Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    See the link to an article in the NYTIMES this monring, which is pertinent to the Players or Owners debate.  See the link and then have at it fellow forumites, if you so desire....


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/sports/football/02nfl.html?_r=1&ref=global

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lippa. Show lippa's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

     Very interesting Iwas unaware that the players got a cut of tv deals . good post
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JoeFoyFan. Show JoeFoyFan's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    I have never purchased a ticket to a Pats game, listened to a game via audio or watched a game on TV to see an owner play football! Owners provide an environment, coaches, and some interesting distractions to games (yes, I do watch cheerleaders). In this dispute, NFL players get my support.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from baseball4life93. Show baseball4life93's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    i have trouble understanding exactly what this means.. does this help move negotiations along??
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    Doty is the same guy who ruled in favor of the players back when Gene Upshaw took over. He's from Minnesota.

    I find it odd that the union de-ceritfies specifically to hand pick a judge they know will rule in their favor.

    Smells.

    Money talks.

    Doty is the same pathetic judge who gave Vick 16 million dollars via Atlanta's checkbook after being found guilty of a federal crime.

    It just reeks.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3229782
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]i have trouble understanding exactly what this means.. does this help move negotiations along??
    Posted by baseball4life93[/QUOTE]

    if I'm reading it correctly, it does the exact opposite, baseball. This is about money owners may get and players won't when the lockout comes down this week. The union argument is that the owners restructured the TV contracts to essentially hide money in the future so that there would be a smaller pool of TV money to tide players over in the event of a lockout . . .  thus proving that the owners had been planning this for a good, long time.

    As to Rusty's point . . .   I can only assume he's being facetious. There isn't anything the least bit odd in the union just happening to find the right judge. Cherry-picking (or trying to) a favorable bench is half of what lawyers do (the other half being reaping the rewards -- win or lose -- of other people's misery).
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]Doty is the same guy who ruled in favor of the players back when Gene Upshaw took over. He's from Minnesota. I find it odd that the union de-ceritfies specifically to hand pick a judge they know will rule in their favor. Smells. Money talks.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    The union hasn't decertified  . . . and Doty's been overseeing the CBA for years now.  Not sure what you're saying here.  Apparently you think the federal courts are corrupt.  That's a pretty serious accusation to make. 



     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE] Very interesting Iwas unaware that the players got a cut of tv deals . good post
    Posted by lippa[/QUOTE]


    It's part of the salary cap--the cap is set based on revenues and part of the agreement is that the league will negotiate to maximize revenues from TV (and other deals) to benefit both the league and the players.  The more revenue they get, the higher the cap can be.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    Facetious?

    The only good lawyer is a dead one.  heh

    The players don't own the teams nor do they negotiate tv deals. They negotiate for their worth in the market (NFL players) on the field.

    Anything else tied to owning a team is peripheral to any argument the players conjure up in their minds.

    Unbelievable. What planet am I on here?

    Mike Vick sits in jail collecting 16 millon from Atlanta after channeling Heinrich Himmler and Al Capone for 10 years because he had a "deal" with the Falcons to play QB.

    Nice logic, Judge Doty!

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3229782

    The owners have the right to do whatever they wish with money in terms of saving and trying to grow the league. Period. 

    They're not hiding any money. They're setting it aside.  Believe it or not, the last 3-5 years has been a horrendous time to be unloading large amounts of money in an uncertain economic environment.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : The union hasn't decertified  . . . and Doty's been overseeing the CBA for years now.  Not sure what you're saying here.  Apparently you think the federal courts are corrupt.  That's a pretty serious accusation to make. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    You're kidding, right?  Some judges and lawyers aren't corrupt?  Really?

    For that ruling to be acknowledged the union has to de-certify. It's a worthless ruling if they continue to negotiate as a union.

    Can't have it both ways.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]i have trouble understanding exactly what this means.. does this help move negotiations along??
    Posted by baseball4life93[/QUOTE]

    Maybe.  Here's what it means.  The owners had negotiated a deal that allowed them to get paid by the networks even if they locked out the players and there were no football games on TV.  The owners had planned to use this money as a "war chest" to give them funds to continue operating even while no games were being played. The ruling basically says this agreement with the TV networks was not consistent with the CBA.  Because of this, the NFL may not have access to those funds.  The "war chest" therefore may not be available to them.  This makes it financially more difficult for the owners to lock out the players.  It therefore may put more pressure on the owners to come to an agreement.  Then again, the owners may still feel they have enough assets to push forward with a lock out.

