NFL Players Asking $707 million in Damages

[vailpass]

My question is: who is representing the players in this now that they are no longer NFLPA?

The NFL's locked-out players are asking a federal judge for at least $707 million in damages stemming from a dispute with the league over $4 billion in broadcast revenue.

U.S. District Court Judge David Doty took the request under advisement after a two-hour hearing Thursday that included arguments from attorneys for the league and players.

The players have accused the NFL of illegally securing the $4 billion ''war chest'' by renegotiating TV contracts for 2011. Doty has ruled that the league failed to maximize revenues for the players in those negotiations, essentially leaving money on the table.

The players contend the new contracts were reached to fund the lockout, which has been in place largely without interruption since March 11 and is currently before a federal appeals court. Doty told the attorneys he had hoped the dispute would have been settled by now.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-players-ask-for-707-million-dollars-in-damages-in-TV-dispute-051211

[chasedude]

:shake: My expectations of this ending before the season starts is getting further away...

[jaa1025]

LMAO what damage do they claim? Yeah...this is going to be a long, drawn out process. Disgusting.

[Skyy God]

LMAO what damage do they claim? Yeah...this is going to be a long, drawn out process. Disgusting.

Yeah, no damages at all in negotiating guaranteed money from the networks regardless of whether there's a season. I'm sure the players wouldn't have seen any of that larger TV contract. ;)

[alnorth]

LMAO what damage do they claim? Yeah...this is going to be a long, drawn out process. Disgusting.

The NFL entered into an agreement with the players many years ago after one of the other court fights where the NFL is legally obligated to try to maximize revenue. The players are interested in revenue obviously because they can get a cut of a bigger pie if revenues increase. So in effect, the NFL has a fiduciary duty to cut the best deals they can get on the player's behalf as well as for themselves.

That might seem like a "Well, duh" concept that shouldn't need to be put in writing (of course the NFL would want to maximize revenue, right?), but we can see now one reason why the NFL may have been willing to leave money on the table.

The NFL traded away who knows how much money in a bigger TV contract in exchange for lockout insurance. In doing so, they violated their fiduciary duty, and the players are probably entitled to damages. How much money is anyone's guess, but the NFL screwed themselves in this one. If the players are awarded a huge pile of money, even if the lockout continues they would then be better able to withstand a long stoppage.

[BossChief]

They don't get tv money with no season.

[kstater]

The NFL entered into an agreement with the players many years ago after one of the other court fights where the NFL is legally obligated to try to maximize revenue. The players are interested in revenue obviously because they can get a cut of a bigger pie if revenues increase. So in effect, the NFL has a fiduciary duty to cut the best deals they can get on the player's behalf as well as for themselves.

That might seem like a "Well, duh" concept that shouldn't need to be put in writing (of course the NFL would want to maximize revenue, right?), but we can see now one reason why the NFL may have been willing to leave money on the table.

The NFL traded away who knows how much money in a bigger TV contract in exchange for lockout insurance. In doing so, they violated their fiduciary duty, and the players are probably entitled to damages. How much money is anyone's guess, but the NFL screwed themselves in this one. If the players are awarded a huge pile of money, even if the lockout continues they would then be better able to withstand a long stoppage.

Isn't the burden of proof on the players? Won't they have to prove how much money was "left on the table". I highly doubt there's some memo lying around with the details.

[alnorth]

My question is: who is representing the players in this now that they are no longer NFLPA?

The way I read it, its basically a class action. So, I'm guessing if the NFL loses, then the court would figure out guidelines for who qualifies to get money and how much money each winner gets.

[Skyy God]

They don't get tv money with no season.

Absolutely incorrect.

[Pedro]

:shake: My expectations of this ending before the season starts is getting further away...

Same here. I don't see much chance for a compromise here. This is going to last until either the owners or the players completely cave in to the other side. My bet is that we'll miss a month of the season and then the players will cave.

[ModSocks]

So sick of the NFL right now.

[Skyy God]

Isn't the burden of proof on the players? Won't they have to prove how much money was "left on the table". I highly doubt there's some memo lying around with the details.

Likely the standard is by a preponderance of the evidence.

You're right, there's unlikely to be a smoking gun email/memo/vm. Probably will be a dueling battle of expert witnesses.

[alnorth]

Isn't the burden of proof on the players? Won't they have to prove how much money was "left on the table". I highly doubt there's some memo lying around with the details.

yeah, pretty much, but this isn't something that is completely unknowable. The NFL doesn't have access to the only experts in the world qualified to give a reasonable estimate on how much money "lockout insurance" would cost the NFL in a deal. Courts are asked to put a value on things that don't have a price sticker on them all the time.

I'm sure the players will throw out a really huge number with their experts explaining why its not a huge number, and the NFL will argue that lockout insurance is somehow worth zilch.

[RINGLEADER]

Haven't really been following the ins and outs of this legal issue.

