NFLPA To Decertify By March 3rd

[Mr. Flopnuts]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6161468

Absent a last-minute agreement that no one around football expects, the NFL Players Association plans to decertify by Thursday in an effort to pre-empt an owners-generated lockout, according to multiple league and union sources.

The collective bargaining agreement says the NFLPA in effect must wait six months to decertify if it does it after the collective bargaining agreement expires. It expires at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night.

If the union decertifies, it is no longer a union, and the National Labor Relations Board loses its hold over the NFLPA. The owners are expected to claim the decertification is a sham and challenge it in the NLRB.

But the NFLPA is poised to act this week before it is locked out. It already has obtained unanimous approval from players across the league to decertify, a process it undertook throughout last season and the union's executive committee reaffirmed that vote this past Tuesday to empower NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith to take this action.

The primary reason for decertification would be to file for an injunction that, if granted, would prevent the owners from locking out the players. NFLPA officials and players believe that this could be the only hope to have a full NFL season next year. Furthermore, decertifying as a union prior to the expiration of the CBA would allow NFL players to seek injunctive relief and commence anti-trust action against owners in front of U.S. District Court Judge David Doty, who has had jurisdiction over the current labor agreement since 1993. Owners have attempted unsuccessfully to have Doty removed from jurisdiction and strategically want the CBA to expire to effectively eliminate his authority, a source said.

The NFL and NFLPA are scheduled to meet with federal mediator George Cohen one more time on Tuesday, yet after seven days of meetings last week, Cohen said significant differences still remain.

Commissioner Roger Goodell met Friday morning with the majority of the league's ownership labor committee at the offices of the Indianapolis Colts, a league official has confirmed, briefing the 10-man group on labor negotiations.

Nine of the 10 members of the owners' labor committee were in attendance on Friday: co-chairman Jerry Richardson of the Carolina Panthers; Mike Brown of the Cincinnati Bengals; Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs; Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys; Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots; Mark Murphy of the Green Bay Packers; John Mara of the New York Giants; Art Rooney II of the Pittsburgh Steelers; and Dean Spanos of the San Diego Chargers.

Co-chairman Pat Bowlen of the Denver Broncos was absent but an official believed he participated via phone conference.

In addition to being updated by Goodell and his negotiating team, the committee was expected to honor Cohen's request to assess their positions on the "important core issues" following the past week of mediated negotiations.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Donger

Okay, but the main source of contention seems to be preventing the large market teams outspending the smaller market teams, and that is prevented from happening due to the CBA (and all that it brings).

If that is the case, did the large market teams outspend the smaller market teams before the CBA came into being, leading to domination based on spending?

how many decades has it been since there was no CBA? Its not like the CBA is a newfangled invention.

The collective bargaining agreement forces all the various interests into joining two parties: owners and players. If most of the owners want a salary cap, the large markets have no choice but to go along, because the players are all union.

The teams are not owned by the NFL. Without a union and without a CBA, maybe the NFL will be able to persuade all owners to sign onto one deal that all owners must follow, but maybe not. Maybe the Cowboys just go out, ignore the concept of a draft, sign whoever they want who isn't already signed, and demand that the NFL continue to include them in their league schedule "or else".

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Donger

Just so I'm clear, the NFLPA called for a salary cap?

It was a concession to get a salary floor.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Laz

Yes /Brock

Yes. /Brock

[Donger]

Originally Posted by alnorth

how many decades has it been since there was no CBA? Its not like the CBA is a newfangled invention.

The collective bargaining agreement forces all the various interests into joining two parties: owners and players. If most of the owners want a salary cap, the large markets have no choice but to go along, because the players are all union.

The teams are not owned by the NFL. Without a union and without a CBA, maybe the NFL will be able to persuade all owners to sign onto one deal that all owners must follow, but maybe not. Maybe the Cowboys just go out, ignore the concept of a draft, sign whoever they want who isn't already signed, and demand that the NFL continue to include them in their league schedule "or else".

Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Donger

Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?

SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas

[Donger]

Originally Posted by kstater

SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas

Okay, and do people argue that those teams won because they out-spent the competition?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by kstater

SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas

On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Brock

On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.

That's a good point.

[tk13]

Remember that present day free agency didn't come into affect until 93 or 94 or so.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Brock

Yes. /Brock

Why?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Donger

Why?

To gain and hold benefits they otherwise wouldn't.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by tk13

Remember that present day free agency didn't come into affect until 93 or 94 or so.

good point. If there was no free agency and all teams still decided to honor the draft, then the large markets couldn't buy players.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Brock

To gain and hold benefits they otherwise wouldn't.

Specifically what?

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Brock

On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.

you're insane

if the NFL loses the salary cap completely, for a long period of time, you will see teams from big markets start to take over.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Donger

Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?

Except one has to remember that there was no free agency from 87-89 from 89-93 there was 'Plan B free agency' from 93+ is what we have today. Even plan B was fairly restrictive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_B_Free_Agency

Effectively transition tags for every relevant player. The period is far too short and the lack of effective free agency to draw much in the way of conclusions on a salary cap.