PDA

View Full Version : All Encompassing Lockout Thread


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

ArlingtonTexan
04-25-2011, 06:01 PM
She declines to stay her ruling depending on appeal.

Link shortly...NFL network break in

Ryan
04-25-2011, 06:03 PM
Per Chris Mortensen on Twitter

Filed to ESPN: Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson has ruled for players, lifting lockout, per sources. Owners will seek immediate stay.

PapaL
04-25-2011, 06:08 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson has granted NFL players their motion for a preliminary injunction, therefore lifting the lockout that was imposed by owners on March 11, according to league and union sources.

The decision is expected to be posted publicly no later than 6 p.m. ET., sources said.

Neither side had an official reaction, pending the official posting by Judge Nelson but the NFL is expected to immediately request a stay of the ruling until it can make its arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which is headquartered in St. Louis but also has an office in St. Paul.

Jackie Chiles
04-25-2011, 06:16 PM
Still trying to decipher all of this, do we have free agency right now or are we going to have to wait another week for the appeals court?

ArlingtonTexan
04-25-2011, 06:23 PM
Still trying to decipher all of this, do we have free agency right now or are we going to have to wait another week for the appeals court?

Wait for the court of appeals to rule whether a stay should or should not be granted. This part ususally happens quickly because the judge would feel that a stay would harm the players in an unfair way.

According to those who know the legal process more than me, not granting the stay would mean there is football with the previous rules in place. From the quick analysis that I have heard, stay or no should happen within a calendar week.

DocBar
04-25-2011, 06:33 PM
Wait for the court of appeals to rule whether a stay should or should not be granted. This part ususally happens quickly because the judge would feel that a stay would harm the players in an unfair way.

According to those who know the legal process more than me, not granting the stay would mean there is football with the previous rules in place. From the quick analysis that I have heard, stay or no should happen within a calendar week.Free agency and drafts would assume under the orevious agreement. This is good news for all teams right now.

Mr teX
04-25-2011, 06:39 PM
Free agency and drafts would assume under the orevious agreement. This is good news for all teams right now.

screw the teams, owners & players....this is good news for the fans.

PapaL
04-25-2011, 06:49 PM
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.

Rey
04-25-2011, 07:01 PM
Yeah...What does all of this actually mean?

Are they back to business as usual?

gary
04-25-2011, 07:03 PM
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.
We might have to wait for the final ruling but I am not sure.

disaacks3
04-25-2011, 07:03 PM
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period. Nope, not until the NFL tells them they can. They were prohibited BEFORE the lockout and suits ever happened.

Rey
04-25-2011, 07:05 PM
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.

That would actually tickle me a little bit...

The owners are planning on appealing the lock-out ruling, but they are going to sign off on a FA contract in the meanwhile?

"I'm appealing to basically have all football operations ceased.....buuuut let me sign you real quick"

hot pickle
04-25-2011, 07:17 PM
k sorry for being uneducated in this situation.... so if a stay is granted, that means lockout will happen?

and if it is not granted that means we have football again?

b0ng
04-25-2011, 07:28 PM
This week could be pretty nuts. Apparently the 8th Circuit is going to rule on the stay Friday. Also known as the 2nd round of the draft.

axman40
04-25-2011, 07:31 PM
Good news for the fans at last!
:fans:

GP
04-25-2011, 07:33 PM
I take this to mean there can now be contact between coaching staff and players. Players and Front Offices. Let's see if anyone gets signed in this grace period.

I doubt it.

I would imagine that the agents and players would be hesitant to sign a deal that might be challenged later on (by either the player/agent OR the ownership of the team).

Sign a deal now, in this "grace period," and I think it's possible that the risk is a future unhappiness on either side or maybe both sides...especially if things get whacky and NEW rules are somehow adopted that impact the terms of a deal done prior to the new rules being settled upon.

And there stands a good chance the appeals court could side with the owners.

I don't think this thing is moving along. It just has had a stop at a train station along the way to the final end destination: A new deal that has to be signed by both sides.

Just my 2 cents as I sit here and think about everything.

PapaL
04-25-2011, 07:33 PM
Nope, not until the NFL tells them they can. They were prohibited BEFORE the lockout and suits ever happened.

Maybe I'm crazy, diff thread I'm aware, but I swear there was time before...no wait...FA can't sign until a certain after a certain date. Then again if that date was after the SB...ah hell I don't know.

PapaL
04-25-2011, 07:35 PM
That would actually tickle me a little bit...

The owners are planning on appealing the lock-out ruling, but they are going to sign off on a FA contract in the meanwhile?

"I'm appealing to basically have all football operations ceased.....buuuut let me sign you real quick"

Wouldn't that be all time awesome? I can see Jerry or Darth Vader in OAK pulling this move. At the end of the day it is a business and screw the opposition right? :ahhaha:

ArlingtonTexan
04-25-2011, 07:51 PM
k sorry for being uneducated in this situation.... so if a stay is granted, that means lockout will happen?

and if it is not granted that means we have football again?
A stay menas that the lockout remains during the appeals process, if the is no stay then the NFL will have to operate as normal as possible while the court figure out the legal stuff.

CloakNNNdagger
04-25-2011, 08:08 PM
PFT stays up with the details in a series of pieces, and puts forth theories and answers to some question that have been asked here.

Report: Judge Nelson lifts lockout

As expected, a ruling on the players’ motion to lift the lockout came Monday.

As expected, the ruling favors the players.

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Judge Nelson has issued a ruling in favor of the players. The NFL reportedly will seek an immediate stay of the implementation of the decision.

If the stay is granted, the lockout would not be lifted until, at the earliest, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling in the case. The players surely would request expedited consideration of the appeal.

If Judge Nelson refuses to grant the stay, the NFL surely would seek a stay from the appeals court.

If neither court gives the league the stay, the doors will be forced open, soon.

In the short term, it’s good news for the fans. If the ruling stands, the season will occur as scheduled. And maybe folks will even give a crap about the draft.

Meanwhile, if the ruling stands the NFL will at some point have to come up with rules for 2011 regarding free agency and the salary cap, if any. Those rules likely would then be challenged by the players as antitrust violations.
All that said, there could be important exceptions and details and nuances in Judge Nelson’s written ruling. We’re in the process of getting our hands on it. We’ll then break it all down in order to best understand why the decision was reached, whether it will be susceptible to appeal, and what it all means to you (and us), the fans of football.

League will seek a stay of the ruling, and will appeal it

The NFL has responded to the not-surprising-but-still-a-little-jarring decision from Judge Susan Nelson to lift the lockout.

“We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” the league says in a statement. “We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”

On that last point, the league is right. The reality, however, is that the players now have a lot more leverage, given that (if the ruling stands) negotiations will occur while the players are playing football and getting paid to do so.

If Judge Nelson denies to stay the lifting of the lockout, the league presumably will make the same request of the appeals court.


Judge Nelson sticks up for the fans

At a time when the NFL and the players have said that they care about the fans when in reality they don’t (more accurately, they don’t care enough about the fans to set aside greed and work out the labor dispute), Judge Susan Nelson has acknowledged the impact of the work stoppage on the fans in ending it.

The factors for granting a “preliminary injunction” blocking the lockout include the presence of irreparable harm on the part of the players, a likelihood of success at trial on the legal and factual issues presented by the case, a balancing of the hardships between the players and the owners, and the public interest.

As to the last factor, Judge Nelson recognized that the public needs its football.

“[T]he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales,” Judge Nelson writes at page 87 of her 89-page written ruling. “And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football — who have a strong investment in the 2011 season — is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation.”

That’s possibly the most accurate paragraph written by anyone in any capacity regarding this mess — especially since someone finally doing something to advance interests of the fans.

NFL won’t start league year without chance to seek a stay

Judge Susan Nelson has issued an order ending the lockout, without any limitation or delay. The league plans to seek a stay of the ruling.

Until the stay is obtained, the lockout is, in theory, over.

So what if NFL players decide to report to their team facilities on Tuesday for offseason strength and conditioning? Any team that refuses to let the players inside possibly will be in violation of Judge Nelson’s order.

That’s precisely what could happen. “We do not intend to start the league year until we have had an opportunity to seek a stay,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells PFT via e-mail.

In other words, if they show up, they’re not getting in.

It seems like a reasonable position. But it’s a calculated risk. The lockout is, until further notice, over. Any team that fails to honor that order could be in trouble.

It’s all moot, unless players show up for work on Tuesday. With hundreds of them under contract for 2011, we can’t imagine that not a single one will try.

ArlingtonTexan
04-25-2011, 08:13 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/Brady/10113634171.pdf

for those with nothing better for bedtime reading..the ruling

2slik4u
04-25-2011, 08:27 PM
Wouldn't that be all time awesome? I can see Jerry or Darth Vader in OAK pulling this move. At the end of the day it is a business and screw the opposition right? :ahhaha:

I could see Bob giving Kubes and Co. a little inside info on the hearings and possibly with seeing a ruling a few days ahead of time, telling Kubes to get ready and sign "player A" because there will only be few days to make a move.

Possible? Absolutely......

Likely? Probably not.....but who knows

CloakNNNdagger
04-25-2011, 08:52 PM
Here's the judge's response to the NFL's claim that federal courts don't have any right intervene in a labor dispute. Smart cookie.

In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said the decision by the players to disband their union meant the case no longer came under federal labor law that prohibits injunctions, as claimed by the owners.
link (http://www.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/football/04/25/nfl.lockout/?hpt=T1)

b0ng
04-25-2011, 09:06 PM
Un-educated guess: The only way the owners can overcome this ruling is by opening their books and proving they are losing money.

Corrosion
04-25-2011, 09:42 PM
In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said the decision by the players to disband their union meant the case no longer came under federal labor law that prohibits injunctions, as claimed by the owners

They disbanded that union in name only .... They were still negotiating with the NFL as per the judges orders with their Union Rep's ..... That kinda makes me wonder how she came to this decision.


This whole mess probably hurts the players outside of those at the very top of the pay scale. There's more than one way to skin a cat .....

b0ng
04-25-2011, 10:13 PM
They disbanded that union in name only .... They were still negotiating with the NFL as per the judges orders with their Union Rep's ..... That kinda makes me wonder how she came to this decision.


This whole mess probably hurts the players outside of those at the very top of the pay scale. There's more than one way to skin a cat .....

1. They were not negotiating with any NFL entity from the time they de-certified until the time they were mandated by a federal judge to mediations.

2. Hurts the players by allowing them to go back to work, collect workout bonuses, etc?

from my limited reading of the judgement the fact that the players disbanded the union really has nothing to do with it - the law doesn't care if you disband and then reform. It has no provisions for "sham" unions, workers have the right to start a union, disband a union, start a union again.

Furthermore, the labor dispute is only a question in a broader anti-trust case, which the court most definitely has full authority to rule on. IN essence, the anti-trust case doesn't exactly depend on there being a union there or not, the players could still have a valid argument with or without a union.

Also, law/previous court cases seem to show that referring things to the NLRB for rulings (granting them jurisdiction) is mainly done when the cases are complicated or have never been seen before, i.e. the courts don't have the necessary experience to adjudicate them. She quoted a ton of rulings showing that this case was as easy as they come and consistent with NLRB rulings, thereby showing the court had the necessary experience to rule it. Actually, she seemed kind of angry with that argument and spent a whole lot of time shredding it to pieces.


I am most definitely not a lawyer, but that's what I got.

Not me, but I asked somebody who is more eloquent than I.

CloakNNNdagger
04-25-2011, 11:36 PM
This goes back to the agreement made by the league to not to use the format of the negotiations as proof that the decertification was a sham.

CloakNNNdagger
04-25-2011, 11:47 PM
League huddles to figure out next steps (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/25/league-huddles-to-figure-out-next-steps/)
Roughly 30 minutes ago, a source with knowledge of the situation told us that a collection of NFL big shots had been on a conference call for 45minutes and counting, aimed at figuring out the next steps.

Coupled with a general sense coming from our network of sources that the league is confused and rattled by the ruling lifting the lockout, it appears that the league truly believed that it would prevail before Judge Nelson on the question of whether the lockout would be lifted.

That’s one of the dangers of hiring one of the best lawyers in the country to handle the case. David Boies, who demonstrated at the April 6 hearing why he’s indeed among the finest ever practitioners of law, quite possibly mesmerized the owners at the league meetings in March into genuinely believing that they would prevail.

And they remain confident they’ll win at the appellate level, even if that’s a longer shot than the league would admit.

That said, it’s more than a little surprising that the league didn’t have a predetermined plan in place for this specific eventuality. It’s not as if the outcome was one of 1,000 different permutations. The ruling came from a fairly narrow band of possibilities. And yet in some ways it seems like the league has been caught with its proverbial pants down.

Source: Coaches told not to speak to players

As the NFL tries to figure out exactly what happens now after Monday’s legal setback, the league is telling its coaches not to go back to business as usual.

A league source tells PFT’s Mike Florio that teams are telling coaches not to talk to its players while the NFL is in labor purgatory. That means if players are able to get in team facilities on Monday, like Steelers safety Ryan Clark and some others plan to, the coaches will have to avoid them.

Of course, it sounds like teams have no intention of allowing players into their buildings. The league is essentially trying to press pause until they have had the opportunity to seek a stay and appeal of the lifting of the lockout. And, oh, the draft starts in three days.

Just another strange night in this increasingly strange offseason.

It seems to me that with no CBA in place and no real rules that say that the 2010 rules must be followed, the league can make many of the rules up as they go along. This could turn into an even bigger mess that it seems to be now.

