Blog Entry

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

Posted on: June 6, 2011 8:15 pm
Edited on: June 7, 2011 5:40 am
 
Posted by Will Brinson

On Monday, the NFL filed a motion to dismiss the original antitrust complaint from the players in Brady v. NFL. More interestingly, this motion will now be heard on September 12, 2011.

Yes, that does happen to be one day after the first Sunday of the NFL's regular season, thanks for asking.

The motion to dismiss in and of itself was brief -- just two pages -- but the purpose that the motion serves is a greater one because it pushes back the deadline for the NFL to file an answer in response to the players' complaint.

Now that answer won't be due until after the motion is heard, which is after the season begins. This is beneficial for the NFL, the players and the fans because it allows the two sides to continue negotiating without being obstructed by a public legal document, especially one in which the NFL responds -- perhaps in a personal manner -- to serious antitrust allegations.
NFL Labor

And then there's the fact that if both sides have to actually end up going to court for this hearing, it will occur one day after 9/11, when the NFL and the players have decided to skip the first week of the season.

Whether or not memorials for fallen Americans should veer into the realm of public relations is beside the point; missing the first week of the season would be an abject PR disaster.

Hopefully, this would-be extension of time allows the two sides to avoid that nightmarish scenario.

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 8, 2012 1:13 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

This informative article is on an ongoing basis the right way made, and, the product holds a great many handy information. My spouse and i revered your ultimate professed usually means having to do with coming up with this important share.


fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 3, 2012 12:08 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Mar 15, 2011
Posted on: June 7, 2011 10:39 pm
 

meet the money

the owners want another billion, the players want only a few hundred million---just meet in the middle and jack up prices of everything to pay all the new money.  chumps will keep buying the tickets and stuff---it will work.



Since: Feb 21, 2008
Posted on: June 7, 2011 5:20 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

Supporters from either side seem to quote misinformation or just enough to support their views.  Yes, it is true that the owners were in a position to Lockout the players and it really didn't have anything to do with the Players Union decertifying.  The Players decertfied the union to be able to file anti-trust lawsuits in Federal Court.  The problem with this is that a reasonable federal judge should see this as just a ploy to be able to file suit.  The players would not be able to do so without decertfying the union. However, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck its a duck.  So we all know that at some point the union will be once again.  Now do I believe that the NFL could be held accountable under anti-trust issues.  Yes, but unfortunately if that happens, I just don't see the NFL as we know it surviving under these economic times.  Ultimately this will be the downfall for players, owners and fans.  So instead of placing blame to either side, fans (supporters of both players and owners) need to stop bickering between ourselves.  We need to unite and stop supporting either side - don't buy season tickets, TV channels etc. and let both sides know that the greed from both owners and players will not be tolerated or supported.  When it all said and done its just a game that we enjoy wasting our time with.  I don't want to give up Football and my Fantasy Football either but enough is enough.




Since: May 17, 2008
Posted on: June 7, 2011 4:53 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

Cant be a lockout if the union was still in place.  Union decertified, owners could lockout.
Sorry but wrong -- it is the existence of the union, and therefore applicable federal labor law, that gives the NFL owners the right to lockout the players as part of the negotiation process.  If there is no union, thus no application of federal labor law anti trust exemptions, then the "lockout" would be an illegal anti-trust violation.  That is precisely the players claim in their lawsuit and the basis for their request for an injuction to prevent the lockout.  There is absolutely no question that had the union NOT decertified then the lockout would be legal.  Thus the issue is whether or not the "decertification" of the union is real or just a sham to gain leverage in the negotiations with the NFL.



Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: June 7, 2011 4:41 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

Yes!!!  Absolutely wrong.  Your comment is pure speculation on the matter, mine was a fact.  Cant be a lockout if the union was still in place.  Union decertified, owners could lockout. 
Please, you are just in total error.  You completely miss that the owners locked out the players and even on the last contract were making money, if not in annual revenues (even though they probably were) then in asset appreciation.   The Union decertified because the lockout was imminent. 
Someone who will argue so vehemently with lack of fact on behalf of these billionaires who devised these TV contracts so that they could be in a better position after they locked out the players is beyond arguing with. 



Since: Feb 21, 2008
Posted on: June 7, 2011 4:31 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

I find it quite confusing that people are blaming owners and players based on emotion and not facts.  No one side is blameless and there is enough blame to go around based on facts.  First, I will state that I am alittle biased and tend to side with the owners. However,
I do blame the owners for letting the system be what it is today.  Unfortunately greed drives both sides.  The owners want more control and a bigger part of the pie. They indicate that they take on the financial risks and they have much more invested into the team. The players who many are millionaires (or should be if they manage their money properly) also want to hold on to more money (the total of the pie grows and with it the percentage of the pie grows = more money for players). state that they have a small window to make their money, they are the entertainers and that the fans come to see them.  I can debate both positions but ultimately it will take both sides conceeding.  One good example and I believe much of the billion off the top that the owners want to gain back can be made up by setting a Rookie Cap.  Both players and owners want to change the way that rookies are currently being paid.  Its just not right to pay rookies so much up front and in many cases much more than veteran players are being paid.  Both sides agree this should change and a salary cap is needed.  The problem is what should be done with the excess money.  The players feel it should be divided up between the owners and players. The issue of the extra billion dollars being sought by the owners up front can almost be made up by allowing the owners to keep this money.  With the increased revenues especially TV contracts players will continue to get higher salaries.  Yes, owners will continue to make more money also.  I do believe that both sides can fund a medical issurance pension plan to take care of retired or injured players but apparently its not a priority for current millionaires and billionaires.  Anyway, I can debate issues of players having access to owners books or players having to endure two extra games etc. but lets not be fooled this is all about the money! Greed on both sides.  I personally believe players are well compensated and should be accountable to manage their money.  Owners need not open their books to players because it shouldn't matter what they make as long as they are capable of making their finanicial commitments such as player salaries etc. However, I do believe that both sides need to agree on sometype of medical insurance and retirement plan for players.



Since: Jan 7, 2009
Posted on: June 7, 2011 3:37 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

Really?  Wrong... Completely....  The owners could have, would have, and had planned for years to lock out the players....  It was in the last contract that the owners could lock out players

Yes!!!  Absolutely wrong.  Your comment is pure speculation on the matter, mine was a fact.  Cant be a lockout if the union was still in place.  Union decertified, owners could lockout. 

The owners made a lousy last-second offer to the players after it was already too late to avoid litigation.  They did it solely to look good for idiotic fans like yourself.  It was far too late to even be credible.

That offer was immensely better than the ridiculous one put out there by the players.  That one seems to be good enough to appease a dolt like you into believing the players were there to negotiate in good faith.  They would not have lost their right to still decertify and go the antitrust route later.  Instead they didn't even bothered to produce a counter offer and brought us to where we are today. 

It was mostly a non-offer designed to trick fools like Meow

As told to us all by the guy who hasn't gotten a fact right yet. 



Since: Jan 7, 2009
Posted on: June 7, 2011 3:20 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

A- The owners are asking for another Billion dollars of the top in revenue claiming financial hardship.  If so, why not prove it???

More proof of just how clueless you really are.  The only thing you got correct was that the owners were asking for an additonal million of the top.  A number that was significantly reduced in the last offer the owners put out before the players decertified.  Perhaps you should ask yourself whether or not things cost more today than they did several years ago?  Since that is an absolute given then why would it seem so unreasonable that the owners wanted more to cover those higher expenses?   Is an additonal billion dollars too much, yes it is, but that was the first number they put out there and had been making concessions to that in subsequent offers.  Had the players stuck around to negotiate I've no doubt they would have come to an agreed upon amount that both sides were ok with.  In case you can't figure it out, and based on your next comment about the Packers financail affairs I'm betting you cant, as the expenses increased beyone the $1 billion off the top that the owners were getting they had to pay the extra.  That comes out of their profits and only their profits, it doesn't touch the players amount.  As a result its only fair that a new deal would address that, why should that fall entirely on the owners. 

B- We do have an open set of books to look at for one NFL franchise, the publicly held Green Bay Packers, and this team has been raking in cash for years and had no hardship at all.  Based on the visible evidence we have, the owners are being deceitful about their financial hardships with their teams and they have been making money.  The Packers have been proving them as liars for years.


Have you even bothered to look at their numbers???  Seriously have you??  Do you know the difference between revenue and operating income??  Because if you did you'd see that although the Packers remain profitable the amount they have been making has been steadily decreasing over the years of this last CBA.  Don't confuse revenue with operating income.  Revenues have been going up every year, but the Packers profits have been declining.  How do you explain that???  There is one reason and one reason only.....expenses are rising at a pace that is above revenue growth.  It is beyond belief to me that you can actually make posts and state evidence to support your case that in fact proves you to be completely wrong. 

As far as the "risk of ownership"???? Please....  There is little/no risk in having an asset that you could sell for 500 million dollars.  That's been the value of these teams even  with the old labor agreement.  Even if an owner is losing 10 mill a year in operating expenses (which actually looks pretty doubtful based on the open set of books we can see), they still are sitting on a huge sellable asset whose value has been increasing annually by more than their loss of operating expenses.  That is making bank.


You're an imbecile.  First off the franchises are worth more like $1b not $500m, another simple point that shows how little you know.  But what owner would want to stay in business to lose $ each year??  They are certainly entitled to make a profit, thats the reason you'd invest in buying a team.  The fact that the value of business is increasing is completely and totally irrelevent, plus there is certainly no guarantee that its valuation will in fact continue to go up each year.  The owners have considerable risk in owning these teams.  Just because they arent currently on hard times doesnt mean it cant happen. 

The owners just want MORE money.  They really don't need it.  This remains 100 the owners fault as explained in my last post. 

That statement shows your true colors on this matter.  You are a jealous fool who thinks that just because the owners already have more money than we could ever dream of that they aren't entitled to make any more.  That's not how capitalism works.  Let's not forget the players, most of whom have no other marketable skills whatsoever, are making millions per year thanks to the good business sense of the owners who have done the right things to make the league the success it is today.  They should say thank you and feel blessed to make that kind of money to play a game most of us would love to go back and do all over again when we were playing the game. 





Since: May 17, 2008
Posted on: June 7, 2011 3:12 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

b) Our careers are so short (i.e. They'll be gone in 4 years, and new stars will come along, so how important can they be)
Great point -- the NFL has continued to exist, and by the players' accounts at least, prosper despite the rapid turnover in employees (players).  When "stars" leave the game, more line up to take their places and the NFL goes on and on--no drop off in popularity.  In other words, even the "stars" are expendable--If Brady, Manning or anybody else are not willing to play for $5million instead of $10million or whatever my guess is there are plenty of players out there who would take the lower amount rather than driving trucks, selling insurance, or whatever they would do instead of football and the NFL would continue to draw huge revenues.



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