Toggle sidebar

OT following the NFL/NFLPA work stoppage; UPD agreement reached

MaskedSonja

MaskedSonja

Registered User
Feb 3, 2007
6,548
88
Formerly Tinalera
Just wondering, hearing all about all the "good" things the union can do being decertified, what are the DOWNSIDES to De-certifying? What risks do the players take doing so?
 
kdb209

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Tinalera said:
Just wondering, hearing all about all the "good" things the union can do being decertified, what are the DOWNSIDES to De-certifying? What risks do the players take doing so?
Click to expand...

- No minimum salaries.
- No pensions.
- No guaranteed player percentage of revenue.
- No guaranteed roster size.
- No say in playing conditions or rules.
- Even less guaranteed contracts (cutting players would not necessarily be limited to certain windows in the off season, there would be no restrictions against cutting injured players, etc)
- The big risk of NOT winning big in the resulting anti-trust lawsuits and gaining leverage and ending up coming back to the table with even less bargaining strength.

Remember, there were reasons why they formed Players Associations in the first place.


The stars will be still able to negotiate for their terms. Everyone else may get screwed - but isn't that always the case.
 

Dado

Guest
I wonder if its telling that this go round it's Tom Brady vs NFL, where on an earlier work stoppage, it was Joe Montana going scab and crossing the picket line to play with replacement players.
 
kdb209

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Dado said:
I wonder if its telling that this go round it's Tom Brady vs NFL, where on an earlier work stoppage, it was Joe Montana going scab and crossing the picket line to play with replacement players.
Click to expand...

Two different situations.

Back then - the stars crossed the picket lines to keep their big paychecks.

Now - the stars are suing to prevent a lockout to keep their big paychecks.
 
mizzoublues29

mizzoublues29

Unregistered User
Apr 10, 2009
1,935
0
Columbia, MO
If the season looks to be in serious jeopardy...anybody think the UFL signs some NFL players? I heard that one of the reasons the UFL started up 2 years ago was for this scenario exactly, not sure how accurate that is.
 
thinkwild

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,883
1,548
Ottawa
I woudnt underestimate the owners seriousness in going through with the lockout after seeing what Batterman did in the NHL.

And as the nflpa said, writing a cheque for $800 mil this, year, the next yr, the following yr, the 4th and 5th yrs too, is hardly surprisingly close in dollar amounts.

Was there ever a reason given by the owners for why as their revenues increased greatly over the years, and with non-guaranteed contracts and with tv paying the payrolls, and players on a fixed percentage of revenues, that they need to skim another $1 billion off the top before reapplying the linkage formula. I mean, if their revenues grow another several billion during the upcoming cba, will they need to claw back more revenues again next time?

But the union has decertified. So the owners win? No more union. Why would they care now? Isnt this better for the owners? Or are they wanting the union to return in order to help them keep their costs down?
 
mouser

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,374
12,761
South Mountain
thinkwild said:
I woudnt underestimate the owners seriousness in going through with the lockout after seeing what Batterman did in the NHL.

And as the nflpa said, writing a cheque for $800 mil this, year, the next yr, the following yr, the 4th and 5th yrs too, is hardly surprisingly close in dollar amounts.

Was there ever a reason given by the owners for why as their revenues increased greatly over the years, and with non-guaranteed contracts and with tv paying the payrolls, and players on a fixed percentage of revenues, that they need to skim another $1 billion off the top before reapplying the linkage formula. I mean, if their revenues grow another several billion during the upcoming cba, will they need to claw back more revenues again next time?

But the union has decertified. So the owners win? No more union. Why would they care now? Isnt this better for the owners? Or are they wanting the union to return in order to help them keep their costs down?
Click to expand...

My impression is that the owners simply want to reduce the players % share of the pie. All the justifications as to why they want that [e.g. stadium building costs] are superficial imo. There are no end of articles starting shortly after the most recent CBA agreement in 2006 that the owners believed they signed a bad deal, giving up too much to the players.

The most interesting thing to me is that the NFLPA appears to be seriously committed to resolution via the courts, rather than the negotiating table this time around.
 
MaskedSonja

MaskedSonja

Registered User
Feb 3, 2007
6,548
88
Formerly Tinalera
kdb209 said:
- No minimum salaries.
- No pensions.
- No guaranteed player percentage of revenue.
- No guaranteed roster size.
- No say in playing conditions or rules.
- Even less guaranteed contracts (cutting players would not necessarily be limited to certain windows in the off season, there would be no restrictions against cutting injured players, etc)
- The big risk of NOT winning big in the resulting anti-trust lawsuits and gaining leverage and ending up coming back to the table with even less bargaining strength.