ArlingtonTexan
04-26-2011, 12:02 AM
BEcause Texans chick is a lawyer, football fan and makes sense (I know there is some contradiction) here is what she has to say

http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2011/04/judge_susan_nelson_rules_in_fa.html

CloakNNNdagger
04-26-2011, 12:15 AM
BEcause Texans chick is a lawyer, football fan and makes sense (I know there is some contradiction) here is what she has to say

http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2011/04/judge_susan_nelson_rules_in_fa.html

Thanks for posting this link. Rep to you........and I'd rep Stephanie also if I could.

axman40
04-26-2011, 12:16 AM
We’re getting closer to getting on with business as usual.
The NFL needs to stay out of the courts.
:fans:

gary
04-26-2011, 12:25 AM
We’re getting closer to getting on with business as usual.
The NFL needs to stay out of the courts.
:fans:
Agreed. Millionaires should know how to hammer out a deal but I am still kind of happy about this as an NFL football fan I just want to see football as this point I don't care how they come to an agreement just do it.

axman40
04-26-2011, 12:38 AM
The judge has turned the issue away from a labor dispute and into an anti- trust case.IMO!
:fans:

Marcus
04-26-2011, 12:45 AM
Well, we can talk about court decisions until the cows come home, but I don't think there's going to be any football until the owners are happy.

And the owners are not happy, at all. And collectively, they can pull all kinds of rabbits out of their hats to muck things up until they get what they want.

Hookem Horns
04-26-2011, 02:08 AM
So what if NFL players decide to report to their team facilities on Tuesday for offseason strength and conditioning? Any team that refuses to let the players inside possibly will be in violation of Judge Nelson’s order.

Does this mean that Vince Young can now enter into the Titans facility?

b0ng
04-26-2011, 08:09 AM
I'm pretty sure the owners don't have to open up their facilities immediately to any players who want to show up, they can argue that they have to set everything up in order to begin operations again.

TEXANRED
04-26-2011, 08:21 AM
Does this mean that Vince Young can now enter into the Titans facility?

Didn't he get cut?

CloakNNNdagger
04-26-2011, 08:40 AM
Didn't he get cut?

No! You just keep hearing that they are GOING to cut him.

axman40
04-26-2011, 08:46 AM
Well, we can talk about court decisions until the cows come home, but I don't think there's going to be any football until the owners are happy.

And the owners are not happy, at all. And collectively, they can pull all kinds of rabbits out of their hats to muck things up until they get what they want.
http://members.tripod.com/%7EHostBebe/eeyore.jpg

CloakNNNdagger
04-26-2011, 08:51 AM
Ten things to know, right now, about the lockout ruling (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/ten-things-to-know-right-now-about-the-lockout-ruling/)

Getty ImagesWith Judge Susan Nelson lifting the lockout via court order on Monday, plenty of you have plenty of questions.

We’ve tried to anticipate 10 of them.

And then we tried to answer them.

1. What does it mean?

In short, it means that the players’ strategy has worked, so far. When the union decertified, the objective was to place the players in position to block a lockout. Now, football can continue — with the players getting paid — while the two sides potentially move toward working out an agreement, at some point.

Of course, if the NFL prevails on appeal, the lockout will continue until the players agree to terms. With the lockout lifted, the players will be able to dig in, since their ability to work and be paid won’t be riding on their willingness to strike a deal.

2. What happens next?

The league wants to “stay” (i.e., delay) the lifting of the lockout pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The argument will be that opening the doors temporarily and then closing them after winning the case on appeal will create an undue hardship for the league.

If the league gets a stay, the lockout will remain in effect until the appeal is resolved.

If the league doesn’t get a stay, the lockout ends — and the new “league year” starts, with free agency and trades and players being cut and offseason workouts and, basically, business as usual. Unless and until the league wins on appeal.

3. What will happen on appeal?

The league is confident that it will win the appeal. The confidence comes in part from the fact that 13 of the 16 judges (active and senior status) assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit were nominated by Republican presidents. Though judges sometimes stray from their pre-bench political ideologies once they land lifetime appointments, the league surely likes its chances of getting a conservative, pro-business panel.

Initially, three judges (from the active and senior status) randomly will be assigned to the case. Persuading two of them will deliver a win.

The losing party then can file a petition for the case to be heard again before all of the active judges, and any senior status judges that served on the original three-judge panel. Those requests aren’t granted routinely, but this isn’t a routine case.

While the loose red state/blue state, pro-business/pro-labor composition of the 8th Circuit superficially favors the NFL, the standard that applies on appeal favors the players. The appeals court won’t be reviewing Judge Nelson’s work from scratch. Instead, the decision will be upheld unless the appeals court determines that Judge Nelson abused her discretion.

The 89-page written ruling seems was expertly crafted to avoid a finding that Judge Nelson acted unreasonably. Even if at least two of the three judges assigned to the case are inclined to conclude that the decertification of the union was a sham or that the courts must defer to the NLRB or that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents a court from enjoining a lockout, Judge Nelson’s reliance on past cases from the 8th Circuit supporting the idea that a so-called “preliminary injunction” can be obtained even if the likelihood of winning the case is lower than 50 percent, the question of whether the appellate judges believe the decertification of the union is valid doesn’t matter. All that matters for now is whether the players have shown that they have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial, a standard used most recently by the 8th Circuit in a case decided in 2008. For the purposes of the appeal, the judges would be required to find that Judge Nelson abused her discretion in concluding that the players have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial.

As we explained earlier in the month, it’s similar to the deference that a referee must give to the call on the field during replay review. Instead of substituting the referee’s judgment for the judgment of the official who made the call, the referee must look for evidence demonstrating that the call was clearly wrong. While Judge Nelson’s decision doesn’t have quite as much leeway, it’s simply not enough for the appeals court to disagree with her interpretation of the law. To overturn the decision to lift the lockout while the litigation proceeds, the appeals court must believe that the decision amounts to an abuse of the discretion inherent to trial courts.

4. When will free agency start?

That depends on several factors. If the NFL fails to finagle a stay, free agency could begin by the end of the week.

With a stay, free agency won’t happen unless and until the appeals court upholds Judge Nelson’s ruling.

Even if the league can’t delay the lifting of the lockout pending appeal, veteran players scheduled for free agency shouldn’t want the process to be rushed. Truly big money won’t be spent unless teams have had a chance to digest the rules for 2011, to set their budgets, to assess their needs, and to develops specific plans for the players who will be targeted.

As to rookie free agents who aren’t drafted, the players should push for the immediate signing of contracts, so that teams will be able to engage in their annual post-draft land rush for 15-20 undrafted rookies.

5. Can players be traded?

In theory, yes. But the league will ignore that issue until it learns whether a stay will be granted. If the ruling isn’t stayed, however, the league will have to allow trades.

And the union will push for that to happen immediately, since it will promote the movement of players during the draft, given that draft picks and players would be available as trade compensation.

6. Will the 2010 rules be used in 2011?

It’s unclear at this point. Many have assumed that the NFL will simply repeat the 2010 rules, which entailed no salary cap, no salary floor, and six years to unrestricted free agency.

With the players poised to challenge any rules implemented by the teams as a violation of the antitrust laws, the NFL needs to select the rules for 2011 carefully. If the league goes too far, the league will lose the antitrust lawsuit. If the league crafts rules narrowly aimed at ensuring competitive balance, the league could win the antitrust lawsuit — and the players would be stuck with a system that entails none of the protections that a union provides.

7. Will there be a rookie wage scale?

It depends. The league can impose one, and then the players would challenge it as an antitrust violation.

8. Will the parties continue to negotiate?

Yes. Mediation is scheduled to resume on May 16. The fact that the players won their motion to lift the lockout doesn’t end the case. The antitrust lawsuit continues, and a settlement of the case would become the next labor deal between the NFL and the players.

Though players like Domonique Foxworth have said that the players never intend to re-form the union, the problem with that approach is that any settlement between the current players and the league wouldn’t be binding on the annual influx of new players, who could challenge any of the rules to which the current players agree as violations of the antitrust laws.

Thus, the only way to reach a long-term labor accord will be to negotiate a new CBA, or to see the litigation to completion, with the league learning via trial and error (and the expenditure of millions in legal fees) what can and can’t be done from an antitrust standpoint.

9. How long could this take to resolve?

Years. But once the ruling lifting the lockout is finalized via the appeals process, football would continue until the antitrust case ends, as it did in the 1990s after the union decertified.

10. What happens to the “lockout insurance” case?

It still moves forward, even if there is no lockout (and thus no reason to use “lockout insurance”). Judge David Doty found last month that the league violated the CBA but failing to maximize the television revenue. At a minimum, the players are entitled to any money that the league “left on the table” when negotiating ongoing payments during a lockout instead of getting more money during the years of the deal not affected by a work stoppage.

CloakNNNdagger
04-26-2011, 09:01 AM
If players will ONLY be allowed to enter team facilities, but NOT the weight rooms, they would technically NOT be elligible for their "offseason workout bonuses."

IDEXAN
04-26-2011, 09:29 AM
So this judge takes almost 3 weeks to come up with a conclusion ? Any other line of work she gets her azz fired for taking so such an incredibly long time to do her job. I say contract it out to somebody or a group who can accelerate the process to reach this important decision in a prompter fashion.

GP
04-26-2011, 10:27 AM
So this judge takes almost 3 weeks to come up with a conclusion ? Any other line of work she gets her azz fired for taking so such an incredibly long time to do her job. I say contract it out to somebody or a group who can accelerate the process to reach this important decision in a prompter fashion.

Consider what CND posted (I'll paste it here, below):

The 89-page written ruling seems was expertly crafted to avoid a finding that Judge Nelson acted unreasonably. Even if at least two of the three judges assigned to the case are inclined to conclude that the decertification of the union was a sham or that the courts must defer to the NLRB or that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents a court from enjoining a lockout, Judge Nelson’s reliance on past cases from the 8th Circuit supporting the idea that a so-called “preliminary injunction” can be obtained even if the likelihood of winning the case is lower than 50 percent, the question of whether the appellate judges believe the decertification of the union is valid doesn’t matter. All that matters for now is whether the players have shown that they have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial, a standard used most recently by the 8th Circuit in a case decided in 2008. For the purposes of the appeal, the judges would be required to find that Judge Nelson abused her discretion in concluding that the players have a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial.

As we explained earlier in the month, it’s similar to the deference that a referee must give to the call on the field during replay review. Instead of substituting the referee’s judgment for the judgment of the official who made the call, the referee must look for evidence demonstrating that the call was clearly wrong. While Judge Nelson’s decision doesn’t have quite as much leeway, it’s simply not enough for the appeals court to disagree with her interpretation of the law. To overturn the decision to lift the lockout while the litigation proceeds, the appeals court must believe that the decision amounts to an abuse of the discretion inherent to trial courts.

She was sort of busy trying to not have her reputation as a judge ruined.

She took the time necessary to craft the wording on her ruling (she doesn't just go up there and bang a gavel and then says "That's all, folks!").

Plus, it sorta' looks bad if you rule on a case of this magnitude in only two or three days. It'd be seen as a "rush to judgment," and the likelihood of the appeals court overturning her ruling is increased, IMO.

All in all, it was handled professionally from what I have seen. We're biased because we're fans and we want our football and we want it yesterday.

disaacks3
04-26-2011, 10:33 AM
If players will ONLY be allowed to enter team facilities, but NOT the weight rooms, they would technically NOT be elligible for their "offseason workout bonuses." But, if the teams (read NFL) refuses to allow them to perform the requirements specified in their contracts, they would be in direct violation of the judge's order unless/until a stay is issued. It would also broaden the anti-trust claims by the players.

IDEXAN
04-26-2011, 10:50 AM
Plus, it sorta' looks bad if you rule on a case of this magnitude in only two or three days. It'd be seen as a "rush to judgment," and the likelihood of the appeals court overturning her ruling is increased, IMO.

I'm not talking about 2 or 3 days, but what about a whole, full week instead of almost 3 weeks ? 3 weeks is an eternity. People write books in 3 weeks. Couldn't she have delayed her vacation to Hawaii or her cosmetic surgery or wherever to get this very important assignment done ASAP ?
This is just another example of our screwed-up judicial system. Judges work along at their leisure, in their own little niche while the whole world puts its business into suspension to wait for one man or woman to complete a task at his or her own comfortable pace. The rest of us out here in the real world have deadlines to meet under pressure.

axman40
04-26-2011, 10:53 AM
I'm not talking about 2 or 3 days, but what about a whole, full week instead of almost 3 weeks ? 3 weeks is an eternity. People write books in 3 weeks. Couldn't she have delayed her vacation to Hawaii or her cosmetic surgery or wherever to get this very important assignment done ASAP ?
This is just another example of our screwed-up judicial system. Judges work along at their leisure, in their own little niche while the whole world puts its business into suspension to wait for one man or woman to complete a task at his or her own comfortable pace. The rest of us out here in the real world have deadlines to meet under pressure.
What authors do you read?

RazorOye
04-26-2011, 10:54 AM
So this judge takes almost 3 weeks to come up with a conclusion ? Any other line of work she gets her azz fired for taking so such an incredibly long time to do her job. I say contract it out to somebody or a group who can accelerate the process to reach this important decision in a prompter fashion.

considering the complexities involved and the potential fallout from the decision, I thought that the three weeks was more than reasonable - especially considering the utter lack of movement in the months and years of relative inaction on the parts of players/owners that led to this.

"Incredibly long time" - I actually thought the opposite.

I just finished cranking out 53 pages in the last 3 weeks and it's been miserable. And my topic is a whole lot less complicated than what she was doing with consequences more far reaching.

And I'm not sure what "contracting it out" means.

I'm with GP - I thought it was a reasonable amount of time and certainly appears, to me, to have been handled professionally.

Yea, we want it to end more quickly - all of us do. But compared to the years leading up to this, before and including the appointment of the mediator, 3 weeks sounds almost like a bargain

El Tejano
04-26-2011, 11:04 AM
All the owners are going to do is come together and agree to not trade anyone.

IDEXAN
04-26-2011, 11:19 AM
Yea, we want it to end more quickly - all of us do. But compared to the years leading up to this, before and including the appointment of the mediator, 3 weeks sounds almost like a bargain
If she can't get it done any quicker, give her some help. Hell, get her a whole team. Those para legals work for peanuts from what I've heard and yet often know more about the law than the jokers with the diplomas. Or get her a whole high-priced Manhatten Jewish law firm. I really don't care. It really makes no sense having the NFL-CBA resolution frozen in time because it's waiting on one person to complete her task. We're talking 9 billion dollars here, right ?
For gods sake, talk about a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

Dan B.
04-26-2011, 11:29 AM
If she can't get it done any quicker, give her some help. Hell, get her a whole team. Those para legals work for peanuts from what I've heard and yet often know more about the law than the jokers with the diplomas. Or get her a whole high-priced Manhatten Jewish law firm. I really don't care. It really makes no sense having the NFL-CBA resolution frozen in time because it's waiting on one person to complete her task. We're talking 9 billion dollars here, right ?
For gods sake, talk about a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

I'm fairly certain she had paralegals working with her. Judges typically have a team under them to research precedent etc. I don't think it was one judge burning the midnight oil working alone.

RazorOye
04-26-2011, 11:29 AM
It really makes no sense having the NFL-CBA resolution frozen in time because it's waiting on one person to complete her task.

well, it's been frozen in time for years which had nothing to do with Judge Nelson, in all fairness


We're talking 9 billion dollars here, right ?

exactly!

IBleedTexans
04-26-2011, 11:42 AM
What authors do you read?

Must be cat in the hat by the infamous dr seuss. I've read some of his books and they are GGGreeeaaat!!!!!

drs23
04-26-2011, 11:47 AM
If she can't get it done any quicker, give her some help. Hell, get her a whole team. Those para legals work for peanuts from what I've heard and yet often know more about the law than the jokers with the diplomas. Or get her a whole high-priced Manhatten Jewish law firm. I really don't care. It really makes no sense having the NFL-CBA resolution frozen in time because it's waiting on one person to complete her task. We're talking 9 billion dollars here, right ?
For gods sake, talk about a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

I dunno. My wife is a CLA and she's been bringing home some pretty good sized peanuts for years. And they seem to get a little bigger each year.:kitten:

CloakNNNdagger
04-26-2011, 11:53 AM
But, if the teams (read NFL) refuses to allow them to perform the requirements specified in their contracts, they would be in direct violation of the judge's order unless/until a stay is issued. It would also broaden the anti-trust claims by the players.

This has turned into a total mess. We fans are confused about the rules that will drive 2011. A good explanation is that there are no set rules dealing with the 2011 offseason, preseason and regular season, since no agreement has been met.

Players said they were granted access to the facility, but they described it as a scene from "The Shining" -- closed doors and empty hallways. Players said they saw no coaches and were told they couldn't work out because there was no supervision.

The NFL issued a statement indicating players would not be allowed to work out.

"We are going to proceed in an orderly way that is fair to the teams and players and complies with court orders," the statement read. "Players are being treated with courtesy and respect at club facilities. We do not believe it is appropriate for football activities to take place until there are further rulings from the court. Under the last set of proposals made to the NFLPA, teams wouldn't even be into offseason programs yet. We need a few days to sort this out, as NFLPA attorney Jim Quinn indicated last night."
link (http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=6430335)

infantrycak
04-26-2011, 11:56 AM
I'm not talking about 2 or 3 days, but what about a whole, full week instead of almost 3 weeks ? 3 weeks is an eternity. People write books in 3 weeks. Couldn't she have delayed her vacation to Hawaii or her cosmetic surgery or wherever to get this very important assignment done ASAP ?
This is just another example of our screwed-up judicial system. Judges work along at their leisure, in their own little niche while the whole world puts its business into suspension to wait for one man or woman to complete a task at his or her own comfortable pace. The rest of us out here in the real world have deadlines to meet under pressure.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the reading and writing involved here. They had to research hundreds of pages of statutes, through all sorts of NLRB precedent and thousands of pages of case law. These aren't areas of law most judges have dealt with so she and her staff had a steep learning curve and obviously with huge consequences they would want to make sure and get it right. The other thing is you are acting like this was her only case when in fact she has a full docket of cases to handle.

I'm fairly certain she had paralegals working with her. Judges typically have a team under them to research precedent etc. I don't think it was one judge burning the midnight oil working alone.

She would have had a team but not paralegals. It would be a combination of law students and law clerks (recently graduated lawyers 1-3 years). And in the end, sure the clerks can help pull together potentially helpful material and make a 1st cut on what may be helpful but she wasn't going to just hand off a huge high profile case like this and trust them.

The1ApplePie
04-26-2011, 12:02 PM
I'm not talking about 2 or 3 days, but what about a whole, full week instead of almost 3 weeks ? 3 weeks is an eternity. People write books in 3 weeks. Couldn't she have delayed her vacation to Hawaii or her cosmetic surgery or wherever to get this very important assignment done ASAP ?
This is just another example of our screwed-up judicial system. Judges work along at their leisure, in their own little niche while the whole world puts its business into suspension to wait for one man or woman to complete a task at his or her own comfortable pace. The rest of us out here in the real world have deadlines to meet under pressure.

:mariopalm:

RazorOye
04-26-2011, 12:10 PM
Must be cat in the hat by the infamous dr seuss. I've read some of his books and they are GGGreeeaaat!!!!!

just a sidenote: it took Dr. Seuss a year and a half to write The Cat in the Hat after initially believing he could "knock it out in a week or two"

Dutchrudder
04-26-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm fairly certain GP could write 89 pages in about 3 days. This judge just needs to hire him as a ghostwriter...

:D

disaacks3
04-26-2011, 12:12 PM
Under the last set of proposals made to the NFLPA, teams wouldn't even be into offseason programs yet. While true, any proposals made this offseason during negotiations have zip to do with current contracts. I can't believe that there aren't HUGE caveats to prohibiting players from meeting contractual requirements.

As I've read more than once in the last 1/2 day, it appears that the NFL was woefully unprepared for a true "lifting" of the lockout. They're scrambling more than Schaub did during his last game in Indy.

Yankee_In_TX
04-26-2011, 12:49 PM
I'm not talking about 2 or 3 days, but what about a whole, full week instead of almost 3 weeks ? 3 weeks is an eternity. People write books in 3 weeks. Couldn't she have delayed her vacation to Hawaii or her cosmetic surgery or wherever to get this very important assignment done ASAP ?
This is just another example of our screwed-up judicial system. Judges work along at their leisure, in their own little niche while the whole world puts its business into suspension to wait for one man or woman to complete a task at his or her own comfortable pace. The rest of us out here in the real world have deadlines to meet under pressure.

That's just not true. Having worked for a judge before, you're talking one man or woman, handling 100's of cases. Usually with a few staffers but only 1 or 2 who have a legal background for helping write the opinion.

Each side probably submitted briefs spouting a lot of laws and case law 100's of pages in length.

So in between all her other cases, this judge has to research everything the parties wrote and determine who is right and who is wrong. She then has to write an opinion, as best she can, applying the facts to the law. In this case, her 'why' was 89 pages long.

Sure, she could have dropped all her other cases and duties and only worked in the NFL case and it would have been done sooner, but how is that justice for everyone else?

When I worked for a judge there were some nights where the clerks DID NOT GO HOME because of the workload. They were still there when we arrived the next morning.

/rant

DonnyMost
04-26-2011, 12:50 PM
If players will ONLY be allowed to enter team facilities, but NOT the weight rooms, they would technically NOT be elligible for their "offseason workout bonuses."


If your employer stipulates a bonus in your contract for doing X, and your employer prohibits you from doing X, then that would be a pretty obvious lawsuit waiting to happen that would undoubtedly be decided in favor of the employee.

DonnyMost
04-26-2011, 12:54 PM
Michael McCann (lawyer in Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit) has some good info on the ruling and what it means going forward.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/04/25/nfl.lockout/index.html



1. How important is this ruling and do NFL players go back to work?
Pure and simple, the ruling is a game changer. It enjoins the NFL lockout, meaning the lockout is over. Whether players should report back to work will be determined in the next few days. The league is seeking a stay of Judge Nelson's order until the league can receive appellate review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. Judge Nelson may grant a short stay, such a few days or a week for teams to resume their business operations, but she is unlikely to grant the length of stay desired by the league. The Eight Circuit would then be asked to review whether to grant a stay desired by the NFL.
Assuming the league is ordered to resume business operations in the near future, players will resume being paid under their contracts and receive their other employment benefits, including health care. Free agents will soon be able to sign with teams.
Absent a successful appeal by the NFL to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NFL, Judge Nelson's order will last until there is a full trial of Brady v. NFL. A full trial would likely occur in 2012 or later and will probably be rendered moot by an eventual agreement between the NFL and NFL players on a new collective bargaining agreement.
2. Should teams sign players and conduct business as usual?
Teams would be wise to proceed cautiously until a stay is granted or denied, and until the U.S. Court of Appeals decides on the NFL's appeal. Teams, however, should not act too cautiously, as they might unwittingly commit violations of federal antitrust law by refusing to sign players.
First off, there is uncertainty as to whether the terms of the recently expired CBA control. In a previous case, Powell v. NFL, the Eight Circuit held that an expired CBA between the NFL and NFLPA remained in effect indefinitely, even if in negotiating a new CBA, the NFL and NFLPA were to break off negotiations. Here, however, the NFLPA has decertified and, as Judge Nelson conspicuously notes in her order, "the Players have exercised their right to abandon the collective bargaining framework of labor law in order to pursue individual contracts." For that reason, collectively bargained rules, such as restrictions on free agency or the salary cap, are unlikely to remain in effect. In fact, if teams proceed as if they are, they could run afoul of federal antitrust law (which generally disfavors competitors, such as teams, from conspiring in ways that limit competition, such as restrictions on signing players).
For the time being, therefore, there do not seem to be restrictions on players who are without contracts, including those previously viewed as "restricted free agents," from signing with teams (players already under contract will resume their contracts). Ironically, if teams refuse to sign players because of the uncertainty, they could commit a separate antitrust violation: a group boycott of free agent players.
3. How does this ruling benefit the players and hurt the owners?
Judge Nelson's order benefits the players and hurts the owners in several ways.
First, it puts the players in the driver's seat in terms of negotiating a new CBA. They will return to work and cannot be locked-out by the league, which had banked on the lockout as its most threatening negotiation weapon. If the league does not agree on a new collective bargaining agreement, the league would be subject to antitrust violations by placing restrictions on teams signing players.
Second, the players now hold a huge bargaining card in dealing with the owners: Judge Nelson's order indicates that the players would probably win in their antitrust litigation. Successful parties in private antitrust litigation automatically receive treble damages, which in this case could total in the billions of dollars. While most antitrust lawsuits settle, some NFL team owners might thus be worried about the prospect of paying 1/32nd of a billion dollar-plus legal tab. This could cause dissension among some NFL owners, who to date have seemed unified.
Third, players can now demand what they have wanted all along: more transparency in the NFL books.
4. Can the NFL appeal Judge Nelson's decision, and would they win?
The league has already signaled that it will seek both a stay and appeal of Judge Nelson's order. The request for a stay could be heard by the Eight Circuit as soon as this week and, if granted, would allow NFL teams some time to restart operations. Whether or not the stay is granted, the NFL will appeal Judge Nelson's order to the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. It will be an "interlocutory" appeal in that it will be filed before the final disposition in Brady v. NFL.
The NFL's appeal will be characterized as expedited, with the hope of getting an appellate hearing in the coming weeks. While requests for expedited appeals are often reserved for emergency matters, the NFL has enjoyed recent success in obtaining such an appeal. Back in 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the NFL an expedited appeal after U.S. District Court Shira Scheindlin ruled in favor of Maurice Clarett in his antitrust litigation against the NFL and its eligibility restriction [disclaimer: I was a member of Clarett's legal team]. The NFL would go on and win the Clarett case before the Second Circuit.
Tom Brady and the other plaintiffs will go into the appeal with a big advantage: the Eight Circuit will review Judge Nelson's order under the deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. Under this standard, the Eight Circuit will first evaluate whether Judge Nelson correctly enunciated the proper standard for a preliminary injunction. Her order, which clearly outlined the normal standard for a preliminary injunction, suggests that she will easily meet that test.
Next the Eight Circuit will evaluate whether Judge Nelson plausibly -- as opposed to what the three judges deem "correctly" -- applied that standard. The Eight Circuit may question Judge Nelson's conception of jurisdiction and of "irreparable damages." Here's why:
Lack of jurisdiction
The NFL insisted that Judge Nelson should not rule on the Brady lawsuit until the National Labor Relations Board decides on the legality of the NFLPA's decertification, which the NFL has challenged as an unfair labor practice. In making that argument, the NFL focused on the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which disfavors the use of injunctions while labor and management are at impasse. Judge Nelson rejected the NFL's reasoning and characterized the NFL as incorrectly conflating two distinct doctrines: the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which would permit review by a judge and federal agency, and the doctrine of exclusive statutory jurisdiction, which would not. Essentially, Judge Nelson reasoned that the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) review of the unfair labor practice does not stop review of the players' antitrust arguments.
Judge Nelson also highlighted that she is not obligated or even encouraged to defer to the NLRB, despite its expertise in labor law. To bolster that contention, she stressed the frequent delay in parties receiving decisions from the NLRB, which has a heavy case load and could take a year to decide on the NFL's unfair labor charge. From that lens, Judge Nelson intimated that if she punted on the case until the NLRB decided, then the NFL would wrongly be in the driver's seat. A continued lockout may have wiped out the 2011 season unless the players' capitulated to the league demands.
Expect Judge Nelson's reasoning, which characterized the law as more interpretative than the NFL believed, to come under fire in the appeal.
Lack of 'irreparable harm'
Judge Nelson was convinced that players would suffer irreparable harm -- meaning a harm that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages, including even trebled damages in antitrust lawsuits -- if they lost the 2011 season. The players argued, to Judge Nelson's satisfaction, that by sitting out one season, players' skills would diminish and careers would be shortened. She also highlighted how unrestricted free agents are in "contractual limbo" and that 2011 rookies would be unfairly harmed by a lockout since they could not play in the NFL or college in 2011, and then they would return in 2012 and compete against next year's rookies, who would have benefited by playing the 2011 college football season.
To advance her claim of NFL players' suffering irreparable harm, Judge Nelson cited Spencer Haywood's nearly 40-year-old successful lawsuit against the NBA and its rule that prohibited players from signing with NBA teams until four years after their high school graduation. In that case, the court highlighted that given that NBA players are typically in their 20s and early 30s, missing up to four years in the NBA because of an age limit constituted irreparable harm.
On appeal, expect the NFL to highlight that courts can usually identify money damages, even for hard-to-quantify damages. The NFL will also characterize Judge Nelson's logic as speculative: while rookie NFL players locked-out would have to compete against players who played a season of college football, the best ones should still rise to the top.
Bottom line: the NFL has a decent shot in the appellate review, but the standard of review is still stacked in favor of the players.
5. How quickly will the Eight Circuit hear an appeal?
If the Eight Circuit deems it appropriate to change its schedule of hearing appeals -- which could include appeals of cases where defendants have been sent to prison -- in order to accommodate the wishes of a professional sports league, it could hear the appeal as early as this week; more likely, an expedited review would be heard in the next few weeks.
6. Does Judge Nelson's ruling give any insight on how the NLRB might respond?
Judge Nelson is noticeably dismissive of the NFL's unfair labor practices charge. In fact, she writes that, "it is likely, if not inevitable, that the NLRB will dismiss that charge now that the Players have exercised their right to abandon the collective bargaining framework of labor law in order to pursue individual contracts." While the NLRB need not rely on Judge Nelson's advice, her comments are telling.
7. Does Judge Nelson's ruling mean there will be a 2011 NFL season?
Unless the Eight Circuit says otherwise, yes. And it means that when the players and owners eventually reach a deal on a new CBA, the players will be positioned to concede much less than what the owners had asked for.
8. What effect, if any, does Judge Nelson's ruling have on the NBA?
The collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the National Basketball Players' Association (NBPA) will expire on June 30. Just like we saw last month with the NFLPA and the NFL, the NBPA is poised to decertify and the NBA is poised to institute a lockout.
On one hand, Judge Nelson's ruling sends a warning to the NBA and its owners that, at least in her view, antitrust law holds a dim view of lockouts and that judges should not wait for the NLRB to decide on unfair labor complaints.
On the other hand, the NBA is in a very different situation.
For one, the NFL's legal argument has been hampered by the fact that not one NFL team can show that it is losing money. The inability of a team to do so suggests that enjoining the NFL lockout would not force an NFL team to lose money. The NBA, in contrast, asserts that 22 of its 30 teams will lose money in the 2010-11 season, and the league is willing to open the books to prove it. A court decision to lift a lockout instituted by the NBA would therefore subject NBA teams to losing money in the 2011-12 season. Such a consequence could motivate a judge reviewing an NBA lockout to be less willing than Judge Nelson to lift the lockout.
Second, irreparable harm may be more difficult for NBA players to show, since unlike NFL players who can play nowhere else and earn an NFL-quality income, some NBA players would be able to secure lucrative contracts in Europe and elsewhere during a lockout. If NBA players can't show irreparable harm, they would not be able to convince a judge to enjoin an NBA lockout.
Third, Judge Nelson's decision would not bind a court that reviews the NBA lockout. In fact, it is likely that such a court would be in New York, where both the NBA and NBPA are located. The NFL and NFLPA are litigating the lockout in Minnesota because the parties choose to do so in their collective bargaining agreement.
Bottom line: while Judge Nelson's ruling likely caused some concern for NBA teams, the NBA is in a very different situation and a lockout may be viewed more favorably by a court.

axman40
04-26-2011, 01:06 PM
If she can't get it done any quicker, give her some help. Hell, get her a whole team. Those para legals work for peanuts from what I've heard and yet often know more about the law than the jokers with the diplomas. Or get her a whole high-priced Manhatten Jewish law firm. I really don't care. It really makes no sense having the NFL-CBA resolution frozen in time because it's waiting on one person to complete her task. We're talking 9 billion dollars here, right ?
For gods sake, talk about a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
The owners had 3 years to come up with the lockout!
Screw the owners!

Showtime100
04-26-2011, 01:54 PM
What's all this talk I keep hearing about Judd Nelson's ruling on the lock out? Who cares what some brat packer says about it anyway..........


.......oh, that's Judge Nelson, ooohhhHHHHoo, that's different............

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r65/ShowtimeN15580/Pet%20Funny%20Misc/imagesCA1P7GGH.jpg

Um, sorry. Carry on..:hides:

IDEXAN
04-26-2011, 02:08 PM
The owners had 3 years to come up with the lockout!
Screw the owners!
The owners are perfectly happy to string this out as long as possible, it's the players who want to get this thing resolved. Yesterday.

chicagotexan2
04-26-2011, 02:09 PM
Thank you Judd Nelson.

http://filmsmell.com/wp-content/uploads/judd-nelson-breakfast-club.jpg

DonnyMost
04-26-2011, 02:28 PM
The owners are perfectly happy to string this out as long as possible, it's the players who want to get this thing resolved. Yesterday.

This is no longer the case now that Judge Nelson's ruling has come down.

Unless it gets overturned, the owners are now the one's at a distinct bargaining disadvantage the longer the negotiations go on.

b0ng
04-26-2011, 02:53 PM
I'm fairly certain GP could write 89 pages in about 3 days. This judge just needs to hire him as a ghostwriter...

:D

At least 47 of those pages would be rambling about how terrible Kubiak is and how Sage Rosenfels was screwed.

This is no longer the case now that Judge Nelson's ruling has come down.

Unless it gets overturned, the owners are now the one's at a distinct bargaining disadvantage the longer the negotiations go on.

The decision is big but mostly because it takes the choice of how long the lockout lasts out of the owners hands and puts it into the court system. Right now the owners are trying everything they can to keep the lockout extended because as long as checks aren't being issued and players aren't getting paid there's a chance they come to the meeting table to give the owners a deal that they want.

Now, having said all that the owners have displayed the financial and public relations long term wisdom of a tuna fish. I mean I guess if their endgame was to get this into the 8th circuit because it's a more "pro-business" panel then they are succeeding, but that 89 page ruling against them that Judge Nelson rendered is a pretty severe blow and it's going to put an undue amount of pressure on the NFL legal team to come up with valid arguments as to why they need to have the lockout extended or else it will do terrible harm to the league (Which to me, the easiest way to do that is to crack open the books for a neutral party to come in and do a full audit). I the defense the NFL plans to use I think is already posted online if you want to find it but I think it has to do with Judge Nelson not having the authority to rule on their case.

IDEXAN
04-26-2011, 03:54 PM
This is no longer the case now that Judge Nelson's ruling has come down.

Unless it gets overturned, the owners are now the one's at a distinct bargaining disadvantage the longer the negotiations go on.
Nelson decision was expected based upon everything I've seen. So far nothing has changed as long as the owners get the lockout reinstated which is expected. If not, then we've got a new ballgame and the owners have a problem.

DonnyMost
04-26-2011, 04:09 PM
Nelson decision was expected based upon everything I've seen. So far nothing has changed as long as the owners get the lockout reinstated which is expected. If not, then we've got a new ballgame and the owners have a problem.

Expected? If anything, it looks like they will be fortunate to even be granted a stay at this point.

The owners are losing ground quickly, and the courts give us little reason to think they will do anything but hasten their bleeding.

I'm hoping a stay is enforced until next week (at best), and then the appeal is ultimately rejected as soon as possible.

After that, we would see a deal done with great urgency. That seems like the quickest way for the fans to get football back on.

disaacks3
04-26-2011, 04:49 PM
The Owners still aren't on the same page. (surprise, surprise!) Per constant updates from PFT today, we've learned that:
A) The Giants let a player not only enter the facility, but also work out.
B) The Panthers (among others) let players into the facility, but prohibited working out.
C) The Bills and Seahawks denied player access to their facilities.

The NFL fell flat on it's face this time. They have no one else to blame that the teams are now sending mixed signals. Did they truly think that the lifting of the lockout was THAT big of a longshot that they failed completely to prepare for it?

Marcus
04-26-2011, 05:02 PM
Roger Goodell's response to Judge Nelson's ruling. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Now, I know Goodell represents the owners and all that, and know he's fearmongering, which is something that I deeply detest. (which anyone in the No Spin Zone can attest to)

But if even a smidgen of what Goodell is saying, ends up being true when all is said and done, well . . . y'all can watch all the NFL you want, but I know I won't have anything to do with it.

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

disaacks3
04-26-2011, 05:43 PM
Now, I know Goodell represents the owners and all that, and know he's fearmongering, which is something that I deeply detest. (which anyone in the No Spin Zone can attest to)

But if even a smidgen of what Goodell is saying, ends up being true when all is said and done, well . . . y'all can watch all the NFL you want, but I know I won't have anything to do with it. I think all the items Goodell has listed were smoke screen/scare tactics by the players AGAINST the NFL. I seriously doubt any of them will come to pass. He's still doing his level best to portray the Owners as some kind of 'victims' here.

ArlingtonTexan
04-26-2011, 05:56 PM
I think all the items Goodell has listed were smoke screen/scare tactics by the players AGAINST the NFL. I seriously doubt any of them will come to pass. He's still doing his level best to portray the Owners as some kind of 'victims' here.

If the owners had not taken a tact of trying to bully the union (lockout) into agreeing to a deal favoring the owners then they would not subject to the litigation mess they are in.

b0ng
04-26-2011, 06:08 PM
I think all the items Goodell has listed were smoke screen/scare tactics by the players AGAINST the NFL. I seriously doubt any of them will come to pass. He's still doing his level best to portray the Owners as some kind of 'victims' here.

Well Goodell is pretty much acting as the spokesperson for the owners anyway so it doesn't surprise me he is trying to paint a doom and gloom picture after the league took one in the dumper today.

Marcus
04-26-2011, 06:13 PM
I think all the items Goodell has listed were smoke screen/scare tactics by the players AGAINST the NFL. But I seriously doubt any of them will come to pass.He's still doing his level best to portray the Owners as some kind of 'victims' here.

But if any of them DID come to pass, such as no more NFL draft, or unlimited free agency for players to go anywhere they choose, without teams being compensated. How would you feel about it then?

I dunno ... I just have this feeling that we'll end up with a league that I'm not going to care much about.

GlassHalfFull
04-26-2011, 06:15 PM
Now, having said all that the owners have displayed the financial and public relations long term wisdom of a tuna fish.

What did tuna ever do to you to get insulted this way? :spin:

Corrosion
04-26-2011, 11:39 PM
From Marcus link above -


• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not

Looking at the surface - There is no players union , they dissolved it voluntarily. The players would be left to negotiate things individually .... (they'll be back under the NFL PA).


I dont know about not having a salary cap , I think thats something the owners want more than the players. I could see no league minimum tho as some owners dont want to spend if they dont have to. Winning isnt the first thing on their minds , profit is.


All this means little tho as when this is over and done with , the NFL PA will again be a union. They did this as a ploy. Its pretty easy to see that they want the best of both worlds.
I guess the judge in this case believes that they are technically not a union and that technicality is what matters.

b0ng
04-26-2011, 11:44 PM
All this means little tho as when this is over and done with , the NFL PA will again be a union. They did this as a ploy. Its pretty easy to see that they want the best of both worlds.
I guess the judge in this case believes that they are technically not a union and that technicality is what matters.

When the players tried to sue the league for anti-trust violations way back in the 80's the first suit was completely unsuccesful because they were still a union and could not sue for anti-trust like that. Specifically they were told by the judge that in order for suits like that to work they would need to de-certify the union before moving on with litigation like that.

I can see you are very pro-business in this situation which is fine, but your dreams of having the union be totally formed throughout this whole litigation and negotation was shot down like 30 years ago :)

Corrosion
04-27-2011, 12:45 AM
When the players tried to sue the league for anti-trust violations way back in the 80's the first suit was completely unsuccesful because they were still a union and could not sue for anti-trust like that. Specifically they were told by the judge that in order for suits like that to work they would need to de-certify the union before moving on with litigation like that.

