Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

[ddaryl]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/01/union.owners.tv.revenue/index.html

Owners can't have access to the $4 billion in TV money when/if the league shuts down.

Helps the NFLPA some, but over all probably won't change much. I always thought that was a very shady deal.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

...but the networks still must pay it; it just goes into escrow instead of into the owners' pockets. If the NFLPA were smart, they'd convince one or more of the networks to sue for the right not to pay. The weakest, NBC, would be a good candidate, as is perpetually money-hungry ESPN.

[Mad Max]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...nue/index.html


Owners can't have access to the $4 billion in TV money when/if the league shuts down.

Helps the NFLPA some, but over all probably won't change much. I always thought that was a very shady deal.

It's a huge win for the union/ fans. With that money at their disposal the NFL teams would have had the revenue to cover their considerable financial liabilities, thereby putting them at a huge advantage over the union whose members don't share the same luxury.

Most NFL players aren't going to have millions in the bank. These guys are going to feel the pain of any lockout because they got Bentleys and McMansions to pay for with no weekly check coming in(unless you want to count unemployment insurance which tops out in my state at $635 per week) to do so with.

Now many of the owners are in the same boat as the average NFL player. They may not be able to service their debt out of pocket and will therefore start accumulating millions in penalties.

Consider the negotiating field leveled.

[McBFLO]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

...but the networks still must pay it; it just goes into escrow instead of into the owners' pockets. If the NFLPA were smart, they'd convince one or more of the networks to sue for the right not to pay. The weakest, NBC, would be a good candidate, as is perpetually money-hungry ESPN.

I'd have a hard time seeing a network going along with this. They wouldn't want to tarnish their relationship with the league, when the lockout will eventually end. If they sue and their deal with the NFL goes kaput, then they'll be kicking themselves in the a$$ for not just being patient. Mad Max has got it right. The field has just been leveled with this Judge's decision.

[Mr. Pink]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

Owners just lost their main leverage power.

[Saratoga Slim]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

Owners just lost their main leverage power.

True, though there likely will be an appeal, which might mean that the owners sit tight for 3-4 months to see if this trial court's decision stands.

But it is much more encouraging news than if the league had won it. That would have left them in the driver's seat for sure.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

I'd have a hard time seeing a network going along with this. They wouldn't want to tarnish their relationship with the league, when the lockout will eventually end. If they sue and their deal with the NFL goes kaput, then they'll be kicking themselves in the a$$ for not just being patient. Mad Max has got it right. The field has just been leveled with this Judge's decision.

Which is why CBS and Fox would never go along with it. Hence, you have NBC and ESPN.

* ESPN could possibly think that, like the NHL, it could easily tarnish the NFL by simply blacking them out of coverage and giving more time and money to college football or leagues like the CFL and UFL (they've been there, done that with arena ball).

* NBC is a sinking ship. Football's doing well for them, but other than that and their news department, nothing else is. Their prime time schedule is a disaster. The Jay Leno/Conan debacle did big harm to late night. Daytime is practically nonexistent. Even the football could be losing money for them (as MNF was for ABC when they had it in the 2000s). NBC needs every drop of cash they can to simply stay solvent, and giving away $500 million for no programming won't fly over well with the network's owners.

So, those two have the ability or need to challenge the NFL for their cash: ESPN out of a position of sheer power, and NBC out of sheer desperation.

[DraftBoy]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

We willl now have football in 2011. There is no longer a shred of doubt.

[ddaryl]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

Here is another LONG READ, but it tells the tale with a bit more insight.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/02/in-hindsight-dotys-ruling-was-a-no-brainer/

.
.
.
.
.

[Saratoga Slim]

Re: Ruling overturned. No TV money for Owners

We willl now have football in 2011. There is no longer a shred of doubt.

Still plenty of doubt. This is helpful for the players, but it's just a piece of the puzzle. The judge has not yet ruled as to damages, and thus it has not even yet been determined if the money in question will be paid into escrow. If the union decertifies tomorow, individual players will bring antitrust litigation seeking an injunction to prevent the owners from locking them out. This will occur in the same court, per the terms of the expiring CBA.

Thus, the judge will have two separate cases pending in his court. He'll thus hold two carrots: the players desire to bar the lockout, and the owners desire to get at the tv money. Typically a judge would leverage these against the parties in trying to force a settlement by causing each to fear that he might rule against them on the issue they respectively need most.

In short, if the parties don't reach a deal through mediation, a settlement brokered by the judge is the next best option. However, the parties cannot be forced to settle, as they do have a right to trial.

So, this is helpful in that it does provide a stick by which the judge can leverage against the owners in settlement talks if it goes to court, but it probably won't make any difference in the mediation talks occurring now. Make sense?