Now that the NFLPA no longer exists...

[Mski]

Sounds like free agency will start at midnight tonight, how will not having a CBA, or players union effect free agency, are any of the UFA's willing to sign before this gets resolved?

[X-Era]

Sounds like free agency will start at midnight tonight, how will not having a CBA, or players union effect free agency, are any of the UFA's willing to sign before this gets resolved?Was thinking about that very topic. My guess is that it will work like last year. No cap. Teams won't be making outrageous contracts IMO... or at least no more than they usually do. They won't want to have any of their contracts be in jeopardy if a new CBA gets signed due to some violation of the new rules.

I could see that the action will be much less where teams just won't want to deal with the potential issues of the CBA and would rather wait till the new one gets signed. Of course, they also may feel they may lose out on guys that they really want so maybe they feel forced to make deals.

[better days]

If the Judge orders the NFL to play under 2010 rules, FA's will be the same as last year, so there will be a number of players that thought they were FA but they won't be. That is the reason NFL teams tendered offers on players that could have been FA but will not be under 2010 rules.

[THRILLHO]

Schefter is reporting that the NFL plans to lock out. I doubt anyone is signed.

[EricStratton]

Schefter is reporting that the NFL plans to lock out. I doubt anyone is signed.



That's what I heard talked about the last few days. The owners aren't going to start signing guys because it would show that they aren't in this for the long haul.

[ServoBillieves]

SIGN PEYTON

[Forward_Lateral]

They said on NFL network something about a scenario where the players could all make themselves free agents. I wasn't paying too much attention, so I missed it. Anyone know more about this?

[Buddo]

Nothing will be happening, until such time, as we get some initial rulings, on the various law suits.
These will include what is going to happen with regards the TV money, in which the players already have a favourable ruling.
What happens in the 'anti-trust' case, where the players have a precedential ruling, but have gone about things in a different fashion, which may mean that the previous ruling can be viewed a lot differently.
This will also probably tie in, with whether or not, the Owners are legally able to lockout the players.
TBH, one of the best sources for what can/might/will happen is actually PFT, irrespective of whether or not you like them.
My best guess would be, that if the Owners are prevented from locking out the players, there next move will be to seriously consider implementing their 'last, best' offer.
While it would seem that another anti-trust lawsuit would inevitably occur, should that happen, the Owners do have a number of aspects of a previous ruling, that do give them some leeway in doing this, as there was recognition that sports groups do need some collective bargaining rights.
While it would seem initially, that the players have a better hand, it would only need one ruling to go against them, for them to be put under a lot more pressure than they currently feel.

Ultimately, this dispute does nothing for the furtherance of the NFL as a team sport. If push comes to shove, the Owners could quite easily just say 'it's a free for all' from now on. The players would be totally shafted should they do that - but in time, so would the game.
If the anti-trust rulings start going against the owners, they may well decide to do that, and it could be one way in which they do not have to show anybody other than the IRS, their books.
If those rulings do go against the Owners, it may well be the case, that their TV rights contracts, become null and void, or at the least, they could be a lot easier cancelled and renegotiated.

From here on in, the only 'winners' will be the lawyers.

Oddly enough, the guy who was the head of the NFLPA, is a lawyer. draw your own conclusions on that one. ;)

[better days]

Nothing will be happening, until such time, as we get some initial rulings, on the various law suits.
These will include what is going to happen with regards the TV money, in which the players already have a favourable ruling.
What happens in the 'anti-trust' case, where the players have a precedential ruling, but have gone about things in a different fashion, which may mean that the previous ruling can be viewed a lot differently.
This will also probably tie in, with whether or not, the Owners are legally able to lockout the players.
TBH, one of the best sources for what can/might/will happen is actually PFT, irrespective of whether or not you like them.
My best guess would be, that if the Owners are prevented from locking out the players, there next move will be to seriously consider implementing their 'last, best' offer.
While it would seem that another anti-trust lawsuit would inevitably occur, should that happen, the Owners do have a number of aspects of a previous ruling, that do give them some leeway in doing this, as there was recognition that sports groups do need some collective bargaining rights.
While it would seem initially, that the players have a better hand, it would only need one ruling to go against them, for them to be put under a lot more pressure than they currently feel.

