Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft
posted at 4/6/2011 3:53 PM EDT
In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Wants To Eliminate the Draft :
Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]
Tex, I don't think the NFLPA is interested in forgoing the draft.
RESPONSE: Maybe so. But the agents are...and they are the driving force behind the union.
The anti-trust claims are merely procedural at this point. In essence, they have to seek damages against the draft salary cap in order to seek a lockout injunction.
RESPONSE: It's the first step to prolonged litigation. What happens if the players ultimately win?
A revided SSA from White V NFL for sure. One that likely emphasizes the fact that NFL drafts, salary caps, etc aren't 'rights' of the owners, but priveleges granted by bargaining with the players. As I said, if they don't like it, they can always have a free market ... not that I want to see that really, but it is an option if they don't like laws getting in the way of their business, they can declare themselves out of 501(c)(6) and this all goes away.
But this much is for certain. The injunction will only make this shorter. The longest way is if it has to play out in court over the anti-trust. Then the NFL has to go back to the table with nothing, bargaining from scratch as opposed to the precedent set in the 1993 case.
RESPONSE: The only way that this mess gets settled fast is if the owners win. This will force the players back to the table. The more the players win in court, the greater their leverage...and the more reluctant they'll be to make concessions.
I'm not sure what the President and Senate have to do with this. So I'll just skip that. The media has been pretty "fan" sided. Most of the stories I read talk about two greedy groups or millionaires v billionaires. There are people who side with either side here, I don't think anyone is leading anyone to the players' side.
I don't think the owners stopping the injunction brings anyone back to the table. In fact, it basically allows the anti-trust suit to go on anyway, but without football and the guarantee of a locked out 2011. An injunction means football operations begin now and everyone must negotiate. It takes lockouts and strikes off the table. It essentially forces the players and the owners together.
I thought the extended CBA rules were quite inventive, so I would think with those in place some more talking would happen (so long as the injunction blocks strikes/lockouts).
RESPONSE: If the players win their suit, they'll get damages. The alleged extended CBA rules only apply if that's what Judge Doty ultimately rules. Who knows what he'll do?
I think it is the other way around. The NFL has to choose what to do in the case of an injunction. I think I read an article that stated they prepared for this contingency and will go back to the no-CBA rules. Doty can't tell the NFL and players how to resolve the issue, all he can do is rule on whether the 32 teams are using the NFL shield illegally.
RESPONSE: If the players see a golden opportunity to gain unfettered free agency, don't you think they'll go for it?
No. They could have had it in 1993 after White vs NFL, and they bargained it away. I don't think the NFL players want to cancel the draft. I don't even think their goal is to cancel the cap. I think their ultimate goal is to come to the table with equal leverage.