Remember, there were reasons why they formed Players Associations in the first place.


The stars will be still able to negotiate for their terms. Everyone else may get screwed - but isn't that always the case.
Click to expand...

Thanks :)

I'm pretty much a neophyte to hockey business stuff, so non hockey even more so. So, the biggest reason for decertifying is really the process of the Anti-trust suits-and HOPING that they can "Win Big" (and you mentioned the risk involved with that-because if they don't win big, and have less bargaining power, well, all those risks in decertifying you mentioned loom rather large)

I will probably be doing a lot of reading and very little input on this thread-just a lot I don't understand, and a lot for me to learn! :laugh:
 

Dado

Guest
I don't understand how it could be possible for both a lockout to be deemed legal AND existing contracts not voided.

If my employer won't pay me, how can I be prevented from signing anywhere I want?
 
kdb209

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Dado said:
I don't understand how it could be possible for both a lockout to be deemed legal AND existing contracts not voided.

If my employer won't pay me, how can I be prevented from signing anywhere I want?
Click to expand...

During a lockout, existing contracts are not voided - but the locked out employees are permitted to seek employment elsewhere for the duration of the lockout.

That is why players were permitted to sign in Europe during the lockout - even through they were technically still under NHL contract. When the lockout was lifted and a new CBA signed, those contracts went back into force.

That would not be the case in the case of a players strike. During a players strike, the League could prevent players from signing with another league (which respected NHL contracts under IIHF rules).
 
chasespace

chasespace

Registered User
Jul 19, 2010
9,045
18
Gator Nation
As someone who follows the NFL how will this affect the draft? I read that the owners are only allowed to trade picks and not players. Also, the teams are not allowed to contact the players that are to be drafted. How is that supposed to work out?
 

Dado

Guest
Are undrafted players part of the PA? If not, how can owners be restricted from talking to them?
 

Dado

Guest
kdb209 said:
During a lockout, existing contracts are not voided - but the locked out employees are permitted to seek employment elsewhere for the duration of the lockout.
Click to expand...

That's what I find baffling. In my life, if you choose to stop paying me because I won't let you amend the terms of our agreed-to deal, then you and me are done and I am a free agent.
 
Timmy

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
Dado said:
That's what I find baffling. In my life, if you choose to stop paying me because I won't let you amend the terms of our agreed-to deal, then you and me are done and I am a free agent.
Click to expand...


Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think SPC's have provisions for lockouts and strikes.
 
kdb209

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Timmy said:
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think SPC's have provisions for lockouts and strikes.
Click to expand...

No. The SPC does not have provisions covering work stoppages.

The only references to strikes and lockouts in the CBA is an agreement that there will be no work stoppages during the term of the CBA.

The SPC does bind the player and team to the terms of the current CBA and any future ones. It is the transition terms in the future CBA after a strike/lockout that specify things like whether contracts will age or be tolled during the work stoppage and changes to existing contracts like the 24% salary rollback.
 

ebox99

Registered User
May 8, 2009
271
0
Why don't the all the players get together and start their own league?

Call it the Players Football League - PFL.

All the owners would have empty stadiums with no players...lol

The players have capital and would basically have no competition.

Fans would watch if star players formed a new league.
 

Anthony*

Guest
did bettman ever come off as bad as goodell is looking like right now?

iirc it was goodenow that took the biggest hit of all in terms of public opinion
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,800
22,210
Nova Scotia
Visit site
ebox99 said:
Why don't the all the players get together and start their own league?

Call it the Players Football League - PFL.

All the owners would have empty stadiums with no players...lol

The players have capital and would basically have no competition.

Fans would watch if star players formed a new league.
Click to expand...
How much to build these stadiums they would need? The players would then find out, that not all the $$$ would be theirs...there isn't enough good businessmen who are players to even remotely think that would be possible...is there?
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,800
22,210
Nova Scotia
Visit site
Anthony said:
did bettman ever come off as bad as goodell is looking like right now?

iirc it was goodenow that took the biggest hit of all in terms of public opinion
Click to expand...
It was Goodenow who looked real bad, and all he had to do, was give up the no cap idea, and bargain for a bigger piece of the pie, instead, someone else did it for the players...

What has Goodell done to look bad at this point? I haven't followed this very closely...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom