less money. Without a new CBA there are less unrestricted free agents and more franchise tags then under normal circumstances limiting players movement.   And without a new CBA and the anti trust litigation and possible appeals from either side coming in the future, the state of the game certainly changes.  It's guaranteed to not be as profitable regardless of what the union and it's little sheep followers have to say.   Corporate sponsors aren't stupid.  Yeah, they know that TODAY'S NFL is profitable but investors NEVER INVEST IN ONLY TODAY... they invest in the future. When they are uncertain about the future, they'll spend less or not spend at all.   And even the NFL will be leary taking new deals on, even if it means turning down some money until a new CBA is in place.   Without a new CBA not even the NFL knows what to ask for from sponsors, investors, etc   They aren't going to gamble and get into long term agreements that may or not come back to haunt them later. 
And lets not forget what happens if the judge hearing both sides today rules against the players and allows the lockout to continue.   That would be DEADLY for the players.. ok, maybe not literally deadly .... they'll still be breathing ...... well... barely.    A decision favouring the owners from today's proceedings would mean either the players and their union get on their knees, do what they're told, sign the CBA the owners want and get back to work or risk missing an entire season of football.  That would result in the players making zero dollars for this upcoming season ( unless you want to count the 60 thousand dollars they each get from their union as real money) and would result in the NFL losing billions.  Billions they'll demand they recover from the next CBA.......
As for the anti trust lawsuit coming up later, what a joke.   The league has hired the best lawyers they've ever used in the history of the league to fight that case and I'm betting the owners win that one.  I just can't imagine a union that doesn't get their way at the bargaining tables has the right to "decertify" at the last second and profit from their greed later on.   We'll see what happens with that.... but either way, the players are dead in the water in my opinion. 



Since: May 31, 2007
Posted on: April 6, 2011 10:12 am
 

What could happen after today's hearing

Both sides are screwed no matter what the ruling is at this point.  For the owners, ending the lockout means they are forced to resume under last season's rules... which, if the players win the subsequent anti-trust suit, will mean they've been forced to operate under conditions that then are found to be illegal. 

The other issue is this:  the uncertain CBA and litigation conditions are (as implied in the article) reducing sponsorship money, possibly TV money (depending on how the rulings go), and potentially fan income (especially if games are missed or the product gets watered down).  All of that lost revenue means that even if one side or the other gets the better deal they're hoping for, it still may mean a total loss.  What I mean is, even if the players get a 60% revenue share, if the revenue is down 20% because of all the litigation and hardball crap, they'll still end up LOSING money overall.  Ditto for if the owners get their way.  It's a long, hard road back to those previous revenue levels, and the further into litigation this goes, the larger that revenue level drops (and longer it will take to rebuild).

The '87 strike took the income numbers down far enough that it was actually like 2 CBA's later before they were back up to previous levels (adjusted for inflation and all that).  In other words:  the revenue dropped low enough that both sides had still lost money on the overall deal even long after the deal had played completely out and expired again.

I think both sides took their bluffs and grandstanding too far, ended up in a hole that neither side wanted to be in, and now they're both stuck, because there's no way for them to back out now without losing face/looking bad to their constituents (meaning the owners and players... the fans don't count as 'constituents' to either side in this case).



Since: Sep 2, 2009
Posted on: April 6, 2011 9:25 am
 

What could happen after today's hearing

If Judge Susan Nelson, who will hear arguments in a preliminary injunction hearing of the Brady v NFL case, eventually rules in favor of the NFLPA, the lockout would be lifted (temporarily at least) and players could go back to work.
He writes that if Nelson grants the injunction, the NFL could conduct business without a CBA (or, at least, use the same guidelines that were in place for the 2010 season), and considering the NFLPA and the owners still will be embroiled in anti-trust litigation,



To me, this is still clearly a no-win situation for the players. I may be looking at this wrong, but even if the lock-out is ruled unjust, and the CBA is put back in place, the players will still have to play under the rules of 2010 - which clearly sucked for them.


Add to it that the players are still not a "union" and therefore the anti-trust case is still out there. 

So they would have to re-certify... Thus negating any anti-trust claims.

Seems like a catch-22 and the way I understand it, the players are damned if they do and damned if they dont...


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com