So here is my question, the NFLPA has supposedly broken up, we know they have at least attempted to decertify legally.
If that is the case then why did they supposedly make a statement about them not wanting the rookies to go to New York for the draft, and then they clarify today that they are fine with Rookies going to New York but they might have their own event.

I thought they decertified, disbanded, Brady and Manning are on their own suing the league for treating the players like a union, and locking them out which is illegal if they are not a union.

So obviously they NFLPA is still acting as a group, so how do they justify making moves and suggestion as a group and even trying to pursuade top players through thier agent to not participate in th NFL draft activities. And suggest that the groupd formerly known as the NFLPA might have its own event in New York.
If all of these rookies are in a free market with no union, why would the NFLPA be suggesting anything to them, and what right do they have to take away these dreams of draft day from these young kids.

they are still a group--a "trade association," not a union

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they are still a group--a "trade association," not
> a union


Ok, so what is the criteria of a trade association vs a union. And what exactly did they change to know be considered a trade association and no longer a union.
Cause if groups can unionize when the rules suit them and decertify when they dont help them. This whole union thing is a sham to take advantage of the business owners



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2011 09:32AM by Crowder52.

the nfl has an antitrust exemption but only when they are dealing with a union. the union decertified; the nfl is no longer dealing with a union and therefore the antitrust exemption is at risk, leading to the antitrust laswuit which was just filed by the players.
the nfl is 32 seperate businesses per last year's Supreme Court ruling. They are collectively acting to lock them out. I don't see what is so unfair about the players collectively acting as a "trade association" in response.

I am curious about what is the requirements, that determine the difference between a "trade association" and a union. I understand the antitrust exemption.
Normally if something walk like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck...IT is a duck! No matter what the duck is trying to convince me of or if the duck puts on a wolf suit. It is still just a duck in a wolf suit...
I guess at the end of the day, that is what the courts are going to rule on, and nobody is really sure.

This whole Decertification thing is nothing but a sham. It's obvious to all. However, how a judge rules is up for grabs.
In the real world, which this is not, the two leverages that can put pressure on negotiations are strike, and lockout.
Players don't want to strike so they pull this sham instead. It's all bull.

Crowder, I think the thing that makes this unique is the 32 individual teams acting as one. Like Leon said, this whole thing is a sham and everyone knows it, just depends what the Judge says.

Leon In Denver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole Decertification thing is nothing but a
> sham. It's obvious to all. However, how a judge
> rules is up for grabs.
> In the real world, which this is not, the two
> leverages that can put pressure on negotiations
> are strike, and lockout.
> Players don't want to strike so they pull this
> sham instead. It's all bull.


I don't get this comment. If there was no lockout you think the players would strike? The whole point of the lawsuit is to get an injunction preventing a lockout and ordering the owners to let the players report.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leon In Denver Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This whole Decertification thing is nothing but
> a
> > sham. It's obvious to all. However, how a judge
> > rules is up for grabs.
> > In the real world, which this is not, the two
> > leverages that can put pressure on negotiations
> > are strike, and lockout.
> > Players don't want to strike so they pull this
> > sham instead. It's all bull.
>
>
> I don't get this comment. If there was no lockout
> you think the players would strike? The whole
> point of the lawsuit is to get an injunction
> preventing a lockout and ordering the owners to
> let the players report.

Berkeley, my first thought was for the owners to simply let the players work. However, as phinfan pointed out that really is not possible because each player would essentially become a free agent. The draft would not be possible as that would be antitrust also as the 32 teams are independent entities and cannot conspire with each other. So they really need a CBA to function and that has now expired.
Instead of striking, as they once did, the union decides to put pressure on by decertifying. Just a ploy or sham in hopes the court will decide to put pressure on the owners to sign an agreement.

In my opinion what should happen is the court to force them back to the table and throw out this decertification thing. That would put pressure on both sides IMO.

Well, I'm wrong with him then because I always thought that the NFL has an Anti-Trust exemption---in particular because I have always been pissed off about the fact that I am forced to buy the "Sunday Ticket" from DirecTV, causing me to wonder how a monopoly (anti-trust exemption) can itself give another company a monopoly on part of its product.

Well hopefull after this BS, that Cable, and Dish will also get the sunday ticket!!!

See another awsome thing comming from war!!! Sure its ugly, and not wanted, but the goodness that can come from it!!

Mia1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well hopefull after this BS, that Cable, and Dish
> will also get the sunday ticket!!!
>
>

And also single-game pay per view on cable.

I can dream, can't I?

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mia1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well hopefull after this BS, that Cable, and
> Dish
> > will also get the sunday ticket!!!
> >
> >
>
> And also single-game pay per view on cable.
>
> I can dream, can't I?

Brother, preach on. I would literally dance a jig if they came up with single-game ppv. Absolute heaven!

Oh man, this guy has a really tough time answering a direct question...he seems to be almost impossible to negotiate with. His answer about increasing games to 18 is anything but straight.

I thought the interview was loaded with spin. Especially his math.

But not being able to answer the direct question about how to make an 18 game season safer (120 minutes of offense, defense, special teams -- minus 2 preseason games).

It shows that he hasn't thought it through. Obviously, if he was to make some type of offer on what a safer 18 game season would look like...he would have to come in high. It is clear that he did not want to upset some of his players that affirm that an 18 game season is NOT an option. Hence, he has taken a impossible to negotiate with approach. Every offer that he gets is an insult and he has no counter offer.

He just may be an idiot.