USFLPA Statement -plus Merger agreement not Finalized

[GregParks]

Couple things to consider RE: the March 30th start date:

1) You wonder if this is the preferred start date for the new league moving forward, or if it's by necessity because of how late everything came together this year?

2) In terms of not having everything "finalized" yet, consider that it was reported XFL stadiums had a "hold" on the home dates for 2024 already; depending on which stadiums are home and what the status of the hub is for '24, there may be some negotiating going on with the XFL venues to make sure dates are open beyond what the XFL season would've been in '24 given the later start date. And also, whatever stadium the Houston team is going to use if there are no hubs.

EDIT: Not to mention working with their TV partners to get timeslots for the games during that period and matching them to the availability of stadium access.

[4th&long]

Couple things to consider RE: the March 30th start date:

1) You wonder if this is the preferred start date for the new league moving forward, or if it's by necessity because of how late everything came together this year?

2) In terms of not having everything "finalized" yet, consider that it was reported XFL stadiums had a "hold" on the home dates for 2024 already; depending on which stadiums are home and what the status of the hub is for '24, there may be some negotiating going on with the XFL venues to make sure dates are open beyond what the XFL season would've been in '24 given the later start date. And also, whatever stadium the Houston team is going to use if there are no hubs.

EDIT: Not to mention working with their TV partners to get timeslots for the games during that period and matching them to the availability of stadium access.

Agreed - posted similar a while ago. Its logistical and involves many moving parts. That's why they are working with cities etc for best deals that we heard about for example. Its also why the league teams may be lopsided favoring one league or another or hubs may be used. The MLS schedule will likely play havoc too

[mnrlgrey]

I would expect they don't have any real weight to throw around here, though its possible they could still be a new part of it. XFL players rejected this union last year so I think it's far from automatic that they have a place in the new league.

I could be completely wrong here so don’t quote me on this. Depending on who the majority owner is, the union is either thrown out, or the union stays. If the usfl is majority then the xfl would need to agree to unionize and if the xfl is the majority l then the union could be thrown out. Like I said though, I could be wrong on this. But what is more interesting in all of thi, is that it’s possible (at least I would think) that the union stays with the usfl and with Texas serving as the leagues “home state”, (which I have no clue if it would be), then it’s possible that Texas’s RTW law goes into effect then the players that are against unionizing can opt out. Once again I could be wrong on any, and all of this.

I don't think there is a majority owner but it will be 50/50. That is the first thing we heard from Axios and I imagine they are right.

[4th&long]

I would expect they don't have any real weight to throw around here, though its possible they could still be a new part of it. XFL players rejected this union last year so I think it's far from automatic that they have a place in the new league.

I could be completely wrong here so don’t quote me on this. Depending on who the majority owner is, the union is either thrown out, or the union stays. If the usfl is majority then the xfl would need to agree to unionize and if the xfl is the majority l then the union could be thrown out. Like I said though, I could be wrong on this. But what is more interesting in all of thi, is that it’s possible (at least I would think) that the union stays with the usfl and with Texas serving as the leagues “home state”, (which I have no clue if it would be), then it’s possible that Texas’s RTW law goes into effect then the players that are against unionizing can opt out. Once again I could be wrong on any, and all of this.

I don't think there is a majority owner but it will be 50/50. That is the first thing we heard from Axios and I imagine they are right.

What did Axios say?

[johnnyangryfuzzball]

I would expect they don't have any real weight to throw around here, though its possible they could still be a new part of it. XFL players rejected this union last year so I think it's far from automatic that they have a place in the new league.

I could be completely wrong here so don’t quote me on this. Depending on who the majority owner is, the union is either thrown out, or the union stays. If the usfl is majority then the xfl would need to agree to unionize and if the xfl is the majority l then the union could be thrown out. Like I said though, I could be wrong on this. But what is more interesting in all of thi, is that it’s possible (at least I would think) that the union stays with the usfl and with Texas serving as the leagues “home state”, (which I have no clue if it would be), then it’s possible that Texas’s RTW law goes into effect then the players that are against unionizing can opt out. Once again I could be wrong on any, and all of this.

I don't think there is a majority owner but it will be 50/50. That is the first thing we heard from Axios and I imagine they are right.

That, by default, leaves Fox Corp as the plurality shareholder at 50% since the XFL is a consortium. However small Garcia and Johnson's shares are, they are more than zero.

[johnnyangryfuzzball]

I could be completely wrong here so don’t quote me on this. Depending on who the majority owner is, the union is either thrown out, or the union stays. If the usfl is majority then the xfl would need to agree to unionize and if the xfl is the majority l then the union could be thrown out. Like I said though, I could be wrong on this. But what is more interesting in all of thi, is that it’s possible (at least I would think) that the union stays with the usfl and with Texas serving as the leagues “home state”, (which I have no clue if it would be), then it’s possible that Texas’s RTW law goes into effect then the players that are against unionizing can opt out. Once again I could be wrong on any, and all of this.

I don't think there is a majority owner but it will be 50/50. That is the first thing we heard from Axios and I imagine they are right.

What did Axios say?

"Merger of equals" was the phrase used.

[4th&long]

I could be completely wrong here so don’t quote me on this. Depending on who the majority owner is, the union is either thrown out, or the union stays. If the usfl is majority then the xfl would need to agree to unionize and if the xfl is the majority l then the union could be thrown out. Like I said though, I could be wrong on this. But what is more interesting in all of thi, is that it’s possible (at least I would think) that the union stays with the usfl and with Texas serving as the leagues “home state”, (which I have no clue if it would be), then it’s possible that Texas’s RTW law goes into effect then the players that are against unionizing can opt out. Once again I could be wrong on any, and all of this.

I don't think there is a majority owner but it will be 50/50. That is the first thing we heard from Axios and I imagine they are right.

That, by default, leaves Fox Corp as the plurality shareholder at 50% since the XFL is a consortium. However small Garcia and Johnson's shares are, they are more than zero.

Not necessarily. They could be individual owners or be a holding company of the 3 that owns 50% of new league. Not to mention ownership vs controlling shares. In other words it could be anything, but it will take all sides to agree.

[4th&long]

>> James Larsen@JamesLarsenPFN
Statements from the @USFLPA President Dartez Jacobs, & Vice President Devin Gray.

The UFPA is not involved in the current negotiations going on between the leagues and the USFLPA. #USFL #XFL #UFL
Last edited 11:38 PM · Dec 21, 2023<<

[MarkNelson]

The UFPA remains as a voice for players not in a union or players association. The USFLPA pointed out the UFPA does not represent players. Well, that’s nice. But players need the voices speaking for them at this moment because approx. half of them are looking at losing their jobs and most feel they are in the dark.

We all heard DG and DJ telling us the XFL is a league for the players for over a year. Where are their voices now that they’re laying off half their precious workforce?

The USFLPA needs to join forces with UFPA resources and fight for the players especially now that decisions are being made.

[GregParks]

I appreciate what the UFPA is trying to do and agree with some of their points about players losing jobs and such that was made in their statement yesterday.

But the USFL already has a player's union; the XFL players voted against having one. The UFPA has no seat at the table here, nor should they. That is the responsibility of the USFLPA. The UFPA can disagree with how the USFLPA has handled the loss of jobs in the merger, but the idea that they think they should have a seat at the table when they're not even a union seems foolhardy to me.

They're welcome to keep putting out statements to draw attention to the loss of player jobs, but I don't think they should be infringing on what an actual union, the USFLPA, is trying to do, either.