So what happens if the owners just start a new league? Why can't they just set a cap for each team, say each player will be paid equally, and if you want to play for that amount of money show up. If not, good luck with the CFL.

For that matter, what happens if the players just start a new league? Why can't they get some deep-pocketed sugar daddies (and mommas) to put up a few billion for a league they can have a piece of on a prospective basis?

[vailpass]

The way I read it, its basically a class action. So, I'm guessing if the NFL loses, then the court would figure out guidelines for who qualifies to get money and how much money each winner gets.

Has a class been certified already? I hadn't even seen it called into action.

[BigMeatballDave]

Haven't really been following the ins and outs of this legal issue.

So what happens if the owners just start a new league? Why can't they just set a cap for each team, say each player will be paid equally, and if you want to play for that amount of money show up. If not, good luck with the CFL.

For that matter, what happens if the players just start a new league? Why can't they get some deep-pocketed sugar daddies (and mommas) to put up a few billion for a league they can have a piece of on a prospective basis?In the 1st scenario, the Owners would be fucked in the short term.

[DaFace]

Absolutely incorrect.

Not sure what you mean by this, but he's right. It wasn't true originally, but the courts already threw those old contracts out.

[BigMeatballDave]

Absolutely incorrect.Not buying it. Provide a link. I cannot see ESPN/FOX/CBS/NBC shelling out billions this yr with NO games to air.

[Skyy God]

Not sure what you mean by this, but he's right. It wasn't true originally, but the courts already threw those old contracts out.

No, he's not.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_18050055?nclick_check=1

"The TV networks have already fronted the league $1.22 billion, and attorneys for the players told U.S. District Judge David S. Doty today the expired collective bargaining agreement entitles them to a 57.5 percent share."

[DaFace]

No, he's not.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_18050055?nclick_check=1

"The TV networks have already fronted the league $1.22 billion, and attorneys for the players told U.S. District Judge David S. Doty today the expired collective bargaining agreement entitles them to a 57.5 percent share."

The league has to pay all of that back if there isn't a season based on the original ruling (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379). So I guess the players could potentially get a chunk of that now, but then they'd have to agree to likewise pay it all back later. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

[DaFace]

To clarify the above, my understanding of this (though I haven't read the full article on this particular law suit) is that the players are suggesting that the NFL accepted lower-value contracts in order to put the "war chest" conditions in there. So, the players want their share had the NFL gotten the full value of those contracts. Unless I'm misunderstanding this is NOT about getting a "cut" of the "war chest" money since that has to be paid back anyway.

[Skyy God]

The league has to pay all of that back if there isn't a season based on the original ruling (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379). So I guess the players could potentially get a chunk of that now, but then they'd have to agree to likewise pay it all back later. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

Some of it, sure. But it would give the players more wherewithal to prevent being starved out by the owners.

[Skyy God]

To clarify the above, my understanding of this (though I haven't read the full article on this particular law suit) is that the players are suggesting that the NFL accepted lower-value contracts in order to put the "war chest" conditions in there. So, the players want their share had the NFL gotten the full value of those contracts. Unless I'm misunderstanding this is NOT about getting a "cut" of the "war chest" money since that has to be paid back anyway.

My best guess is that these are two separate issues.

[BossChief]

I may well be remembering things a little incorrectly but I remember reading that the courts ruled that if there is no season, the televising companies don't have to pay anything. Until that ruling, the NFL would get paid and then have to pay back whatever portion was unused.

[RINGLEADER]

The league has to pay all of that back if there isn't a season based on the original ruling (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379). So I guess the players could potentially get a chunk of that now, but then they'd have to agree to likewise pay it all back later. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

The television networks would end up with a lot of diamond necklaces and gold teeth...

[Stinger]

To the Players and the Owners .............


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gWQaU40PH24/TQrrAq1H3sI/AAAAAAAAJ74/n1uDMSTPSec/s1600/Epic_Facepalm_by_RJTH%255B1%255D.jpg

[alnorth]

To clarify the above, my understanding of this (though I haven't read the full article on this particular law suit) is that the players are suggesting that the NFL accepted lower-value contracts in order to put the "war chest" conditions in there. So, the players want their share had the NFL gotten the full value of those contracts. Unless I'm misunderstanding this is NOT about getting a "cut" of the "war chest" money since that has to be paid back anyway.

I think you are right, and the players are not just asking for compensatory damages based on the money left on the table, they are also asking for huge punitive damages.

Logistically, I think I read that the players want a cut of the war chest put into escrow right now in anticipation of a victory in this suit, but that is just to ensure that they get paid off, not because they wanted the lockout insurance money.

[Bwana]

Dear players......4321

XOXOXO

The Fans

[BigMeatballDave]

Dear Owners......4321

XOXOXO

The Fanso:-)

[Bwana]

o:-)

Yeah, that too.

[Dave Lane]

For that matter, what happens if the players just start a new league? Why can't they get some deep-pocketed sugar daddies (and mommas) to put up a few billion for a league they can have a piece of on a prospective basis?

