NFL Lockout: NFL says no negotiations unless NFLPA rolls back decertification

by Ryan Van Bibber on Mar 21, 2011 1:56 PM CDT in NFL Lockout

Last week, a new front opened in the NFL labor battle as Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith swapped letters. Goodell started with a letter to all players explaining the league's last-minute offer, hoping to plant the seeds of doubt among individual players. Smith responded with a letter of his own questioning the league's offer and commitment to good faith negotiations.

Smith sent another letter to the NFL today. In this letter, Smith reiterated the point he made on a Friday call with SBNation writers that the he and he and what's left of the NFLPA negotiating team can still negotiate a settlement to the players' antitrust suit as the players' class council...and that he was open to doing so.

And how did the league respond? NFL attourney Gregg Levy slapped it down like a Kyle Boller lob, stating that the NFL would only negotiate with a reconstituted players union. The NFLPA won't be getting back together any time soon. If they do, they'll lose the only leverage they have to sue the league and fight out the battle in court.

The NFL threw another potential wrinkle into the situation today filing a brief with the federal court and asking for a stay in the NFLPA case seeking a preliminary injunction to lift the lockout until the National Labor Relations Board issues a ruling on the NFL's claim that decertification is a "sham." Whether or not the court grants that stay remains to be seen. If it does, the lockout could go on even longer taking away the last best hope for playing football this season.

Another factor to consider here. The players will have to demonstrate "immediate and irreparable harm" in order for the judge to lift the lockout. It sounds like a slam dunk since players will not practice, play, etc. but as Albert Brandt points out the immediate part might be a tougher sell in April.

But wait, it gets better.

NFL VP and lead negotiator Jeff Pash briefed the media today from the NFL owners meeting in New Orleans. Besides the usual rhetoric you would expect, he also took the opportunity to drop a bomb. He said that the NFL has the right to use replacement players.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Speaking of replacement players

The UFL sure is adding some muscle to its coaching cadre. Jim Fassel, Dennis Green, Jerry Glanville and now maybe Marty Schottenheimer? That’s a pretty strong list.

Turf Show Times editor, Mocking the Draft writer, and I gots that Twitter too, yo.
"my keyboard won't corporate, neighter will my smell check." - Knoxfan

by 3k on Mar 21, 2011 2:25 PM CDT reply actions

You mean we have a chance to finally compete in the UFL West?

by Knoxfan on Mar 21, 2011 2:30 PM CDT reply actions

we still don't have a team in LA tho...

we still lose out….wtf!!

by ramsback2LA on Mar 21, 2011 2:58 PM CDT reply actions

Looks like it's time

to get back in shape to play in the NFL for a season! Who’s with me?!

THIS year there'll be football. I hope....

by thisguy on Mar 21, 2011 3:15 PM CDT reply actions

If the teams start using replacement players.....

I think you will start to see al ot of current players start to cross as the weeks go by IMO

I should be working right now...

by gorams77 on Mar 21, 2011 3:55 PM CDT reply actions

Mark this up as minus 100 on the lockout scoreboard

for the owners. If De Smith is willing to continue to negotiate, for the love of God, they should be taking every opportunity to sit down and talk with the players and not setting preconditions, that will never be realised, to any talks. Maybe the owners do want to go the litigation process after all.

The request to stay the proceedings does make sense on one hand, but I have difficulty in seeing it as anything other than a delaying tactic. It’s no secret that the owners have deeper pockets and should be better prepared to wait this out.

If nothing else, this has allowed cleared my vision and remember that De Smith is not the only douch in this mess who is trying to kill the season. That’s something at least because I’d rather favor the players.

by RamintheUK on Mar 21, 2011 4:07 PM CDT reply actions

lmao!!...

ya, ide love to see the owners faces, when those “replacement” players, are playing in EMPTY stadiums!! go ahead and write another paycheck to that ex-waste management trucker there mr. jerry jones!! the fans will not stand for that! the fans will lockout “that” team, if the owners had the balls to do that with replacement players.

by Mark Jaramillo on Mar 21, 2011 4:20 PM CDT reply actions

The teams played with replacement players

one other time we went through such a big fight. The stadiums certainly weren’t sold out, but there were a lot of fans there. After a few weeks the solidarity of the union started coming apart as guys who needed the money started coming back. Shortly after that the dispute was settled. Just bringing it up will serve as a reminder of what happened the last time.