    In the meantime, however, players may feel more comfortable pre-empting a lock out by decertifying.  It's hard to predict what will happen in Court, but two major rulings have now gone against the owners (one in Doty's Court, one in the Supreme Court).  Maybe this trend emboldens the union? 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : It's part of the salary cap--the cap is set based on revenues and part of the agreement is that the league will negotiate to maximize revenues from TV (and other deals) to benefit both the league and the players.  The more revenue they get, the higher the cap can be.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    That's correct. It was negotiated in the last CBA deal, as well. The one the players won per Kevin Mawae.

    Didn't seem to be effective enough for the owners, hence why we are here.

    I don't think the cap level or rate hikes is the issue.

    We all know the cap structure will be increased, it's the rate of increase in the life of the deal that is the issue, in my opinion.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : You're kidding, right?  Some judges and lawyers aren't corrupt?  Really? For that ruling to be acknowledged the union has to de-certify. It's a worthless ruling if they continue to negotiate as a union. Can't have it both ways.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    You're wrong about this.  No need for the union to decertify for the ruling to stand. The ruling has nothing to do with decertification.  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]The owners have the right to do whatever they wish with money in terms of saving and trying to grow the league. Period.  Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]


    The owners have signed agreements they are legally obligated to honor.  There are also laws they must follow. Sorry, owning something doesn't put you above the law or make it possible for you to ignore legally binding contracts you have signed.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : You're wrong about this.  No need for the union to decertify for the ruling to stand. The ruling has nothing to do with decertification.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    You sure?  Then, why de-certify? 

    Here's what I have as to why they would and for why they have to for that ruling to have any credence:

    "If the players break away from the union they can sue the NFL, but according to the SportsBusiness Journal, owners will still attempt to lock out players even if they do decertify. If the players union follows through with decertification, as expected, and the owners lock out the players as well, the thinking is that the NFL would be violating anti-trust laws by shutting down a non-union work force."
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : The owners have signed agreements they are legally obligated to honor.  There are also laws they must follow. Sorry, owning something doesn't put you above the law or make it possible for you to ignore legally binding contracts you have signed.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    That's fine. I completely agree. I just don't buy the angle that the owners entire goal here is to show intent to pull a fast one and not act in good faith.

    Not buying it. Too much at stake, the league is too successful, etc.

    Your premise appears to be "players are victims of corrupt owners".

    If this was MLB, then yeah, maybe I could see more arrogance from the owners even though the MLB union is the worst of them all.

    We aren't privy to the details and financials, obviously.  My take is more about principle and how the world has always worked.

    You have an owner and the owner has employees.  The player is an employee. 

    It appears the union is claiming their desire for certain cap structures within the life of the next deal is being held up by this supposed "war chest" that belongs to them.

    I am not buying that the owners are hiding these revenues in order to negotiate a lower cap structure.  If anything, that is more of an accusation than me saying "judges and lawyers can be corrupt".

    Mind you, this is after owners have been paying rookies huge contracts out of college not even proving themselves yet, grown the league substantially over the past 10-15 years with the health of the cap, and are trying to do so again.

    The players aren't victims here. And it's very telling to me that their last CBA deal they thought was so great, was actually completely out of whack.

    Funny when the union has the bright idea to pay Mark Sanchez more than Tom Brady and it doesn't make much sense. Yet, the union thinks they know how to run a business.

     
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : You sure?  Then, why de-certify?  Here's what I have as to why they would and for why they have to for that ruling to have any credence: "If the players break away from the union they can sue the NFL, but according to the SportsBusiness Journal , owners will still attempt to lock out players even if they do decertify. If the players union follows through with decertification, as expected, and the owners lock out the players as well, the thinking is that the NFL would be violating anti-trust laws by shutting down a non-union work force."
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]


    This particular ruling is about the TV revenues and how that deal was negotiated. Under the CBA the league is required to negotiate in ways that maximize revenues for both players and the league.  The "war chest" deal that the owners worked out was found to benefit the owners but actually limit revenues for players.  It was therefore found to be invalid because it violated the terms of the CBA.  This puts in question the owners ability to use this so-called war chest. The war chest, as you'll remember, was the amount the owners get paid by the networks during a lock out. That whole arrangement is now in question.  Unfortunately, there were apparently documents showing that the owners pursued this agreement with the networks specifically because it gave them advantages over the players. Doty reacted in part to these documents which were evidence that the owners weren't negotiating with the TV networks in ways which were consistent with their agreements with the players. 



