NFL refuses to re-open negotiations with former NFLPA [Archive]

zbeg

03-22-2011, 12:48 AM

NEW ORLEANS -- Separating the litigators from the negotiators is the story here during a very unusual NFL owners meeting.

During the weekend, NFL players -- now under the direction of a trade association -- reached out to NFL owners and negotiators and extended an invitation to get back to the table to try to pound out a collective bargaining agreement. DeMaurice Smith, who used to have the title of executive director of the NFL Players Association, went even further Monday, sending a letter to Gregg Levy, one of the lead attorneys for the NFL.

Talks could resume as early as next Monday, and it wouldn’t be out of the question for a deal to be struck within five days of the start of meetings.

But the NFL, according to NFL sources, will meet with the trade association executive board only if the board says it’s a union bargaining for its players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6243983

I hate to put a dent in the "the league is benevolent and wants a deal and the poor owners can't understand why the players wouldn't negotiate" narrative, but if the league was truly interested in negotiating, they would have at least agreed to talk - and not do things like last-second offers at 4pm with major provisional changes, then saying, "Hey, we made an offer."

Poet

03-22-2011, 01:06 AM

Like I've been saying for the past week, the owners are far from the innocent bystanders that people say they are.

sneakers

03-22-2011, 01:08 AM

Blah Blah Blah, that's all I hear out of their mouths.

bcbronc

03-22-2011, 02:19 AM

Blah Blah Blah, that's all I hear out of their mouths.

if by "their" you mean the players AND the owners...agreed 100%.

Northman

03-22-2011, 05:07 AM

I agree, the players are ridiculous.

MNPatsFan

03-22-2011, 10:02 AM

But the NFL, according to NFL sources, will meet with the trade association executive board only if the board says it’s a union bargaining for its players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6243983

I hate to put a dent in the "the league is benevolent and wants a deal and the poor owners can't understand why the players wouldn't negotiate" narrative, but if the league was truly interested in negotiating, they would have at least agreed to talk - and not do things like last-second offers at 4pm with major provisional changes, then saying, "Hey, we made an offer."I believe there are legal implications and consequences for the NFL and its position if it meets and negotiates with the NFLPA while it is a "trade association" rather than a union. As a result, I don't blame the NFL for insisting on the NFLPA acknowledging it is a union, not a trade association, if it is bargaining for the players.

arapaho2

03-22-2011, 10:13 AM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6243983

I hate to put a dent in the "the league is benevolent and wants a deal and the poor owners can't understand why the players wouldn't negotiate" narrative, but if the league was truly interested in negotiating, they would have at least agreed to talk - and not do things like last-second offers at 4pm with major provisional changes, then saying, "Hey, we made an offer."

wrong...the players have decertified as a union...right now they are simply 1600-1800 individual players...individual players with whom some are suing the league...as "individuals"

the trade association has already stated it does not represent the players as a whole, a unit, like a union would...so why negotiate with a group that doesnt actually represent ?

jhildebrand

03-22-2011, 11:07 AM

wrong...the players have decertified as a union...right now they are simply 1600-1800 individual players...individual players with whom some are suing the league...as "individuals"

the trade association has already stated it does not represent the players as a whole, a unit, like a union would...so why negotiate with a group that doesnt actually represent ?

Precisely!

The players and their union CHOSE to decertify. They can't have it both ways where they get to be individuals and sue but also collectively bargain.

Both parties are to blame but I find no fault amongst the owners for not bargaining with the now disbanded union/leadership. The players took that card off the table by decertifying.

rcsodak

03-22-2011, 11:10 AM

Thd nfl doesn't acknowledge the 'class suitors'. Again, the TA knows this and is simply throwing out bare hooks, not expecting anything more than fan sympathy. We'll see nothing but empty offers from here til 4/6.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

LordTrychon

03-22-2011, 11:50 AM

Precisely!

The players and their union CHOSE to decertify. They can't have it both ways where they get to be individuals and sue but also collectively bargain.

Both parties are to blame but I find no fault amongst the owners for not bargaining with the now disbanded union/leadership. The players took that card off the table by decertifying.