THIS

I'd love it. I'd buy season tickets tonite.

[Ming the Merciless]

My question is: who is representing the players in this now that they are no longer NFLPA?

This is the question of the year.

This is ultimately why the players will fail (at least I hope so). They claim to have certified, yet it is OBVIOUS the NFLPA is still representing them as a group.

I think as more and more details come out in the coming months, more people will see that while both sides have some blame here, the main fault is the greed of the NFLPA and their ridiculous demands.

[Ming the Merciless]

For that matter, what happens if the players just start a new league? Why can't they get some deep-pocketed sugar daddies (and mommas) to put up a few billion for a league they can have a piece of on a prospective basis?

I'll tell you why. It's the same reason that the owners shouldnt be forced into just giving in to the greedy NFLPA. It was hard work, 50 YEARS or more of work that it took to get professional football elevated to where the NFL is today. Many leagues have come and gone, but none are as good as the NFL. The current players can try and do this, but they will most likely fail. No one is just going to come up with BILLIONS of dollars to try and start a new league....

Anyhow, even if someone did come up with BILLIONS of dollars to do it ( a pipe dream) you think theyre gonna do it for the love of the game? HELL NO. You think theyre gonna let the NFLPA tell them how to run their business or how much to pay people or X,Y,Z crazy ass demands? HELL NO.

We would just have the same exact situation we are in now....so what would be the point...

Is it just me or does every single pro-NFLPA poster seem very detached from the real world?

[alnorth]

Haven't really been following the ins and outs of this legal issue.

So what happens if the owners just start a new league? Why can't they just set a cap for each team, say each player will be paid equally, and if you want to play for that amount of money show up. If not, good luck with the CFL.

For that matter, what happens if the players just start a new league? Why can't they get some deep-pocketed sugar daddies (and mommas) to put up a few billion for a league they can have a piece of on a prospective basis?

There's no need to start a new league. There is no union and no CBA. The owners can impose any set of rules they want, as long as those rules are legal under antitrust law.

The problem is the NFL wants to do things (draft, player control, salary cap) that would violate antitrust law. To do that, they need a CBA with a union. Starting a new league doesn't magically solve this.

[Dayze]

There's no need to start a new league. There is no union and no CBA. The owners can impose any set of rules they want, as long as those rules are legal under antitrust law.

The problem is the NFL wants to do things (draft, player control, salary cap) that would violate antitrust law. To do that, they need a CBA with a union. Starting a new league doesn't magically solve this.

they do? I'm not stirring sh*t here; just curious if you can expand on that a little more.

[DaFace]

they do? I'm not stirring sh*t here; just curious if you can expand on that a little more.

I don't know the details, but the basic idea is that the owners can't act collectively as a group without violating antitrust laws (since they're essentially acting as a monopoly). In order to "get away with it," they have to meet a variety of very specific conditions. One of those conditions is that their "employees" have to be unionized and act as a collective as well.

If they don't, then the league essentially has to operate like 32 individual businesses. Contracts are completely up to the teams and the players they want to sign, so there are no rules about things like drafting players, free agency, workout requirements, and that type of thing.

Something like that anyway.

[Dayze]

I don't know the details, but the basic idea is that the owners can't act collectively as a group without violating antitrust laws (since they're essentially acting as a monopoly). In order to "get away with it," they have to meet a variety of very specific conditions. One of those conditions is that their "employees" have to be unionized and act as a collective as well.

If they don't, then the league essentially has to operate like 32 individual businesses. Contracts are completely up to the teams and the players they want to sign, so there are no rules about things like drafting players, free agency, workout requirements, and that type of thing.

Something like that anyway.

cool; good info/explanation. thanks.

[Molitoth]

Time to get into Hockey.

[kstater]

I don't know the details, but the basic idea is that the owners can't act collectively as a group without violating antitrust laws (since they're essentially acting as a monopoly). In order to "get away with it," they have to meet a variety of very specific conditions. One of those conditions is that their "employees" have to be unionized and act as a collective as well.

If they don't, then the league essentially has to operate like 32 individual businesses. Contracts are completely up to the teams and the players they want to sign, so there are no rules about things like drafting players, free agency, workout requirements, and that type of thing.

Something like that anyway.

I think that it'd be interesting if the Owners would ever push the antitrust issue(assuming that they could get away from the judge that is so biased that he's literally never ruled against the players) now that there are other viable leagues out there. The AFL has been around, what, 20 years now?

[Just Passin' By]

I think that it'd be interesting if the Owners would ever push the antitrust issue(assuming that they could get away from the judge that is so biased that he's literally never ruled against the players) now that there are other viable leagues out there. The AFL has been around, what, 20 years now?

The NFL was found to be a monopoly when the USFL was around. The USFL was more of a competitor to the NFL than the AFL has ever been.

[whoman69]

The good news is the NBA has seen what a cluster* this is and have David Stern in personal negotiations with the head of their players union.