     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    Besides I thought it was the owneres who started us down this road last year when the voted to opt out of the current CBA.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : This particular ruling is about the TV revenues and how that deal was negotiated. Under the CBA the league is required to negotiate in ways that maximize revenues for both players and the league.  The "war chest" deal that the owners worked out was found to benefit the owners but actually limit revenues for players.  It was therefore found to be invalid because it violated the terms of the CBA.  This puts in question the owners ability to use this so-called war chest. The war chest, as you'll remember, was the amount the owners get paid by the networks during a lock out. That whole arrangement is now in question.  Unfortunately, there were apparently documents showing that the owners pursued this agreement with the networks specifically because it gave them advantages over the players. Doty reacted in part to these documents which were evidence that the owners weren't negotiating with the TV networks in ways which were consistent with their agreements with the players. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Do you have sources to back these series of statements or are these opinions?

    Not trying to be combative, just curious if what you are saying is factually correct or just your take on the matter.

    If what you are saying is true:

    1. It will be hard to prove that (advantages over players) as intent.

    2. The owners re-negotiating with the tv deals may not be a violation of their own deal under the CBA with the players, whatsoever.

    3. I fail to see how what the owners get paid during a lockout has to do with a previously negotiated CBA where the players were honored under the CBA in full the entire time.

    If they honored the previous CBA deal and followed the, the "war chest" savings by the owners as a whole has no bearing on the new CBA deal nor is it the players' business, in my opinion.  It's no really tied to it.

    I understand the union gets a cut of the revenue.  Unless this has not happened,  I don't get where this claim is coming from.

    Everything is negotiable in a situation like this.  So, unless the owners are looking to severely reduce the total share from the tv deals, down from 60% I believe, then it doesn't matter who negotiated what in terms of the owners actually trying to increase the pot.

    I do think it's fair to show total revenue to use it as a starting point for the new CBA.  Sure. I am assuming that's already been done.

    Does the union get involved with the tv deal negotiation?  That's one question I don't have an answer for. Maybe you do.

    I do see how it might provoke some feelings of disconcert, etc, but not anything more than that, nor is does it read like the owners were violating the previous CBA deal by adjusting the deal they had with the tv companies.

    Keep in mind how brutal this economic situation has been for pretty much every single industry.

    Also, there is no league without the owners running it and supporting it to make it go.

    I just don't think in a million years the owners would risk circumventing the previous CBA in order to put aside a war chest to leverage this new deal.   It has more to do with them having control to re-invest in the league, in my opinion.

    It's why we see Goodell dancing around Ontario and Europe every year trying to promote the NFL. They are desperate for new streams of revenue.

    Or, we are looking at contraction, which may be a good thing, actually.

    I also find it hard to believe the NFL made more from the tv deal in the last few years considering the downturn in advertsising investment, etc.
     
    Goodell is a lawyer himself and I just don't see him presiding over something as sketchy as that.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME2. Show NEGAME2's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    more info on the NFL TV deals

    ]ou know you've reached the absolute limits of your power as a major network ... [when] the commissioner of the National Football League calls you ... and says ... [w]e're done, pay this or move on .... [the NFL has] market power like no one else, and at a certain point in time, they'll tell you to pack it up or pay the piper," the executive said.

    Doty said at least three networks expressed "some degree of resistance to the lockout payments"; that the NFL "characterized network opposition to lockout provisions to be a deal breaker"; and that DirecTV "would have considered paying more in 2009-2010 'to have [the work-stoppage provision] go away."

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379

    so the networks were given no choice, but to go along with NFL, still think the NFL wasn't planning this.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    As I read the tea leaves, without this ruling the NFL would try to outwait the players.  After a few months of no football a few would cross the line, then the NFLPA would capitulate.  With this ruling the owners have $4 billion in guaranteed profits locked up in escrow and it becomes a bit harder for the NFL to hold out so well.  It also makes the NFL look greedy, which strengthens the players' resolve.  If the NFL isn't going to get anything but heartache out of a protracted strike, they'll simply offer a better deal to the players and the whole thing will be blown over.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : Maybe.  Here's what it means.  The owners had negotiated a deal that allowed them to get paid by the networks even if they locked out the players and there were no football games on TV.  The owners had planned to use this money as a "war chest" to give them funds to continue operating even while no games were being played. The ruling basically says this agreement with the TV networks was not consistent with the CBA.  Because of this, the NFL may not have access to those funds.  The "war chest" therefore may not be available to them.  This makes it financially more difficult for the owners to lock out the players.  It therefore may put more pressure on the owners to come to an agreement.  Then again, the owners may still feel they have enough assets to push forward with a lock out. In the meantime, however, players may feel more comfortable pre-empting a lock out by decertifying.  It's hard to predict what will happen in Court, but two major rulings have now gone against the owners (one in Doty's Court, one in the Supreme Court).  Maybe this trend emboldens the union? 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    This is a very good explanation. In terms of the union it actually does nothing for them other then give them the confidence that the courts might rule more favorable in their direction if it comes to that but nothing else. It essentially means that the tv revenues are frozen and can't be touched until a new cba is reached. Now this actually hurts the common man more then anything else. The owners were going to use the warchest to continue to pay employees and keep operations running, but with the assets frozen they might need to lay off blue collar employees they would normally keep employed. This might actually backfire against the union in public support if the owners come out and say now that we don't have our warchest to keep operations running we are going to have to institute temporary layoffs of employees to keep the operations afloat during the lockout. Now that makes it look like the owners tried to keep people employed but can't because the union won't let them use the funds.

