From the FanPosts -Joel
Yesterday a post was on the main page with the title of "What the CBA extension tell us" and as I read through it, I found that it provided a view on the CBA talks but spoke in quite a few absolutes that were actually not absolute. I picked a few key points out of it and gave the counter point to it.
I did not address the original authors final seven points about what he thought was going to happen because those are just opinions and well ... everyone has a guess.
1. Quote: "extension in the CBA tells us that the owners believe that de-certification is more leverage than their tool the lockout"
No, that is not true at all - the extension(s) could very easily have been suggested by the federal moderator and both parties agreed to it because if they did not then when they move to the next step (decert / lock out) the other party could argue that the party that walked away from the table was not negociating in good faith. Results vary from implications in the lawsuits that would follow and the court of public opinion. Additionally, there is no proof that the union would de-cert nor that if they did that the league wouldn't win the subsequent lawsuit claiming that the de-cert is actually just a sham move to bring up an antitrust case against the leage.
2. Quote: "they probably come out ahead by paying staff and coaches less."
This is just wrong. No product = no generation of revenue. No revenue + paying ANY salary (or certain other types of bills) = negative balance sheet. Add in the money they get from the TV contract has to be paid back so not quite a negative but certainly not "earned" money. Mortgage payments are not actually a loss but that's another conversation.
3. Quote: "owners had wanted the CBA to expire so they could get out from under the jurisdiction of Judge Doty"
Some think that, others don't ... just like the authors quote from the National Football Post "... some feel ..." - this is far from a universally agreed on point. The only thing that is true is that the owners do not like Doty. Interesting thing to keep in mind, if the new CBA cancels out Doty's oversight - the union and the NFL do NOT have a say in who the next judge would be ... the government actually assigns a judge. The league has to be very careful here because Doty may not be their friend but the next guy could be worse.
4. Quote: " NFL wanted the Supreme Court to say that the NFL acted as one entity in everything instead of being 32 different"
Damn it no! The NFL wanted the S.C. to say that the NFL could negociate THOSE contracts as one entity. It was assumed that the NFL would then use the ruling of that case to act unilaterally towards the Union without fear of antitrust action. The S.C. was never going to say they could act as one entity in "everything" - that was not the case that was brought before them (really it is that simple). Every action not apparel related that the NFL would do post a ruling in their favor, they would have had to fight in court for their right to exercise their one entity ability ... and they would have cited the SC ruling.
5. Quote: " thanks to that court case and the court case on the lockout TV money, we can be thankful that there will not be an extended lockout",
A) The case on TV money doesn't matter - the owners are not really effected if they do not get the money and the ironic thing is, if the players do get their share they are in worse position than previous. Let's focus on the owners side for a second - their share of the $4b is 40.4% which is $1.616b broken down by 32 teams is $50.5m a team. Now, let's pretend the money is held until a new CBA is worked out so the owners have a $50.5 "shortfall" but how much does that matter when your operating costs are slashed? No concession workers to pay, no high water / electric bills, etc. Now let's pretend the teams do need that money, MOST (not all ... possibly) owners could in theory loan the team that much money and earn interest while they get paid back when things start back up. If an owner can't afford it, there is not a major bank in the world that would not loan an NFL team money if they need it. A team could just set up a rotating loan and stay shy of the NFL's allowable debt allowance. Also, don't try to tell me "... but that's only half of the money since the players are going to get theirs" ... yeah and in a normal year the players would get that money, if the owners got it this year it would be bonus dollars.
Let's flip the script though and talk players. If the players take the money they are in even worse condition. Remember, the TV money is a loan that has to be repaid - the owners will be able to repay it easily because they own the product (team). The players will be using money that has to be paid back to pay their house payments (a loan to pay a loan, bad plan) and some players that would be eligible to get the money might not even be back in the league next year. If they take the money, then the owners leverage increases because the players will need to play to pay back the loans they are essentially taking out. We could go futher on this but you get the idea
B) Even if the American Needle case would have gone in the NFL's favor, there is no gaurantee that they would have had a right to bargin as one with union on the next CBA. They would have had to go to court (where they would cite the SC decision) and argue it out.
C) The results of those two cases do not promise that there will not be an extended lockout ... yes, it could easily still happen.
6. Quote: "NFL will be forced to the table and will come to an agreement with the players"
Nope - the NFL is in the better position than the players and they know it. They've got the time and the money ... and they OWN the product ... the players do not have leverage. The only "leverage" against the owners is that it is in the best interest of everyone to make a deal ... but hey, that's also leverage against the players.
Anyway ... I got bored of typing - feel free to tear this apart in the comments.