Especially since it would have potential implications in the lawsuit(s).

Aren't what the players suing for essentially 'Look! We're not a union! They can't force these rules on us!'...

So any attempt to come to further agreements about such rules with the non-union would hurt them... right?

jhildebrand

03-22-2011, 12:47 PM

Especially since it would have potential implications in the lawsuit(s).

Aren't what the players suing for essentially 'Look! We're not a union! They can't force these rules on us!'...

So any attempt to come to further agreements about such rules with the non-union would hurt them... right?

It's a lose lose scenario for ownership to do anything with the players association when there is no NFLPA.

So any attempt to come to further agreements about such rules with the non-union would hurt them... right? Not to mention the legal intracacies. Would it hold? What if a small core of players disagreed with the new agreement i.e. Manning, Brady, Brees? Would they be able to challenge the agreement and thereby extend the lockout?

I understand why the players decertified and how it benefits them. However, it isn't all beneficial to the players cause like some seem to think.

GEM

03-22-2011, 12:57 PM

Nomad

03-22-2011, 01:14 PM

GEM

03-22-2011, 01:19 PM

I see this no more than a PR stunt for public sympathy by Smith because he knows that each individual player has to represent themselves as a trade association and won't say he'll represent as a union because then the lockout would be justified! I agree both sides are jackasses, but I assume Smith is trying every angle to see how dumb the owners are!

And the fans. Anyone who read this and felt like the owners were holding anything up because they said no...is out of their minds and don't understand the legalities involved.

Poet

03-22-2011, 01:34 PM

Why would they meet with some guy and some other guys who have no power to actually negotiate because all those guys went to court to say they weren't a group of guys with the ability to negotiate?

Waste of time and could cause issues in the court case those guys filed in court.

Duh.

Simply because if they had worked out something that they liked they could take it to the union (or in this case lack thereof) and get them to re-certify or whatever the **** it would be and then get it done.

This makes my head hurt.

GEM

03-22-2011, 02:38 PM

Simply because if they had worked out something that they liked they could take it to the union (or in this case lack thereof) and get them to re-certify or whatever the **** it would be and then get it done.

This makes my head hurt.

It's not that simple. There is a lawsuit. They can't just drop their guard because they act like they want to come back to the table and talk.

The association knows that and they are playing the media for all it's worth. Oh look at the evil owners they don't want to work this out. No dipshits, you filed a class action lawsuit and we have billions of dollars in assets to protect. A few key words wrong and we've proven your case for you. I wouldn't play that game either.

You can't decertify and then expect to act like a union.

Both sides have cards to be played and both are playing them.

Poet

03-22-2011, 02:42 PM

It's not that simple. There is a lawsuit. They can't just drop their guard because they act like they want to come back to the table and talk.

The association knows that and they are playing the media for all it's worth. Oh look at the evil owners they don't want to work this out. No dipshits, you filed a class action lawsuit and we have billions of dollars in assets to protect. A few key words wrong and we've proven your case for you. I wouldn't play that game either.

You can't decertify and then expect to act like a union.

Both sides have cards to be played and both are playing them.

Honestly I think it is that simple. Both sides have these high-powered lawyers for a reason.

And of course the association is going to play it for what it's worth, just like the owners played the 'we gave them a great offer.....with one hour left to sign' card.

You can always open back up the channels.

Northman

03-22-2011, 02:44 PM

And of course the association is going to play it for what it's worth, just like the owners played the 'we gave them a great offer.....with one hour left to sign' card.

They could of done another extension. It wasnt like it was going to be armageddon or anything. I mean really....lol

GEM

03-22-2011, 03:02 PM

jhildebrand

03-22-2011, 03:50 PM

Honestly I think it is that simple. Both sides have these high-powered lawyers for a reason.

And of course the association is going to play it for what it's worth, just like the owners played the 'we gave them a great offer.....with one hour left to sign' card.

You can always open back up the channels.