It’s great to talk about union solidarity in March and April, but when guys run out of money and there are games being played and players getting paid, the survival instincts of the lower paid guys kick in and they decide to get a paycheck to protect their family.

by andyhawk on Mar 21, 2011 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions

^This^

I should be working right now...

by gorams77 on Mar 21, 2011 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Honestly

I would go to the replacement games. Lower quality football is better than nothing. Why should we as fans be punished while billionaires are arguing with millionaires. Both need to shutup and play some damn football but Bradford’s contract as a rookie is ridiculous and that truly needs to be fixed.

by richter122 on Mar 22, 2011 4:38 AM CDT up reply actions

The more and more I read this stuff

the more and more i believe the players when they say Jeff Pash is the antichrist.

Number 8 is great

by Eric Nagel on Mar 21, 2011 4:23 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

really

you would rather have no football then replacement players. shyt i hope they have replacements i would tryout :) and i would watch them rather then some overpaid losers. imagine seeing ppl that are overjoyed to play football in the nfl not stupid ppl like ap that think they are like slaves lol. bring on the replacement and set the max salary to 100k and if the players want to come back play for a reasonable price like 100k not 10 mill. lower ticket prices so that the fans win owners win players lose the way it should be.

by G unit Rams on Mar 21, 2011 4:43 PM CDT reply actions

owners lowering ticket prices....lol...Hahahahahaha..no way.

hell they would probably raise them….. you know for stadium improvements and such.

by jessk on Mar 21, 2011 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions

You know, there may be some talent to be had if that happens

Lot’s of short term contracts…people willing to prove themselves.

I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t watch it.

Number 8 is great

by Eric Nagel on Mar 21, 2011 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions

Confused why so many are down on the players

Remember the players never asked for anything. They were happy under the old CBA. This problem was started by the owners when they opted out of the CBA in 2008. All of the negotiations over the past two months were about taking away from the players not giving to them. It’s the owners who are currently responsible for no football.

If people want to watch inferior players there is the UFL and Canadian league. why aren’t these leagues as popular as the NFL? Because we know they are not the best players in the world. It’s equivalent to minor league baseball – competitive but not the same as MLB.

by 2cents on Mar 21, 2011 6:00 PM CDT reply actions

What makes a UFL player?

Is it because he is not in the NFL players union? What if all the players on the Rams team quit the now non-existent union, would they then be (in effect) wildcaters that are free to play anywhere at any time?

by Knoxfan on Mar 21, 2011 7:21 PM CDT reply actions

no

ufl are players that do not make the roster or practice squad of NFL teams. Any NFL player currently under contract is not free to go where they please at any time, but without a collective bargaining agreement I believe that they can play football until the agreement is reached, and then they are back under contract and have to abide by the rules of the NFL.

by jessk on Mar 21, 2011 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions

there's not much legal diction on whether they can or not

  I know a couple of players have said they’re either heading to the UFL or Arena League, but it was bottom of the roster guys/practice squad types, the ones the CBA needs to protect the most.
  Bear in mind, the players would need to sign contracts with the UFL. It wouldn’t necessarily tie players to that league, similar to the ability of players to go from UFL to NFL, but it would allow teams exclusivity when it comes to signing players (I still think Tebow should have gone UFL in year 1).
  You’re right though, Jess. Once a player would come back to a re-established NFL, contracts will carry over, and the player who was signed to a team is still signed to that one NFL team.

Turf Show Times editor, Mocking the Draft writer, and I gots that Twitter too, yo.
"my keyboard won't corporate, neighter will my smell check." - Knoxfan

by 3k on Mar 21, 2011 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions