NFL Owners not targeting a lockout????

[Phicinfan]

Per an article I have just read at PFT.

Here is a little fact I did not know. Per the agreement they have, if the owners declare an impasse after the March 4th expiration. They then can force the last offer they made to the union for a CBA. Now, assuming its not what the NFLPA want, it would then force them to strike. Now, the outcome is the same, but the fan reaction would be totally different in my opinion if the players strike instead of owners locking out. I have read alot, and most of the players plans are for lockout, not this. If they are locked out, they have legal means to force negotiations...but not in this instance. This could be a crippler for the NFLPA if this is really the plan.

link:Rumor Mill | ProFootballTalk see story about march 4th surprise

 

[storminn0rm]

I just can't see a lockout happening. The NFL is a giant brand. They have NFL.com, the NFL network, NFL Sunday Ticket, NFL Redzone. They would lose so much money with a lockout.

 

[Cerberus]

Big mistake if it does happen. Watching CNN earlier and they're saying a lockout seems almost certain. Not sure where they are getting their facts to say this but since it was on TV it has to be true.

 

[Phicinfan]

Big mistake if it does happen. Watching CNN earlier and they're saying a lockout seems almost certain. Not sure where they are getting their facts to say this but since it was on TV it has to be true.

:biglaugh:

Seriously though, if the NFL does not lock out. Instead forces the players to strike, I think this kills alot of the sympathy from fans they expected to get. Play stoppage helps no one, but a strike by players for more money, in this economy??? Eeek not a good situation at all.

If what I posted is true...I see no way the NFL locks out. Not when it can ram what it wants down the Union's throat.

 

[Sgt John]

So thats why the NFL still thinks they can get a deal done. They have the leverage.

I wonder if "Shane Falco" can get the Ravens past the Steelers? We may be about to find out.

(Edit: Im aware Falco played for Washington, but honestly not even a movie QB would really want to play for the Rat)

 

[mudloggerone]

Interesting PhiCin and if true your thoughts are spot on.

 

[Hawks Eye]

Seriously though, if the NFL does not lock out. Instead forces the players to strike, I think this kills alot of the sympathy from fans they expected to get. Play stoppage helps no one, but a strike by players for more money, in this economy??? Eeek not a good situation at all.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I actually agree with you.

 

[storminn0rm]

(KFFL) The NFL already is feeling financial effects from the uncertainty of its labor negotiations, according to The Associated Press. The league estimates its cumulative gross revenue losses could reach $1.7 billion by 2015 if there is no agreement with the players' union before the next regular season is scheduled to start. Sponsorship deal renewals already are problematic, with some companies telling the NFL they will not commit money if there is a work stoppage, according to Eric Grubman, NFL executive vice president of business operations. The league estimates there would be a cut in gross revenues of $120 million without a new agreement by early March, $350 million if there's no CBA by August, before the preseason starts; $1 billion if no new contract is in place until September. The losses would continue over the following years, the NFL said, because regaining business would be difficult in some areas.

 

[Phicinfan]

Update per PFT:

The candid comments of Antonio Cromartie, who’ll see his shot at free agency blocked by a lockout, triggered a realization by many last week that a lockout is indeed coming, absent a new labor deal.
With hundreds of players due to be free agents, a lockout could cause plenty of the players who are seeing their paydays delayed to rebel against the union, possibly forcing the union to accept whatever terms the league will be offering.
But some league insiders remain convinced that the NFL is bluffing about a lockout, and that come March 4 the league will declare an impasse and impose the terms of its last, best offer before the impasse was reached. (It’s the “March 4 surprise” that we mentioned a couple of weeks ago.)
Of course, the terms imposed by the league will likely be less than the ultimate best offer, since further negotiation after impasse is declared will require the league as a practical matter to make concessions.
If that’s what happens, then the onus will fall on the players to accept the terms and continue to negotiate, or to strike. (The union undoubtedly would file a claim with the National Labor Relations Board arguing that impasse had not yet been reached.) Given all the rhetoric from the union about the financial harm that will be suffered in the event of a work stoppage, it will be difficult if not impossible for NFLPA leadership to stage a strike.
With Super Bowl week in Dallas providing a big-like-Texas stage for the two sides to continue their posturings and pissing matches, we’ll be watching for signs that would suggest a declaration of impasse is, or isn’t, coming. For now, those who believe that the league won’t be locking the doors are pointing to the stream of statements from those on the management side of the equation regarding the necessity for urgency at the bargaining table. If the league decides to declare impasse, the argument will be that the union dragged its feet in the hopes that the end result would be a lockout.