    Not sure if this is as big a win to the union as people think it is
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : Do you have sources to back these series of statements or are these opinions? Not trying to be combative, just curious if what you are saying is factually correct or just your take on the matter. [/QUOTE]

    Fair enough, Rusty . . . there are a bunch of articles out there now that explain what happened and if you're really interested the Court's opinion is available too.  The New York Times article that Dessalines linked to is good, as is the AP article I linked to.


    [QUOTE] If what you are saying is true: 1. It will be hard to prove that (advantages over players) as intent. [/QUOTE]

    The judge's ruling already addresses this.  There is (documentary) evidence of intent. Regardless, the judge found the deal to be economically disadvantageous to the players and therefore contrary to the CBA.  Mike Florio has a good article to read if you need more information: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/02/in-hindsight-dotys-ruling-was-a-no-brainer/

    [QUOTE] 2. The owners re-negotiating with the tv deals may not be a violation of their own deal under the CBA with the players, whatsoever. 3. I fail to see how what the owners get paid during a lockout has to do with a previously negotiated CBA where the players were honored under the CBA in full the entire time. [/QUOTE]

    The CBA gives the owners a fiduciary responsibility to maximize revenues for both players and owners. Read the Florio article.

    [QUOTE]If they honored the previous CBA deal and followed the, the "war chest" savings by the owners as a whole has no bearing on the new CBA deal nor is it the players' business, in my opinion.  [/QUOTE]

    The agreement was signed by owners and players and obligates owners to maximize revenues in the interest of both. It's not a matter of opinion. The Judge further found that the deal which allows the owners (but not the players) to get paid in the event of a lockout doesn't maximize revenue for both players and owners. In a way (as Florio points out) it's almost a no-brainer. 


    [QUOTE]  Does the union get involved with the tv deal negotiation?  That's one question I don't have an answer for. [/QUOTE]

    No, but the CBA requires the owners to negotiate with the interests of both players and owners in mind. The judge found this TV deal to have been negotiated in a way that places the interests of owners over player interests. This isn't allowed under the CBA agreed to by owners and players.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    I read them. That's just Florio agreeing with the ruling.

    That doesn't mean anything other than the judge and Florio seeing it interpreted in that way.

    As some of the fan comments note below in Florio's post, "maximizing of revenue" is completely subjective. 

    What exactly is documentary evidence of intent? Intent of what? To have money to grow the league?  Waiting to do it?

    That;'s not intent to hoodwink the union. Not at all.

    Maximizing revenue in the worst economic dowturn since 1929 is almost an oxymoron for a corporation as large as the NFL.  You won't be getting a high return right now, that is for sure.

    I find it laughable a judge can tell owners how to run a league what's best to maximize revenue, especially during an economic disaster such as this.

    Ever since Doty ruled for FA in 1993, which was a good ruling for sure, he's been in the union's back pocket.

    Who knows, maybe it's a lifetime deal, so to speak. It sure looks that way. The union has used him for these kinds of brokered judgements and he's ruled in favor of the union at every turn.

    I'd like to hear another judge's thoughts, thanks.

    At the end of the day, you seem to think the players are victims of the total revenue pot, and I don't.

    The NFL wants to make sure they can grow the league and keep it healthy moving forward, while a bunch of union reps, who are veterans of the NFL don't really care about that whatsoever, and want to get the most money they can get before retiring.

    This pretty much patterns the UAW situation with the Big 3, except the NFL owners aren't abusing their employees nor are they outsourcing players to other continents to make a profit off their backs.

    Agree to disagree.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals

    In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals:
    [QUOTE]I read them. That's just Florio agreeing with the ruling. That doesn't mean anything other than the judge and Florio seeing it interpreted in that way. Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Hah . .  well Florio's interpretation doesn't matter. The judge's, though, has the force of law. His ruling could be appealed, but I wouldn't bet on the NFL winning the appeal. 
     

Share