Ultimately, this dispute does nothing for the furtherance of the NFL as a team sport. If push comes to shove, the Owners could quite easily just say 'it's a free for all' from now on. The players would be totally shafted should they do that - but in time, so would the game.
If the anti-trust rulings start going against the owners, they may well decide to do that, and it could be one way in which they do not have to show anybody other than the IRS, their books.
If those rulings do go against the Owners, it may well be the case, that their TV rights contracts, become null and void, or at the least, they could be a lot easier cancelled and renegotiated.

From here on in, the only 'winners' will be the lawyers.

Oddly enough, the guy who was the head of the NFLPA, is a lawyer. draw your own conclusions on that one. ;)

At this point the owners can appeal the TV money ruling which I expect them to do. If they win that appeal, it will be a long time before football is played again on Sundays.

[DraftBoy]

Nothing with FA will happen until Judge Doty hears the Brady/Manning lawsuit on Anti-Trust. Once he hears that and rules that the owners cant lock out, the 2010 rules will still apply and FA will commence.

When that happens though is anybody's best guess.

[better days]

Nothing with FA will happen until Judge Doty hears the Brady/Manning lawsuit on Anti-Trust. Once he hears that and rules that the owners cant lock out, the 2010 rules will still apply and FA will commence.

When that happens though is anybody's best guess.

I think the owners will appeal that ruling from what I have heard so there will be no football at least until all appeals are heard.

[DraftBoy]

I think the owners will appeal that ruling from what I have heard so there will be no football at least until all appeals are heard.

True, Im not sure what is going to happen with that.

[Buddo]

Nothing with FA will happen until Judge Doty hears the Brady/Manning lawsuit on Anti-Trust. Once he hears that and rules that the owners cant lock out, the 2010 rules will still apply and FA will commence.

When that happens though is anybody's best guess.

I don't believe that that is a foregone conclusion, that Doty will rule in favour of the Players on this one. Decertifying prior to the CBA expiring, undermines some of the Players arguments, and the NFL has a decent shot at getting Doty to rule their lockout legal.

[Buddo]

But after that, no doubt, the Players would appeal, so still not much is likely to happen very soon. ;(

[Mike]

Sounds like free agency will start at midnight tonight, how will not having a CBA, or players union effect free agency, are any of the UFA's willing to sign before this gets resolved?


The way I have to come to understand it is as follows:
1) The NFLPA is trying to de-certify themselves (break up the union) and sue on an anti-trust law basis for being locked out.
a) If De-Certification occurs and players sue on an anti-trust basis, Owners will be responsible for 3x the contended amount. That means that guys Brady/Payton, who would have made 31mil this year are now owed 93mil because of illegal lock out. This would give the players the upper-hand and they will most likely recreate the union and get a CBA to go their way while they have the Owners by the Balls!
2) Owners are trying to Prevent a De-certification of the NFLPA and Lock Players out.
a. Owners will argue that the De-certification of the Union is a ploy so they could have an anti-trust law suite and will argue that neither should be allowed. In 1987, this is precisely what the players did. While playing that year -after being allowed back- many players sued the NFL while still receiving a paycheck from the NFL. Owners will argue that the NFLPA is trying the same trick.

So far the Judge has leaned towards the players, so everything will come down to what direction he goes in. There is another notion out there that players do not need a union. The idea of a union is that lower wage, lower ability, workers fight together via mutual representation. NFL players today are not low wage or low ability and do not need to be defended by a union. Interestingly, if there were no union, then there would be no salary cap, no franchise or transition tags, maybe no draft, there would be very few rules of the current rules that could be enfourced as they would be considered illegal. As a result, players like Manning would get much richer contracts and teams like the Cowboys would always be great. For this reason, the NFL really needs to have an NFLPA, ironically, the Union has helped shape and create the NFL we see today.