It really isn't that simple. If it was how come after the last lockout in 87 the court cases surrounding the lockout weren't finally resolved until 93? :confused::

The simplest solution was they play the upcoming season under the same rules as last season. Neither side was too keen on that idea but the players especially loathed it. The boat has sailed for now. That may be an option the judge forces on both parties but that remains to be seen.

The reality is both parties could have continued to work an extension and that didn't happen. This will be a long drawn out battle. The owners have the upper hand as they definitely have enough money to see an extended delay through. The players have a tangible advantage in Judge Doughty.

Basically, this thing is ugly and will get a whole lot uglier before it gets better!

NightTerror218

03-22-2011, 04:21 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6243983

I hate to put a dent in the "the league is benevolent and wants a deal and the poor owners can't understand why the players wouldn't negotiate" narrative, but if the league was truly interested in negotiating, they would have at least agreed to talk - and not do things like last-second offers at 4pm with major provisional changes, then saying, "Hey, we made an offer."

The owners started with an offer and then backed it in several different offers, the players stood their ground and never budged and just said show me the money. The players not accepting 5 years worth of books is ridiculous saying its not enough information. When they got more information then the owners share with each other.

rcsodak

03-22-2011, 04:43 PM

Simply because if they had worked out something that they liked they could take it to the union (or in this case lack thereof) and get them to re-certify or whatever the **** it would be and then get it done.

This makes my head hurt.
Nope. Their side has said they wont recertify til after a cba or the court ends the lockout. They're all in with the litigation as most of us thought from his hiring.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak

03-22-2011, 04:49 PM

Honestly I think it is that simple. Both sides have these high-powered lawyers for a reason.

And of course the association is going to play it for what it's worth, just like the owners played the 'we gave them a great offer.....with one hour left to sign' card.

You can always open back up the channels.
You keep playing your" 1hr" card. But I didn't see anybody stopping the union from coming back with a reply. Evidently you missed where carol showed dsmith telling the players on thursday they were going to decertify on friday?

I believe the nfl heard that, added the locked pay stipulation at the last minute and handed it to dsmith.
Who's to say a judge doesn't go with 'the last offer on the table'? Brilliant move, imho.
Wouldn't that be a sharp kick to the nuts! :lol:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

zbeg

03-22-2011, 07:38 PM

wrong...the players have decertified as a union...right now they are simply 1600-1800 individual players...individual players with whom some are suing the league...as "individuals"

the trade association has already stated it does not represent the players as a whole, a unit, like a union would...so why negotiate with a group that doesnt actually represent ?

There was no NFLPA between 1989 and 1992, and they still negotiated a CBA during that time. Not having a union in place doesn't mean they can't continue to talk. And chances are that the union won't recertify for years - so unless the owners just play stalemate and have no football for a few seasons, they're going to have to talk with the trade association.

If the owners wanted a deal done as badly as they say they do, they'd open discussions with the trade association. They don't. It's posturing on their part to play the victim, and it's very transparent.

Poet

03-22-2011, 09:49 PM

You keep playing your" 1hr" card. But I didn't see anybody stopping the union from coming back with a reply. Evidently you missed where carol showed dsmith telling the players on thursday they were going to decertify on friday?

I believe the nfl heard that, added the locked pay stipulation at the last minute and handed it to dsmith.
Who's to say a judge doesn't go with 'the last offer on the table'? Brilliant move, imho.
Wouldn't that be a sharp kick to the nuts! :lol:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I didn't miss shit. Regardless, it's still kind of silly to expect anyone to sign something with that impact with only a hour left. And to nip it in the bud, both sides could have offered an extension.

sneakers

03-23-2011, 02:08 AM

if by "their" you mean the players AND the owners...agreed 100%.

