Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

Posted on: June 6, 2011 8:15 pm
Edited on: June 7, 2011 5:40 am
 
Posted by Will Brinson

On Monday, the NFL filed a motion to dismiss the original antitrust complaint from the players in Brady v. NFL. More interestingly, this motion will now be heard on September 12, 2011.

Yes, that does happen to be one day after the first Sunday of the NFL's regular season, thanks for asking.

The motion to dismiss in and of itself was brief -- just two pages -- but the purpose that the motion serves is a greater one because it pushes back the deadline for the NFL to file an answer in response to the players' complaint.

Now that answer won't be due until after the motion is heard, which is after the season begins. This is beneficial for the NFL, the players and the fans because it allows the two sides to continue negotiating without being obstructed by a public legal document, especially one in which the NFL responds -- perhaps in a personal manner -- to serious antitrust allegations.
NFL Labor

And then there's the fact that if both sides have to actually end up going to court for this hearing, it will occur one day after 9/11, when the NFL and the players have decided to skip the first week of the season.

Whether or not memorials for fallen Americans should veer into the realm of public relations is beside the point; missing the first week of the season would be an abject PR disaster.

Hopefully, this would-be extension of time allows the two sides to avoid that nightmarish scenario.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.


Comments

Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: June 7, 2011 3:10 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

Hear The Meow dullardly wrote : "The owners COULD NOT have locked out the players until THEY, yes the players, walked away from the negotiating table.  That is an absolute fact!!!"

  Really?  Wrong... Completely....  The owners could have, would have, and had planned for years to lock out the players....  It was in the last contract that the owners could lock out players. 

The owners made a lousy last-second offer to the players after it was already too late to avoid litigation.  They did it solely to look good for idiotic fans like yourself.  It was far too late to even be credible.  If the owners had any plans to negotiate they wouldn't have waited until it was sure the there was going to be a long court delay.  It was mostly a non-offer designed to trick fools like Meow




He said, to boil it down, the owners wanted to pocket 100 percent of the money any time they exceeded the league's projected revenue.

And the owners were trying to project the revenue at artificially low levels.

We're going to get into some complex stuff here, but before doing so I'll illustrate what Kendall explained to me as simply as I can.

If the owners "pegged" revenue for $10 billion in a season and then exceeded that projection, they wanted all the money to go into their pockets. The players were willing to give them the first 1.5 percent free and clear (in the $10 billion case, $150 million). After that, they wanted a 50-50 split.

Some more damning details?

The NFL has grown in revenue at an average rate of 7.5 percent over the past five years. Yet the projected growth numbers the NFL wanted to work off of between now and 2014 were 4 percent, 4 percent, 2.5 percent and 2.5 percent.

The NFL made about $9.3 billion in revenue in 2009. A 4 percent gain over that is an additional $320 million. A 7.5 percent gain? That's $700 million.

The owners proposal would have them pocketing all of the $380 million difference. Again, that 7.5 percent growth is the average. The owners were proposing to make it a 4 percent growth target and - later in the deal when TV contracts were being renewed and huge sums were flowing in as a result and revenue shot up, the owners were going to cut the projected revenue growth to 2.5 percent.

And that was in addition to the salary cap rollbacks the owners wanted to impose. Their 2011 proposed cap was $114 million per team. The last time there was a cap in was nearly $129 million per team. That's a $330 million savings league-wide on salaries in 2011 alone.




Since: Jan 7, 2009
Posted on: June 7, 2011 2:46 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

And...
The players did try to negotiate.  In fact  the Players actually made an offer near the beginning of this.  It suggested only a slight decease in their revenue share, but it did show they were willing to take less money. 
The owners WALKED OUT of the meeting and still have not even made a offer. 
No doubt the players offer did not include a huge concession but it did include a concession which I think we all would agree is a pretty fair place to start, nobody would expect the Players to put out their best offer first. Despite this, the owners walked out.

You might be the most clueless and least informed poster on this subject I've ever read.  You're arrogant enough to tell people to check their facts and all of yours are completely wrong.   The last, and far and away the best, offer that was put on the table came from the OWNERS just prior to the players decertification.  Its out there for the public to see, look it up genius.  By EVERY account I've read that offer was a VERY reasonable one in which continued discussions would have made perfect sense and contained significant concessions from the owners compared to what they originally were seaking.  Instead the players decertified and moved the dispute into the courts.  Do you even get that???   The owners COULD NOT have locked out the players until THEY, yes the players, walked away from the negotiating table.  That is an absolute fact!!!  The owners did not walk out, that falls entirely on the players.  How you could make so many posts on this topic and be so completely wrong is absolutely beyond me. 




Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: June 7, 2011 1:25 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

And...
The players did try to negotiate.  In fact  the Players actually made an offer near the beginning of this.  It suggested only a slight decease in their revenue share, but it did show they were willing to take less money. 
The owners WALKED OUT of the meeting and still have not even made a offer. 
No doubt the players offer did not include a huge concession but it did include a concession which I think we all would agree is a pretty fair place to start, nobody would expect the Players to put out their best offer first. Despite this, the owners walked out.



Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: June 7, 2011 1:21 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

I refuse to concede there are smart Raider fans....  (that was a joke).
Anyway NJR8derfan's post is filled with errors.
It is pretty disputed that the last labor deal was lopsided, and the players certainly dispute that.  When one looks at how faulty the economy has been over the last five years and compare that to how the value of these NFL teams has still been rising (while the value of just about everything else went down) it is pretty tough to believe the owners claims that they are victims of a bad deal. 
As far as "opening the books" to the players, that hardly seems off when:
A- The owners are asking for another Billion dollars of the top in revenue claiming financial hardship.  If so, why not prove it???
B- We do have an open set of books to look at for one NFL franchise, the publicly held Green Bay Packers, and this team has been raking in cash for years and had no hardship at all.  Based on the visible evidence we have, the owners are being deceitful about their financial hardships with their teams and they have been making money.  The Packers have been proving them as liars for years.
As far as the "risk of ownership"???? Please....  There is little/no risk in having an asset that you could sell for 500 million dollars.  That's been the value of these teams even  with the old labor agreement.  Even if an owner is losing 10 mill a year in operating expenses (which actually looks pretty doubtful based on the open set of books we can see), they still are sitting on a huge sellable asset whose value has been increasing annually by more than their loss of operating expenses.  That is making bank.
The owners just want MORE money.  They really don't need it.  This remains 100 the owners fault as explained in my last post. 



Since: Apr 6, 2007
Posted on: June 7, 2011 12:42 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

And my lack of typing seems to indicate that I don't.



Since: Apr 6, 2007
Posted on: June 7, 2011 12:41 pm
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

I Raider fan with a brain.  Thought I'd never see the day.



Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posted on: June 7, 2011 11:13 am
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

The facts are such:

The Owners agreed to a bad deal the last time around.
The Players and Owners agreed that if the deal turned out lopsided, the Owners could opt out so a new (read: more fair) agreement could be reached.
The aforementioned happened, and the Owners took the agreed upon out clause and requested new negotiations.

So:

The players made little attempt to negotiate, made unreasonable demands (what employee asks the employer to see their books and demands a % of revenues?) and then disbanded the union (making collective bargaining impossible) and filed lawsuits.

They are just as much as fault as the Owners.  The Owners bear the risk of Ownership.  The Players are employees.  They are the more greedy party in this fight, asking for more than employees are entitled to.

Funny how they argue out of both sides of their mouth....
a) We are the game.  We should get paid like it (i.e. the game is all about the current stars).
b) Our careers are so short (i.e. They'll be gone in 4 years, and new stars will come along, so how important can they be)

Funny how the Mannings, Bradys, etc are spearheading the lawsuit, yet the average NFL Player is getting their lives turned upside down because of this work stoppage and are the ones who are getting financially hurt by the Players refusal to go back to Collective Bargaining.


 




Since: Nov 9, 2006
Posted on: June 7, 2011 11:02 am
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

I'm siding with no one in this deal. From listening to a couple sports business experts, this lockout has more to do with the future than with the current deal. As TV contracts escalate, revenue will increase from the $9 Billion dollars that is being talked about now, to over $20 Billioin 10 years from now. The owners don't really mind splitting $9 Billion 50/50, but there's no way in hell they are going to allow the players to split the $20 Billion 50/50, basically saying the players aren't worth that kind of money. Especially, with the players not having to incur any financial risk. They want to establish a precedent of having a larger piece of the pie.

Personally, I agree with the owners that the players aren't worth $10 Billion a year 10 years from now. However, I don't think the owners should profit that much either. I don't care how much the owners and players profit from the TV Networks, but if they're making that much money off of TV, why do they need to keep raping the ticket buyers. Greed is ruining this sport, as it has always ruined everything that becomes an institution. 

Whatever, this sport has been on the decline since the mid to late 90's anyway. All the new rules implemented to increase offense, to increase player safety (protect the financial investment in players, and to decrease the liability concerns of retired players sueing the NFL in the future) have taken a lot of the character out of the game anyway.



Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: June 7, 2011 10:04 am
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

I don't get why the posters here are lumping the players in with the owners in assigning blame. 
The owners LOCKED OUT the players.  Based on their last TV contract the owners negotiated it seems like they had every intent to lock the players years before it even happenned and there seems no chance the players could have reasonably negotiated anything to avoid being locked out.
The owners were making lots of money already on football, and the teams they owned are worth hundreds of millions of dollars which is an asset they can cash in any time.  There was ZERO RISK for the owners to lock out the players.  Their worst case is to lose a lawsuit and keep the status quo which still makes their worst case to cash in the team they own and walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars after selling their NFL team to another billionaire.  The players are the ones at risk here. 
Check the facts.  This is 100% the owners fault.



Since: May 19, 2011
Posted on: June 7, 2011 9:27 am
 

NFL files Motion to Dismiss, hearing set for 9/12

To start with, I agree with a9faninnc's arguement that the league & the players have forgotten who pays their salaries.   But as for those who are just picking on someone because of who their favorite team is, you guys suck!    Everybody has a right to have to be a fan.   If you don't like a team, fine but atleast give a decent arguement as to why.  Just saying that some team "Sucks!"  without reason or clarification is childish & immature.   Come on people, grow up.

And by the way, I got mad at the Cardinals when they left St. Louis. 


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com