I can see you are very pro-business in this situation which is fine, but your dreams of having the union be totally formed throughout this whole litigation and negotation was shot down like 30 years ago :)

Thats the thing - either they are or they arent a union. Why should they be recognized as a union if they are going to decertify to get the benifits of being individuals and then recertify once they attain those benifits and then gain the benifits of being a union .... Either they are or they arent.

Maybe the owners recourse here is not to negotiate with them in the future as a union but as individuals. The players stand to lose a hell of a lot in that situation. Particularly those players not at the top of the salary scale when you consider losing league minimum salaries and league mandated minimum spending on salary. Throw in health care and other group negotiated issues and it really adds up.

It just makes no sense to me , and I cant see the courts allowing the players to abuse this "technicality" to get the best of both sides of the coin.

b0ng
04-27-2011, 02:24 AM
Thats the thing - either they are or they arent a union. Why should they be recognized as a union if they are going to decertify to get the benifits of being individuals and then recertify once they attain those benifits and then gain the benifits of being a union .... Either they are or they arent.

Maybe the owners recourse here is not to negotiate with them in the future as a union but as individuals. The players stand to lose a hell of a lot in that situation. Particularly those players not at the top of the salary scale when you consider losing league minimum salaries and league mandated minimum spending on salary. Throw in health care and other group negotiated issues and it really adds up.

It just makes no sense to me , and I cant see the courts allowing the players to abuse this "technicality" to get the best of both sides of the coin.

Powell vs NFL where the judge ruled that a union has to be decertified in order to bring anti-trust lawsuits. Cannot bring anti-trust lawsuits against employers unless you are not unioninzed. I REPEAT YOU CANNOT BRING ANTI-TRUST LAWSUITS TO A COURT IF YOU ARE APART OF A UNION
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4065641250321284256&q=powell+v.+national+football+league&hl=en&as_sdt=2,43

McNeil vs NFL where the NFL brought up arguments that decertification, sue, recertification is acceptable in the court system.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8935509080321208579&q=mcneil+v.+national+football+league&hl=en&as_sdt=2,43

To me it seems like you are refusing to read the cited cases in Judge Nelson's opinion and continue railing against something that has already been argued in court and is deemed an apropriate tool for the players to use as leverage during labor strife.

Corrosion
04-27-2011, 02:41 AM
Powell vs NFL where the judge ruled that a union has to be decertified in order to bring anti-trust lawsuits. Cannot bring anti-trust lawsuits against employers unless you are not unioninzed. I REPEAT YOU CANNOT BRING ANTI-TRUST LAWSUITS TO A COURT IF YOU ARE APART OF A UNION
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4065641250321284256&q=powell+v.+national+football+league&hl=en&as_sdt=2,43

McNeil vs NFL where the NFL brought up arguments that decertification, sue, recertification is acceptable in the court system.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8935509080321208579&q=mcneil+v.+national+football+league&hl=en&as_sdt=2,43

To me it seems like you are refusing to read the cited cases in Judge Nelson's opinion and continue railing against something that has already been argued in court and is deemed an apropriate tool for the players to use as leverage during labor strife.


Im reading it and I understand what it means .... Doesnt mean I agree with it , especially the decertify , sue , recertify part. Sounds like some shit Congress would pull(sarcasm - kinda) .... What rights do the owners have ???

Im just stating an opinion on the matter ....

Honestly , if I were an owner in this climate , I'd be looking for a way out. There are better ways to get a return on the investment.

b0ng
04-27-2011, 07:38 AM
This seems like worship of the wealthy here so I'll just move on.

Corrosion
04-27-2011, 08:12 AM
This seems like worship of the wealthy here so I'll just move on.

Both sides are pretty damn wealthy ..... We are talking about a dispute between millionaires and billionaires here - How to share $9 billion in cash and prizes.


I dont worship either side , Im just not one for loopholes or technicalities. Not much fairness here when one side is able to manipulate the rules of play in their favor at their discresion.

TEXANRED
04-27-2011, 09:11 AM
My question is if the lock out is over shouldn't we go ahead and sign Leach and Aso before the draft tomorrow?

DonnyMost
04-27-2011, 10:01 AM
My question is if the lock out is over shouldn't we go ahead and sign Leach and Aso before the draft tomorrow?

Judge Nelson's decision today on whether to grant a stay will essentially determine whether "business as usual" can be conducted in the NFL.

As of right now, everybody is just waiting to see. The players are acting as if the NFL is open for business, but the owners aren't. So it's just this weird limbo.

If she grants the stay, the lockout continues and no business will be conducted until the higher court rules on the owners' appeal.

If she denies the stay, then basically it is every man for himself. Unless all of the owners get together and decided to not conduct offseason business until a CBA is in place. (essentially a gentleman's 'handshake' agreement) In which case they would be setting themselves up for a fat anti-trust suit.

It's going to be an interesting day...

infantrycak
04-27-2011, 11:59 AM
The Owners still aren't on the same page. (surprise, surprise!) Per constant updates from PFT today, we've learned that:
A) The Giants let a player not only enter the facility, but also work out.
B) The Panthers (among others) let players into the facility, but prohibited working out.
C) The Bills and Seahawks denied player access to their facilities.

The NFL fell flat on it's face this time. They have no one else to blame that the teams are now sending mixed signals. Did they truly think that the lifting of the lockout was THAT big of a longshot that they failed completely to prepare for it?

Or the NFL is being savvy here. If they all work to enforce the same rules then they support the anti-trust suit pending against them.

Double Barrel
04-27-2011, 12:08 PM
The little anarchist on my shoulder is enjoying all of this... http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1002/anarchycu6.gif :evil: http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1002/anarchycu6.gif

IBleedTexans
04-27-2011, 12:37 PM
Wasnt the judge suppose tO have the ruling by 9. What's going on I want foooooooooooooooooooooootttttttttttbbbbbbbbbbbaaaa aaaaaalllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DonnyMost
04-27-2011, 12:41 PM
Wasnt the judge suppose tO have the ruling by 9. What's going on I want foooooooooooooooooooooootttttttttttbbbbbbbbbbbaaaa aaaaaalllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No joke, the wait is killing me...

b0ng
04-27-2011, 12:44 PM
Wasnt the judge suppose tO have the ruling by 9. What's going on I want foooooooooooooooooooooootttttttttttbbbbbbbbbbbaaaa aaaaaalllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pretty sure Nelson is not going to deny the stay but the NFL is going to basically do their best to ignore her ruling until the 8th Circuit hears the motion to lift the injunction.

b0ng
04-27-2011, 04:47 PM
Players Response To Stay Request by Owners (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/27/NFLPAGC.pdf)

As one who has experienced the opening of free agent negotiations every off-season in the past 18 years, I believe there will be no detriment to any NFL club by the Court’s lifting of the current lockout. I also believe that lifting the lockout immediately is the only way to preserve the 2011 season announced by the NFL, given the need to sign free agents, to complete the NFL draft and sign drafted players, to plan and to hold training camp, and to plan for the season itself.

3. In fact, any stay of the injunction and continuation of the lockout would actually be a detriment to NFL clubs, as the league has stated that it will lose money during the lockout totaling $1 billion before a single game is even cancelled. See NFL: Staggering Financial Losses would Follow Lockout, USA Today, January 28, 2011, attached as Ex. B. With the lockout enjoined, the clubs can go back to operating their multi-billion dollar business and making enormous amounts of money, as they did previously.
...
The NFL’s argument that lifting the lockout, even temporarily, will have a purported effect on “competitive balance,” because allegedly a small number of teams will sign all of the top free agents, is unfounded and contrary to all NFL historical evidence. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that this would come to pass. In fact, the two most recent seasons that were played without a salary cap in place (where a limited number of teams could theoretically dominate the free agent market) suggest just the opposite...There was also no salary cap in 1993, the first year of the recently expired White SSA and CBA, without any discernable harm to competitive balance. For example, in that year, Hall of Fame defensive end Reggie White, at that time the most high profile free agent in NFL history, chose to sign with the small market Green Bay Packers.
...
The NFL’s arguments that without a stay the NFL would be thrown into a state of chaos are also wrong. First, the NFL dramatically overstates the complexity of implementing a new system. All that is required is for the NFL to inform its teams of the rules it intends to implement, as it has done in the past. Indeed, as described below, it appears that the NFL has already decided what player system it intends to implement if the lockout is lifted, including at least some of the aspects of the system that was in place in 2010.
...
Before March 3 of this year, the clubs sent Restricted Free Agent Tenders to players with expiring contracts who had less than six accrued seasons. Also under the 2010 system, each club had the right to designate one player with an expiring contract as a socalled “Franchise Player” and one player as a so-called “Transition Player.” Before March 3 of this year, those designations were again made by various clubs...
...
The NFL clubs and the league have taken other significant steps to prepare for the upcoming season. For example, the NFL announced the complete pre-season schedule for 2011 on April 13 of this year, and the regular season schedule was released one week later.
...
It is therefore simply not credible for the NFL to claim that they are unprepared to resume operations and to conduct their normal off-season activities. In fact, the league has announced that it expects to play a full season in 2011...In order for the NFL to meet its just announced schedule (under which the first pre-season game will be played on August 7, 2011 and the first regular season game on September 8, 2011), it is necessary to permit the signing of free agent and rookie players very soon. No one knows when the 8th Circuit would rule in the NFL’s appeal, and free agency can not be delayed while waiting for that ruling. Given the steps that need to be taken for the season to begin, the risk that the 2011 season will be adversely affected is much greater if the lockout continues than if the lockout remains enjoined.
...
Moreover, any purported harm claimed by the NFL is entirely self-inflicted. The 32 Club owners chose on their own to terminate the CBA early and lockout the players, and they can not possibly claim any surprise at the NFLPA’s abandonment of bargaining rights and the present lawsuit. They have known for months, if not years, that implementing a lockout could put them in the very situation they are in now.
...
A stay allowing the “lockout” to continue would also cause severe harm to fans, communities, and a myriad of businesses that rely on the NFL for their viability. Indeed, the Commissioner of the NFL has acknowledged that the longer the uncertainty around the 2011 season continues unresolved the worse it is for everybody: “That’s why we think that the longer it goes, it's bad for players, the clubs, our partners, and the fans.” See Roger Goodell Exclusive, attached as Ex. F.



NFL's Response (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/25/NFLStay.pdf).

I don't have quotes from the NFL because I haven't read it yet. I have not read the players brief in full but the excerpted part is pretty good.

DonnyMost
04-27-2011, 05:12 PM
What the heck is taking so long??

HOU-TEX
04-27-2011, 05:19 PM
What the heck is taking so long??

The Players sent a letter stating they wanted 1 bill in compensation if a "stay" was decided. The NFL had until 4 pm today to file a letter to the court refuting the Players letter. The NFL did in fact send the letter just prior to the deadline. From what I understand, Judge Nelson will give herself until 5 pm to come to a decision on the stay. Either way, if she rules in favor of the players again, the NFL will likely wait for the Appellate court to make a decision before opening the 2011 season. Probably wise not to get our hopes up

scourge
04-27-2011, 05:20 PM
Judd Nelson ending the lockout would've interested me more...

HOU-TEX
04-27-2011, 05:50 PM
Interesting!

Per Alber Breer's tweet:

NFL also attached the players proposal, an order that could be signed by Nelson that would lift the lockout completely with her signature.

Allstar
04-27-2011, 09:39 PM
Breaking--Judge Nelson in NFL Lockout case: "Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED."

IBleedTexans
04-27-2011, 09:51 PM
Breaking--Judge Nelson in NFL Lockout case: "Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED."

:hurrah::hurrah::hurrah: Now what?:confused::confused::confused:

Allstar
04-27-2011, 09:55 PM
AdamSchefter
Judge ordered NFL to start its league year immediately, but said no team is obligated to sign free agents. Trades in question.

Chris Mortensen
NFL now heads to 8th Circuit to request stay after Judge Nelson denied it...no indication league will commence new league year yet

Adam Schefter
Judge's 20 page order takes her 89 page order from Mon and hits the major points even harder. Makes NFL's attempt to get overturned harder.

Adam Schefter
League will tell the teams to hold pending 8th Circuit Ruling on the stay, NFLPA's position is it can't. Going to be interesting.

b0ng
04-27-2011, 10:04 PM
:hurrah::hurrah::hurrah: Now what?:confused::confused::confused:

NFL moves the appeal to lift the injunction to the 8th Circuit. Ruling on that appeal is probably going to be a few weeks down the road if they expedite EVERYTHING.

Remember guys, the owners plan is not to win the legal battles, the plan is to delay as long as possible in hopes the players cave and give the owners the deal the owners want.

Allstar
04-27-2011, 10:30 PM
vleach44 VontaLeach44
Whichh team is gonna be the first to call and say they need my services agent on phone now


Hmm.... if this is correct then could GMs actually be calling agents about players right now? Also, pretty bummed that Leach seems to have moved on.

Pantherstang84
04-27-2011, 10:44 PM
vleach44 VontaLeach44
Whichh team is gonna be the first to call and say they need my services agent on phone now


Hmm.... if this is correct then could GMs actually be calling agents about players right now? Also, pretty bummed that Leach seems to have moved on.

If that moron Rick Smith lets him walk...

b0ng
04-27-2011, 11:19 PM
Full Opinion On Denial of Stay (http://www.scribd.com/doc/54100387/Brady-v-NFL-Stay-Denied)

As discussed above, the Supreme Court’s clearly reiterated ruling that a stay applicant must make “‘a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits,’” casts a substantial doubt on the applicability of the more lenient standard that the NFL advocates, namely, that this case raises several "substantial and novel legal questions” regarding jurisdiction and “the contours of the nonstatutory labor exemption,” and that it is “not wholly without doubt” that the Eighth Circuit will disagree with this Court’s Order. The NFL has not met its burden of proof.

The NFL’s failure in this regard is premised in large part on its mis-understanding or mis-characterization of what this Court decided. Or perhaps more accurately, what this Court did not decide. This is evident in the NFL’s framing of the purported issues on appeal, particularly its claim that this Court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Pro-Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996). But the Eighth Circuit will not be addressing whether this court erred in finding that the lockout was sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the collective bargaining process, or in making that finding without any input from the NLRB, as was held in Brown, 518 U.S. at 250 (ruling that the nonstatutory labor exemption prevents actions of the NFL from being subjected to antitrust scrutiny unless such actions are “sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances” from the collective bargaining process, a test that should not be deemed satisfied without the “detailed views” of the NLRB).

The Eighth Circuit will not be addressing that issue because this Court did not decide that issue. As this Court explained at length, in Brown the Supreme Court addressed the issue of a negotiating impasse, the situation where a union and the employer reach a pause, that usually proves temporary, during the collective bargaining negotiations. This Court carefully explained that no such question was at issue here because the NFLPA disclaimed its status as the Players’ negotiating agent just prior to the expiration of the CBA and ceased all union functions on behalf of the Players. This Court thus decided the issue that was in fact before it – whether the NFLPA’s disclaimer was valid and effective, an issue that was neither novel nor difficult in light of the NLRB’s clear and consistent standard governing such disclaimers, and to which the NLRB has adhered for decades.

The NFL also contends that this Court decided “substantial and novel legal questions” related to “the outer boundaries of the nonstatutory labor exemption to the antitrust laws.” This Court does not disagree that the exemption issue is “substantial,” but this Court did not reach the question of whether the exemption protects mandatory terms of collective bargaining outside of the collective bargaining framework. Rather, the Court found that the lockout (1) is not a mandatory term, and therefore not subject to the exemption; and (2) has no role outside of collective bargaining.

The NFL has, in this Court’s considered judgment, little chance of success on the merits on this appeal on that issue because this Court did not decide that issue – namely, whether the nonstatutory labor exemption continues to insulate the League, under the factual circumstances in effect since March 11, 2011, with respect to negotiations or agreements regarding the mandatory terms of collective bargaining, that is, the substantive terms and conditions of employment.

Although the Brady Plaintiffs could have sought more expansive preliminary injunctive relief beyond Count I, they did not. This Court limited its ruling to the issue before it – whether the Brady Plaintiff’s were entitled to preliminary relief enjoining the lockout. Thus, the NFL’s suggestion that the Eighth Circuit apply a de novo standard of review to the issue of “the applicability of the nonstatutory labor exemption”, is not so much wrong as it is presently irrelevant. There is little point in debating the appropriate standard of review of a “ruling” that did not occur, does not exist, and, therefore, will not be reviewed on appeal.

Damn. Judge Nelson is just bitchslapping the NFL counsel.

TL;DR version: "The NFL has not met their burden of proof for a stay largely because they fundamentally misunderstand the ruling they are now appealing."

TEXANRED
04-27-2011, 11:28 PM
Full Opinion On Denial of Stay (http://www.scribd.com/doc/54100387/Brady-v-NFL-Stay-Denied)



Damn. Judge Nelson is just bitchslapping the NFL counsel.

TL;DR version: "The NFL has not met their burden of proof for a stay largely because they fundamentally misunderstand the ruling they are now appealing."

So basically the NFL council just pulled a Kubiak. Not understanding what it is they are challenging and throwing out the red flag anyway.

GP
04-27-2011, 11:31 PM
I'm fairly certain GP could write 89 pages in about 3 days. This judge just needs to hire him as a ghostwriter...

:D

Hardy harr harr.

10,000 out-of-work comedians and we get stuck with YOU.

It would be 78 pages, btw, if we're crunching numbers on it.

axman40
04-27-2011, 11:39 PM
Full Opinion On Denial of Stay (http://www.scribd.com/doc/54100387/Brady-v-NFL-Stay-Denied)



Damn. Judge Nelson is just bitchslapping the NFL counsel.

TL;DR version: "The NFL has not met their burden of proof for a stay largely because they fundamentally misunderstand the ruling they are now appealing."
The NFL seems to always get ***** slapped in court!
:tiphat:

b0ng
04-27-2011, 11:45 PM
So basically the NFL council just pulled a Kubiak. Not understanding what it is they are challenging and throwing out the red flag anyway.

Basically the NFL put together a slapdash response to the players brief. The players brief was fairly short but basically destroyed any argument the NFL put up using mostly their own words (A lot of Goodell's quotes from USA Today and other media outlets can be found in their brief) against the NFL. In response to that the NFL basically said the judge mis-applied older case law (Brown vs NFL 1996 is cited by the NFL a few times in their brief). Judge Nelson, in her original 89 page ruling, basically destroyed this argument already and you can tell from the newer 20 page denial that it kind of pissed her off. One of the biggest surprises in this ruling is that the NFL had not filed any papers for an expedited review before she issued her ruling. In laymans terms she said "since you haven't done that, it might be a long time before you get your appeal heard, which defeats any arguments you make about this being over in a few weeks." Pretty much with this ruling she dismissed all of their arguments in a very persuasive manner, admonished them for not responding to her previous order and instead repeating the same arguments she already rejected, then questioned whether they really understood the appellate process or what they would need to win an appeal.

It's kind of a big deal because she basically put the NFL in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position because they need to have the 8th Circuit hear their expedited appeal like, tomorrow. She ordered them to open up but left what rules they want to use for the 2011 season up to them with the caveat that if they open up under the wrong rules they increase their liability.

EDIT: Apparently the NFL has hired former Solicitor General Ted Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson) for the appeal. It's funny that owners are throwing large sums of money at these high priced guys in hopes that it fixes their defense over night.

EDIT2: More judicial smackdown

The Court notes that the NFL’s claim that the 2011 season cannot proceed without a new CBA is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that the NFL chose towithdraw from the prior CBA two years before its scheduled expiration. And the NFL cannot claim surprise. The events since March 11 are a repeat of twenty years ago. The NFL, having engaged in unsuccessful negotiations on a new CBA for almost two years, plainly anticipated the NFLPA’s disclaimer because it was the subject of collective bargaining as long ago as 1993 when it was expressly anticipated in the White Settlement Agreement and CBA.

hah.

CloakNNNdagger
04-28-2011, 08:54 AM
So basically the NFL council just pulled a Kubiak. Not understanding what it is they are challenging and throwing out the red flag anyway.

I can't remember who said it, but


Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

:kitten:

DonnyMost
04-28-2011, 09:18 AM
I'm pumped.

Hopefully we see some business dealings happen over the weekend.

Once players start being traded and contracts start being negotiated, it will be VERY hard for the 8th circuit to overturn Judge Nelson's decision.

The owners are holding on for dear life at this point.

HOU-TEX
04-28-2011, 11:36 AM
I'm pumped.

Hopefully we see some business dealings happen over the weekend.
Once players start being traded and contracts start being negotiated, it will be VERY hard for the 8th circuit to overturn Judge Nelson's decision.

The owners are holding on for dear life at this point.

I wouldn't count on it. They'll likely inform teams to stay closed until they get a ruling from the other court.

DonnyMost
04-28-2011, 11:44 AM
I wouldn't count on it. They'll likely inform teams to stay closed until they get a ruling from the other court.

Who is they?

And if "they" did that, "they" would be violating anti-trust laws.

The teams/league can't collude to shut down the market.

The teams know it will be in their best interest to wait on the appeal to come down, but the longer it takes, the less likely it is that all of teams will abstain from making transactions.... and there is no guarantee the appeal will even end up being expedited, could take several weeks.

ChampionTexan
04-28-2011, 12:06 PM
Who is they?

And if "they" did that, "they" would be violating anti-trust laws.

The teams/league can't collude to shut down the market.


They is the NFL, and...well, legal or not, they are currently doing it.

Late Wednesday night, after the stay was denied, the N.F.L. instructed teams to continue to operate as they had since the injunction: players can be allowed in but cannot work out, and no signings or trades are allowed.(Underlining added for emphasis).

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/sports/football/29nfl.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

DonnyMost
04-28-2011, 12:10 PM
They is the NFL, and...well, legal or not, they are currently doing it.

(Underlining added for emphasis).

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/sports/football/29nfl.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

Seeing as how the temporary stay decision will be made by 1pm on Friday, it doesn't seem that the league would dare tell teams to directly violate Judge Nelson's order like that if their temp stay request is denied by the 8th circuit on Friday.

So, to me, it seems possible we could see some business movement (player trades, but signings unlikely) this weekend, regardless of what the NFL is saying right now.

disaacks3
04-28-2011, 12:34 PM
Seeing as how the temporary stay decision will be made by 1pm on Friday, it doesn't seem that the league would dare tell teams to directly violate Judge Nelson's order like that if their temp stay request is denied by the 8th circuit on Friday.

So, to me, it seems possible we could see some business movement (player trades, but signings unlikely) this weekend, regardless of what the NFL is saying right now.

If the NFL teams "Agree" to not engage in trades per direction from the NFL office, they are (by definition) acting in collusion.

DonnyMost
04-28-2011, 12:44 PM
If the NFL teams "Agree" to not engage in trades per direction from the NFL office, they are (by definition) acting in collusion.

Yes, I agree. Not only would they be in contempt of the court order, but they'd also be trampling on other anti-trust regulations.

More good info from SI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/28/lockout.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Draft day arrived Thursday with an escalating court fight between the NFL and its players, who were being pushed to go back to work even without clear rules on how the $9 billion business is being governed.
The NFL took its fight over the now-lifted lockout to a federal appeals court. With that pending, the teams still wouldn't let players lift weights as they waited for promised guidance from the league.
Attorneys for the players said it was no time to wait. They sent a memo telling players that the decision lifting the lockout "is in full, immediate force." Attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and James Quinn wrote that the league year "now has to begin," that players must be allowed to lift weights at team facilities, meet with coaches "and otherwise perform their jobs."
"It is our view that the NFL and the clubs will be in contempt of court if they do not comply with the order," the memo said.
Ten Denver Broncos players visited their facility and met with the team president for about 10 minutes, told that "everything is on hold" as the NFL figures out how to proceed. Washington linebacker Lorenzo Alexander showed up at Redskins headquarters for a third straight day and was told by his general manager he couldn't work out because the team is "waiting for the appeals process."
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said late Wednesday that the league would advise teams Thursday morning on how to proceed.
The NFL Players Association, now a trade group and not a union, accused the league of stalling.
"On the eve of one of the greatest fan events in sports, the players moved another step closer to bringing the fans football," spokesman George Atallah said in an email to The Associated Press. "Owners seem determined to prevent that from happening. The NFL owners are not litigating to protect the game. They're litigating to protect a lockout."
The weird holding pattern arrived just a few hours before the NFL draft, one of the league's signature events. The first round was set for Thursday night, with later rounds Friday and Saturday.
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson late Wednesday rejected the NFL's request to put her order lifting the lockout on hold pending further appeals. The league wasted no time in filing its appeal.
In a motion for a stay of Nelson's order filed with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, the league said her decision "blinks reality" and is "deeply flawed."
The NFL complained that the order has forced teams to "produce their collective product" and expose themselves to antitrust claims by the players - claims that if held true can result in treble, or triple, damages. An antitrust lawsuit filed by Tom Brady, Drew Brees and other players is still pending before Nelson, but has not been heard.
Nelson dismissed the NFL's argument that she didn't have jurisdiction and that it's facing irreparable harm because of her decision Monday to end the 45-day lockout at the request of the players.
"The world of 'chaos' the NFL claims it has been thrust into - essentially the 'free-market' system this nation otherwise willfully operates under - is not compelled by this court's order," Nelson wrote.
The NFL said the appeals court is "likely to reverse" Nelson's decision and claimed her injunction that lifted the lockout is "skewing" the collective bargaining process.
Owners and players must eventually reach a new CBA to ensure a 2011 season. The two sides met for 16 days with a federal mediator earlier this year and for four more days under court order, with no signs of progress. The union was dissolved March 11, clearing the way for the legal fight, so a new CBA would presumably require the union to be reformed.
The NFL argued that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable harm to league operations, even quoting an unidentified NFLPA executive: "If the lockout is lifted and a stay isn't granted, it could be utter chaos."
Without a stay, the NFL said, it would be impossible to "unscramble the egg in terms of player transactions (trades, signings, cuts) that would occur in the interim" before a ruling from the appeals court.
The league has proposed a specific timeline for the 8th Circuit appeal: a written opening argument due May 10, the same due for the players May 24, the NFL's reply due May 31 and a hearing after that "as soon as possible."
The clerk for the appeals court, Michael Gans, said a three-judge panel to hear the appeal had not yet been finalized.
Such a timeline would mean the legal fight would stretch well into June, a month before training camps and only weeks before the first scheduled preseason game on Aug. 8.
In the 23-page motion, the league reiterated three main arguments it unsuccessfully made to Nelson: that she had no jurisdiction while a bad-faith negotiation charge against the players is pending with the National Labor Relations Board; that federal law prevents the court from overseeing cases stemming from labor disputes; and that it shouldn't be subject to antitrust claims with the collective bargaining deal barely expired.
The league said Nelson "brushed aside all three legal obstacles with the simple rationale that the NFLPA's unilateral disclaimer changes everything and renders the labor laws irrelevant." The NFL, citing comments by players Mike Vrabel and Derrick Mason, argued again that the union's breakup was only temporary and tactical and not permanent.
Nelson's ruling was not a surprise, given her questioning of NFL attorney David Boies during an April 6 hearing and her 89-page order lifting the lockout. She wrote another 20 pages in her denial, declaring the public's interest in the resumption of league operations.
League rules have effectively been shelved since the collective bargaining agreement ended on March 11 and the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 began.
Nelson said that needn't be the case.
She suggested that the NFL "make a decision about how to proceed and accept the consequences" of that choice. In saying the NFL could go about its business, Nelson noted that the league had already gone forward with the draft and announced the 2011 schedule.
Nelson also pointed to the contract tenders teams issued to restricted free agents in March before the lockout, "treating them as if the league intended to operate with the 2010 rules in place."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/28/lockout.ap/index.html#ixzz1KpxVt2xH

It looks like Nelson is keen to the fact that the owners brought this on themselves, so she seems to have very little pity for their whining about having their business operations thrown into 'chaos' when they knowingly took the risk without having any contingency plans to keep business running smoothly, while they were obviously focused the whole time on what would happen months from now, vs. what was happening right this moment.

ArlingtonTexan
04-28-2011, 12:46 PM
per profootballtalk.com

Facilities open tommorrow at 8am

Details of trading, free agents (start of years) coming probably tommorrow.

HOU-TEX
04-28-2011, 01:02 PM
per profootballtalk.com

Facilities open tommorrow at 8am

Details of trading, free agents (start of years) coming probably tommorrow.

Yup, everything but trades and player movement will be back in place tomorrow at 8 am. Coaches can contact players, players can use all facilities and playbooks.

I'd guess they'll keep player transactions shut down until after the draft to avoid the chaos that might've taken place.

ArlingtonTexan
04-28-2011, 01:03 PM
Yup, everything but trades and player movement will be back in place tomorrow at 8 am. Coaches can contact players, players can use all facilities and playbooks.

I'd guess they'll keep player transactions shut down until after the draft to avoid the chaos that might've taken place.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/28/nfl-teams-plan-to-open-facilities-friday-morning/

b0ng
04-28-2011, 01:05 PM
From what I am reading the owners are trying to get the 8th to grant them a temporary stay today. Their basis? They could be held in contempt if they don't get a temporary stay. You know. . . rather than opening up the league for business.

:wadepalm:

EDIT:

Players sent letter to owners demanding NFL to start year -- or it will ask for contempt of court.

EDIT2:


NFL plans to announce timing for commencement of 2011 League Year, free agent signings and other player transactions tomorrow.

GlassHalfFull
04-28-2011, 01:08 PM
From what I am reading the owners are trying to get the 8th to grant them a temporary stay today. Their basis? They could be held in contempt if they don't get a temporary stay. You know. . . rather than opening up the league for business.

:wadepalm:

I keep thinking that this might be the end of Roger Goodell. The owners can't be to happy about the way this turned out, and they are going to need a head to cut off.

disaacks3
04-28-2011, 01:10 PM
per profootballtalk.com

Facilities open tommorrow at 8am

Details of trading, free agents (start of years) coming probably tommorrow.

That's too late for draft day 1... :crying:

b0ng
04-28-2011, 01:16 PM
I keep thinking that this might be the end of Roger Goodell. The owners can't be to happy about the way this turned out, and they are going to need a head to cut off.

Nah, I don't think he's really advising the owners on anything, he's just their PR guy/mouthpiece. I doubt he's straying away from what the owners want him to do at all.

Double Barrel
04-28-2011, 01:45 PM
I keep thinking that this might be the end of Roger Goodell. The owners can't be to happy about the way this turned out, and they are going to need a head to cut off.

Goodell is nothing but a tool of the owners. He is nothing even closely comparable to the late, great Pete Roselle or Paul Tagliabue with regards to building bridges between owners and players.

The1ApplePie
04-28-2011, 01:51 PM
Goodell is nothing but a tool of the owners. He is nothing even closely comparable to the late, great Pete Roselle or Paul Tagliabue with regards to building bridges between owners and players.

He seems to be generally hated by the players and fans aren't keen on him either.

I'm not sure how much power he really has though. I could see him being the scapegoat.

Yankee_In_TX
04-28-2011, 02:24 PM
Yup, everything but trades and player movement will be back in place tomorrow at 8 am. Coaches can contact players, players can use all facilities and playbooks.

I'd guess they'll keep player transactions shut down until after the draft to avoid the chaos that might've taken place.

What a cluster. Part of me feels bad for the GM's tomorrow.

axman40
04-28-2011, 02:43 PM
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Draft day arrived Thursday with an escalating court fight between the NFL and its players, who were being pushed to go back to work even without clear rules on how the $9 billion business is being governed.

The NFL took its fight over the now-lifted lockout to a federal appeals court. With that pending, the teams still wouldn't let players lift weights as they waited for promised guidance from the league.

Attorneys for the players said it was no time to wait. They sent a memo telling players that the decision lifting the lockout "is in full, immediate force." Attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and James Quinn wrote that the league year "now has to begin," that players must be allowed to lift weights at team facilities, meet with coaches "and otherwise perform their jobs."

"It is our view that the NFL and the clubs will be in contempt of court if they do not comply with the order," the memo said.


Read more: http://sports.excite.com/news/04282011/v8249.html
:tiphat:

J_R
04-29-2011, 01:47 PM
MikeSilver (http://twitter.com/MikeSilver)

I'm hearing from a pretty good source that a stay may be coming from the 8th circuit as soon as this morning

Just filed a story for Yahoo! Sports, posting shortly: Players are bracing themselves for stay announcement from Eighth Circuit today

To clarify: This is expected to be an "administrative" stay pending the players' response to the owners' request for a stay, due Monday

Confusing, I know: Players expect temporary stay & decision on 'stay pending appeal' Monday

Players bracing themselves for "administrative" stay of Judge Nelson's injunction Friday: http://yhoo.it/llpTi4 (http://yhoo.it/llpTi4) The lockout is back, for now

Lockout back on, for now. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/report-owners-get-stay-of-injunction-lockout-back-on/)

DonnyMost
04-29-2011, 02:33 PM
Lockout is officially back in effect.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42825449/ns/sports-player_news/

gary
04-29-2011, 02:39 PM
Lockout is officially back in effect.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42825449/ns/sports-player_news/
Lovely.

DonnyMost
04-29-2011, 02:43 PM
LOL now they've retracted the report

http://deadspin.com/#!5797114/lockouts-back-on

axman40
04-29-2011, 02:57 PM
LOL now they've retracted the report

http://deadspin.com/#!5797114/lockouts-back-on (http://deadspin.com/#%215797114/lockouts-back-on)
We Want FOOTBALL!We Want FOOTBALL!We Want FOOTBALL!We Want FOOTBALL!We Want FOOTBALL!We Want FOOTBALL!We Want FOOTBALL!
Ratings for the draft is down 20 percent according to Jim Rome.
:kubepalm::wadepalm:

Double Barrel
04-29-2011, 03:14 PM
It's obvious that the owners are playing a game of attrition. I'm sure the players want it resolved, but appear to be willing to resume business and let the agreement be hashed out in the background. The owners seem willing to destroy this season by continuing the lockout and not letting any football operations take place.

Pantherstang84
04-29-2011, 03:16 PM
And then again, maybe it isn't...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42826051/sports/player_news/print/1/displaymode/1098/

HoustonFrog
04-29-2011, 03:18 PM
It's obvious that the owners are playing a game of attrition. I'm sure the players want it resolved, but appear to be willing to resume business and let the agreement be hashed out in the background. The owners seem willing to destroy this season by continuing the lockout and not letting any football operations take place.

I'm actually a little stunned how idiotic the owners are being. I've made no bones that I'm pro-player on this. I really just want football. After the commish reception last night and the legal battles so far the owners have to know that people are on to their game...dragging it out. This can't be good since the players are showing up and wanting to work.

Errant Hothy
04-29-2011, 03:28 PM
No news as of now.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/piecing-together-the-premature-nfl-lockout-is-back-on-story/

To be clear, the appeals court hasn’t issued anything yet to indicate one way or the other whether the lockout is on or off through this weekend. But Michael Gans, Clerk of Court for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, told Will Brinson of CBSSports.com that ESPN should be “penalized for a false start.”

eriadoc
04-29-2011, 04:29 PM
It's obvious that the owners are playing a game of attrition. I'm sure the players want it resolved, but appear to be willing to resume business and let the agreement be hashed out in the background. The owners seem willing to destroy this season by continuing the lockout and not letting any football operations take place.

It's kind of hard to bash the ones that want to go back to work, especially when there's a group of Billionaires that are willing to destroy the season to prevent them from going back to work.

CloakNNNdagger
04-29-2011, 07:23 PM
Someone's just lipping coins.

Appeals court reinstates lockout, during draftPosted by Mike Florio on April 29, 2011, 6:56 PM EDT

Earlier today, ESPN reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had granted the NFL’s request for a temporary stay of the ruling lifting the lockout, until the Eighth Circuit could rule on the request for a less-temporary stay of the ruling while the league’s appeal is considered.

As it turns out, the report wasn’t wrong. It was just premature.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that the temporary stay has been granted, which means that the lockout is back on. For now.

It’ll be interesting to see whether Commissioner Roger Goodell confirms the news from the podium at Radio City Music Hall.

The assembled fans wouldn’t be booing in response. They’d be chanting “Goooooodell.”

Meanwhile, the teams that were smart enough to distribute playbooks today — and all 32 of them should have done it — will have an edge if the lockout ends up remaining in place until August or later.

CloakNNNdagger
04-29-2011, 09:24 PM
League doesn’t immediately reinstate lockout (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/league-doesnt-immediately-reinstate-lockout/)

Though the headline at the top of the league’s official website proclaims that the “lockout [is] back in force” after the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the league’s motion for a temporary stay of the decision ending the work stoppage, the league has not yet re-slammed the door.

“Our attorneys will review the decision and we will advise all clubs as soon as possible on next steps,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells PFT via e-mail.

Of course, it could be that the league has decided not to mention the “L” word while the draft is still occurring. And there’s no pressing reason to re-start the lockout over the weekend, since activity will be minimal.

Still, any team that hasn’t distributed playbooks to its players should be taking full advantage of the fact that the lockout has not officially recommenced. Yet.

gtexan02
04-29-2011, 10:49 PM
Im sure the Texans are planning on getting playbooks out next week sometime

infantrycak
04-29-2011, 10:54 PM
Im sure the Texans are planning on getting playbooks out next week sometime

They should have hand delivered them the evening the original decision came down.

ArlingtonTexan
04-29-2011, 11:17 PM
They should have hand delivered them the evening the original decision came down.

Given Wade was hired early and Gary is in control of the offense, I would think the veteran players would aleady have them.

infantrycak
04-30-2011, 12:06 AM
Given Wade was hired early and Gary is in control of the offense, I would think the veteran players would aleady have them.

I hope so. I am just saying if they didn't then they should have had them waiting for this chance. And I hope one of the vets has the snap to get copies to the draft picks.

CloakNNNdagger
04-30-2011, 12:24 AM
PFT reports NFL officially reinstates lockout

The lockout is no longer enjoined.

After reviewing the temporary stay which was granted Friday evening by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the NFL officially notified teams that the lockout is back on.

“The clubs have been told that the prior lockout rules are reinstated effective immediately,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

Teams can no longer pass out playbooks or have contact with their players. Weightrooms and team facilities will be closed again.

It only seems fitting in this insane offseason that this announcement would be made after 11 p.m. ET after day two of the NFL Draft. The league can’t let fans enjoy even one weekend.

The stay is only temporary. The court is expected to officially rule on a longer stay sometime next week.

Unfortunately, we won’t have the draft to distract us then.

nero THE zero
04-30-2011, 12:36 AM
Given Wade was hired early and Gary is in control of the offense, I would think the veteran players would aleady have them.

They do. I have heard a couple of radio interviews of defensive players that said they have gotten playbooks and cut-ups from Wade.

CloakNNNdagger
04-30-2011, 09:28 AM
One judge wasn’t happy with temporary stay (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/30/one-judge-not-happy-with-temporary-stay/)

In a preview of the realities of appellate legal practice, the three judges who handled the league’s motion for a temporary stay of the lifting of the lockout pending consideration of the motion for a stay of the lifting of the lockout pending appeal did not agree that the NFL deserved a temporary stay.

Judge Kermit E. Bye opposed the decision of Judge Duane Benton and Judge Steven M. Colloton to allow the league to reinstate the lockout. And Judge Bye said so via a seven-paragraph explanation, six paragraphs longer than the three-sentence order granting the temporary stay.

“In my tenure as an appellate judge, the only circumstances I can recall in which the power to grant a temporary stay has been invoked by a party, and exercised by our court, have been circumstances which truly qualify as emergencies,” Judge Bye wrote. “For example, I have granted such a request on behalf of an immigrant who has filed a petition with our court to review a removal order entered by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA), when the immigrant’s removal date was imminent and the government had not yet responded to the immigrant’s request for a stay of removal pending our review of the petition. Another situation in which a temporary stay, pending review of a motion for a stay itself, may be appropriate is in a death penalty case where an execution date has been set and is imminent.”