Anyone who thinks that by waiting 3 or 4 months will make agree with them, instead of just working through their problems and doing it now....yeah them.

rcsodak

03-23-2011, 09:04 AM

Best case scenario to me...
1. Nfl's case with NLRB gets upheld and the players have to recertify, or not. PICK ONE!
2. Fed judge judy says nfl CAN lockout.
3. Players start grumbling amongst themselves and a cba is signed 4/15.
4. FAgency starts 4/18, denver adds some draft picks, fills a couple needs.
5. Hits homeruns with their first 3 picks.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

vettesplus

03-23-2011, 09:42 AM

all this is great job security for the lyers, oh i mean lawyers!!!!

arapaho2

03-23-2011, 10:44 AM

There was no NFLPA between 1989 and 1992, and they still negotiated a CBA during that time. Not having a union in place doesn't mean they can't continue to talk. And chances are that the union won't recertify for years - so unless the owners just play stalemate and have no football for a few seasons, they're going to have to talk with the trade association.

If the owners wanted a deal done as badly as they say they do, they'd open discussions with the trade association. They don't. It's posturing on their part to play the victim, and it's very transparent.

but they also spent nearly six years in court during that time...after they went on strike and then had players break the strike...after the courts ruled in thier favor on free agency....then they resumed talks and recertified to complete the CBA

rcsodak

03-23-2011, 10:50 AM

Just heard DSmith was once a law clerk for Doty. Interesting tidbit. :shrugs:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe

03-23-2011, 11:35 AM

-

XXm5C7Q4WoQ

-----

arapaho2

03-23-2011, 11:52 AM

-

XXm5C7Q4WoQ

-----

i think getting riid of demorice smith would easily bring an end to this...he seems to be a driving force in making it worse

Sinthor

03-24-2011, 01:43 AM

wrong...the players have decertified as a union...right now they are simply 1600-1800 individual players...individual players with whom some are suing the league...as "individuals"

the trade association has already stated it does not represent the players as a whole, a unit, like a union would...so why negotiate with a group that doesnt actually represent ?

Seems to me that a move like this if true, simply gives the owners more credence (especially in court) when they claim the union decertified simply as a tactic and in fact still is operating as a union. Because you're right...why negotiate with a group that can't speak for the whole. And if they CAN speak for all the players, they are essentially still the players union.

BTW, I think both sides in this debate are being stupid and arrogant. Ok, mostly arrogant on the owners side and a bit petty and silly on the players side. Hope they get over it and get a deal done!

Sinthor

03-26-2011, 11:10 PM

Precisely!

The players and their union CHOSE to decertify. They can't have it both ways where they get to be individuals and sue but also collectively bargain.

Both parties are to blame but I find no fault amongst the owners for not bargaining with the now disbanded union/leadership. The players took that card off the table by decertifying.

Yep, this is silly. The players are trying to bargain even though they aren't a union anymore and played that card and along with the possible technical legal considerations, the owners are being stubborn by wanting the players to say they're a union again because that will then invalidate the anti-trust litigation the players filed. It's still just stupid gamesmanship.

jhildebrand

03-27-2011, 09:33 AM

It is probably already over for the players. Now it is just a matter of time before they figure out what they will agree to. I say that for two reasons. One: the owners have more money set aside to ride this out. Two: there are reports coming out that the head of the alumni association was set to have a presentation with D Smith. He classified that meeting as feeling like he "was at a war crimes trial" that lasted more than two hours and finished by questioning D Smith's character. The players are divided.

JaxBroncoGirl

03-27-2011, 02:22 PM

This is too much for me as I stated before, I'm not good at all this technical stuff, one thing is for sure, the players are not apart of a union anymore and they still have someone trying to represent them does not make sense to me.

Please get it together and let us play some football..............

rcsodak

03-30-2011, 04:11 PM

As of today, the players' 2010 benefits will have been totally funded by the owners, after paying in $177M.
And unlike what DSmith says, over the last 10yrs, the owners have contributed over $2.7BILLION to player benefits.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

zbeg

03-30-2011, 04:22 PM

rcsodak

03-30-2011, 04:33 PM

Source?
Sirius NFL RADIO. Pat Kirwin/Tim Ryan.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

LTC Pain

04-02-2011, 12:34 PM

Now this puts a new spin on the ongoing lockout. Guess I have to say I'm surprised. There went any molecule of support I had for the NFLPA.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/02/hillenmeyer-admits-players-refused-financial-info-for-p-r-reasons/