>That's the point. I think the court is going to look at this and say that the players, instead of staying in and negotiating with the mediator, decertified just for the ability to sue. You could be right that the court will take the players' side (and I'm not an owner lover), but I just don't think that's going to happen.
>
>>I don't know what kind of ploy it could be. With the union in place, the players legally could not sue the owners. Decertifying means they can.
>>
>>>I doubt it will work. I think the court will see it as an obvious ploy.

I may be way off on this, but my understanding is that the decertification is not a "ploy" but rather a strategy based on settled labor law - once the union is decertified the issue is not subject to certain provisions of federal labor law. Since the players are now not represented by a union involved in collective bargaining ( it is legally different from a union that is a trade association without collective bargaining powers ) individual players can file suit against the owners for monopolistic practices and collusion in restraint of trade ( same idea a price fixing ) . As long as the players are represented by FLRB union they can't do that.

Now it can go to the courts. But the legal issue is not about the decertification but rather the suits of Manning. Brady, Brees et al against the owners.

i don't think they had any question that would work to get it into the courts ( I think they did it before ) but of course what the courts will say about the monopolistic practices thing is unsettled.

And the big winners are the lawyers for both sides. Imagine the billables.