Judge Bye then explained that, in his view, the predicament facing the NFL hardly constitutes an emergency.

He also didn’t buy the fact that the NFL wouldn’t be able to comply with the requirement of lifting the lockout while the Eighth Circuit considers the motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.

“[T]he initial reason the NFL requested such a temporary stay while we waited to hear from the Players, was to prevent the NFL from being forced to undertake post-injunction operations,” Judge Bye said. “The NFL claimed such operations would be ‘a complex process that requires time to coordinate.’ This contention is severely undermined by the fact that the NFL had, within a day of the district court’s order denying a stay, already planned post-injunction operations which would allow the players to have access to club and workout facilities, receive playbooks, meet with coaches, and so forth. Because I expect our court will be resolving the actual request for a stay in short order, I see little practical need for granting an emergency temporary stay in this non-emergency situation.”

In the end, Judge Bye’s beliefs didn’t matter, because two judges trump one on any three-judge panel. With a pool of 16 judges on the Eighth Circuit, the ultimate question of whether the lockout will stand hinges on the arbitrary and random process of picking the three judges who will handle the review of Judge Nelson’s decision.

infantrycak
04-30-2011, 10:09 AM
With a pool of 16 judges on the Eighth Circuit, the ultimate question of whether the lockout will stand hinges on the arbitrary and random process of picking the three judges who will handle the review of Judge Nelson’s decision.

You bold and add emphasis here to what end? Only which judges are assigned to a case is random and so what? That was a reaction to keep people from picking judges they thought might favor them.

CloakNNNdagger
04-30-2011, 10:59 AM
You bold and add emphasis here to what end? Only which judges are assigned to a case is random and so what? That was a reaction to keep people from picking judges they thought might favor them.

I do understand that. I was just pointing out how much pot luck has to do with the ultimate decision. I don't really see any better or more fair approach that can be taken.

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 09:42 AM
The same Goodell handles the appeals to his own decisions...............

The same judges will handle the motion for a stay (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/02/the-same-judges-will-handle-the-motion-for-a-stay/)

While hunting-and-pecking our recent item regarding the possibility that the lockout, which returned on Friday, could once again be lifted, I paused to send an e-mail to Michael Gans, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with multiple questions regarding the case of Tom Brady et al. v. National Football League et al. It was well before 8:00 a.m. CT, and I didn’t expect to hear back from him before Monday afternoon.

He responded within minutes.

Most importantly in the short term, Gans said that the same three judges who handled the NFL’s motion for a temporary stay will handle the motion for a full stay until the appeal is resolved. It’ll be the next test of the red-state/blue-state notion that judges appointed by a Republican president will side with business interests, and that judges appointed by a Democratic president will side with labor interests. Indeed, Judge Kermit Bye’s dissenting opinion on Friday made clear his belief that the NFL had failed to satisfy the standard for securing a stay pending resolution of the appeal. It’s safe to say he will vote against a stay; the question is whether one of the other two judges will agree with him.

There’s also a chance that the same three judges will handle the full review of Judge Nelson’s order lifting the lockout. “Under the court’s internal procedures, a motions panel may keep a case for the final decision if it has done a substantial amount of work on the case and determines reassignment would not be an efficient use of judicial resources,” Gans said. “No decision has been made at this time as to whether the current motions panel will keep the case.”

Either way, we should know soon. Though some other federal circuits keep the identity of the panel under wraps (in the Fourth Circuit, for example, the judges aren’t known to the parties until the lawyers show up at the courthouse on the morning of the oral argument), the Eighth Circuit doesn’t.

“[W]e will announce the panel well in advance of the argument,” Gans said. “While many circuits keep this information internal until the week or day of the argument, it is our practice to announce the information about thirty days in advance. I believe this same practice will be followed in this case.”

As a result, the media will have a chance to sift through the past opinions of the three judges assigned to the case in search of any clues regarding their eventual votes on a decision that will either end the lockout or extend it indefinitely — subject to an appeal to the full panel of judges, which the full panel of judges may or may not decide to grant.

Bottom line? The league will continue to reside squarely within a haze of uncertainty over the next month. Even though mediation is scheduled to re-convene on May 16, we can’t imagine either side being any more prepared to work out a deal in two weeks, given that each side surely believes that, once the dust settles, it will win in the Eighth Circuit.

CloakNNNdagger
05-03-2011, 05:15 PM
PFT reports:

Eighth circuit grants NFL’s request for expedited hearing


As the football world awaits for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the NFL’s request for a stay of injunction to lift the lockout, the court has granted another request.

NFL Network’s Albert Breer reports the court will hold an expedited hearing, with the fun starting June 3rd in St. Louis. The hearing will include 30 minute arguments from both sides. (There is also a briefing schedule for those of you who are really curious.)

So we know when the appeal will be heard. The only thing left to learn is whether NFL business will be conducted in the meantime.

If the court grants the NFL’s request for a stay, the lockout will be back on. Teams and the journalists covering them will essentially have a month to kill. (Plus the time for the court to make a ruling on the appeal.)

If the court doesn’t grant the stay, we could soon be reporting on the wildest free agent period of all time.

rmartin65
05-03-2011, 07:02 PM
Not really a law expert, and I need to get a lot of reading down for class. So if someone could answer this for me, I would be much obliged- is there going to be more news on the lockout before June 3rd? Because it sounds like no.

CloakNNNdagger
05-03-2011, 07:21 PM
Not really a law expert, and I need to get a lot of reading down for class. So if someone could answer this for me, I would be much obliged- is there going to be more news on the lockout before June 3rd? Because it sounds like no.

Not unless the May 16th return to mediation miraculously results in some form of compromise as far as an interim state of free agency............which probably is not very like. We don't even know how long after June 3 the court will make their decision. Cak or another attorney will have to affirm or deny, but I believe the loser can ask for another appeal with the entire court making the "final" final eight circuit decision. I am getting more and more concerned about this season........even if it ever begins........the product will suffer without proper FA and player preparation time.

Allstar
05-03-2011, 08:50 PM
Not really a law expert, and I need to get a lot of reading down for class. So if someone could answer this for me, I would be much obliged- is there going to be more news on the lockout before June 3rd? Because it sounds like no.

We should expect a ruling on the stay by Thursday. The expedited appeal may help the owners with the stay. There is less irreparable harm because there would still be 3 months from the start of the season. With all that said, I still feel like the stay will not hold and the lockout will end. :whip:

CloakNNNdagger
05-03-2011, 11:15 PM
We should expect a ruling on the stay by Thursday. The expedited appeal may help the owners with the stay. There is less irreparable harm because there would still be 3 months from the start of the season. With all that said, I still feel like the stay will not hold and the lockout will end. :whip:

?????????????????????????

XI CMURDER IX
05-03-2011, 11:51 PM
?????????????????????????

There was a hearing this week supposedly to either stay the lockout until the appeal hearing date, which would be June 3rd, or grant the injunction until the hearing date. Basically it would just be about a month where player transactions and the league would open for business.

This is from what I understand of course! :smiliedance:

ChampionTexan
05-03-2011, 11:56 PM
?????????????????????????

There was a hearing this week supposedly to either stay the lockout until the appeal hearing date, which would be June 3rd, or grant the injunction until the hearing date. Basically it would just be about a month where player transactions and the league would open for business.

This is from what I understand of course! :smiliedance:

Right. The key word for the stay issued Friday is "Temporary".

Per Fox News:
On Friday, the three-judge panel voted 2-1 to grant a temporary stay, reinstating the league-imposed lockout. A federal judge had lifted the lockout last week.

The Eight Circuit in St. Louis has not ruled if it will extend the hold on the lockout, pending the appeals process. A decision on that is likely to be made in the coming days, according to the report.

LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/05/03/nfl-lockout-appeal-heard-june-3/)

CloakNNNdagger
05-04-2011, 08:34 AM
Thanks for the clarification, guys.


The league has argued, and did again Monday, that Nelson's order must be stayed or it "would irreparably harm the NFL by undercutting its labor law rights and irreversibly scrambling the eggs of player-club transactions."

"Absent a stay, there will be trades, player signings, players cut under existing contracts, and a host of other changes in employment relationships" between hundreds of players and the 32 NFL teams, the league's attorneys wrote.
link (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9N00ERG0.htm)

IDEXAN
05-04-2011, 09:01 AM
All I know is we need to get our guys out on the practice fields so Wade can start giving them instruction on his defense, otherwise they are gonna take the field against Peyton (assuming we have a season), playing grab-azz with each other while providing Manning with a lot of amusment and entertainment.
Guess nobody really has any idea when this happens based upon what happening now ?

Seńor Stan
05-04-2011, 09:01 AM
All it is going to take is 1 of the last 2 judges to deny the stay and the lockout is over. If the one judge was unwilling to grant even a temporary stay, then he/she is guaranteed not to approve the full stay.

At this point I am not "pro owner" or "pro player" but "pro football". The best chance for uninterrupted football in 2011 is to deny the stay and start the league year. You can't unscramble scrambled eggs is a fitting analogy.

CloakNNNdagger
05-04-2011, 10:00 AM
Ruling on stay expected Wednesday or Thursday (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/04/ruling-on-stay-expected-wednesday-or-thursday/)

With the temporary stay nearly five days old and the briefing and hearing schedule in place for the appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s order lifting the lockout, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is expected to decide within the next two days whether to stay Judge Nelson’s ruling until the appeal is resolved.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that a ruling on the motion for a stay will be issued on Wednesday or Thursday.

If the stay isn’t granted, the doors will re-open once again, and they’ll stay open for at least a month. Which means that free agency will start and trades will be permitted and offseason workouts will commence.

If the stay is granted, well, I may have to break out the golf clubs for the first time since opening this 24/7/365 mom-and-pop operation.

HOU-TEX
05-04-2011, 10:31 AM
I'm not getting my hopes up on the lockout being lifted....again. They granted the temp stay and the expedited court date, so why would they suddenly lift the stay? The mediation on the 16th is worthless as well, imo. More than likely there will not be a whole lot accomplished before the June hearing. Both sides will be hesitant to progress before hearing the ruling. Things might heat up then when there's a winner and a loser.

infantrycak
05-04-2011, 11:18 AM
I believe the loser can ask for another appeal with the entire court making the "final" final eight circuit decision.

They can ask but that is a key difference from the current appeal. The 8th circuit had to hear the case but they do not have to rehear the panel's decision en banc. So that issue could be decided in days by a refusal to rehear the case.

There was a hearing this week supposedly to either stay the lockout until the appeal hearing date, which would be June 3rd, or grant the injunction until the hearing date. Basically it would just be about a month where player transactions and the league would open for business.

This is from what I understand of course! :smiliedance:

I just want to clear up the terminology here although you have the gist of what is happening largely correct.

The trial court granted an injunction barring the owners from the lockout. She then refused to stay implementation of her own decision pending an appeal. The owners appealed and asked for a stay from the 8th circuit and were granted a temporary stay. They are now asking that stay be extended pending a decision from the 8th circuit. If the stay is not extended then the decision of the trial court goes back into effect and the injunction is already in place prohibiting the lockout.

XI CMURDER IX
05-04-2011, 02:08 PM
I just want to clear up the terminology here although you have the gist of what is happening largely correct.

The trial court granted an injunction barring the owners from the lockout. She then refused to stay implementation of her own decision pending an appeal. The owners appealed and asked for a stay from the 8th circuit and were granted a temporary stay. They are now asking that stay be extended pending a decision from the 8th circuit. If the stay is not extended then the decision of the trial court goes back into effect and the injunction is already in place prohibiting the lockout.

Thank you for clearing that up! This is why I could never be a law major! haha

GP
05-04-2011, 02:09 PM
The trial court granted an injunction barring the owners from the lockout. She then refused to stay implementation of her own decision pending an appeal. The owners appealed and asked for a stay from the 8th circuit and were granted a temporary stay. They are now asking that stay be extended pending a decision from the 8th circuit. If the stay is not extended then the decision of the trial court goes back into effect and the injunction is already in place prohibiting the lockout.

I have a question.

Is it a tell-tale sign that the temporary stay was granted? Does that indicate that the 8th circuit sees enough to grant a temporary AND that it foreshadows a more lasting stay AND then that little act foreshadows a ruling in favor of owners?

In short: Is the temporary stay a matter of formality that is almost always granted, or does it carry significance beyond its normal use?

infantrycak
05-04-2011, 02:39 PM
I have a question.

Is it a tell-tale sign that the temporary stay was granted? Does that indicate that the 8th circuit sees enough to grant a temporary AND that it foreshadows a more lasting stay AND then that little act foreshadows a ruling in favor of owners?

In short: Is the temporary stay a matter of formality that is almost always granted, or does it carry significance beyond its normal use?

Well this case is so unusual it is a little hard to compare to normal events. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a stay granted because the NFL has a pretty good argument that if one is not there are going to be a whole lot of actions taken (like free agency) that would be very difficult to undue and the hearing is only a month away. I don't think the temporary stay or a stay if granted gives any indication of the ultimate decision.

rmartin65
05-04-2011, 02:45 PM
Well this case is so unusual it is a little hard to compare to normal events. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a stay granted because the NFL has a pretty good argument that if one is not there are going to be a whole lot of actions taken (like free agency) that would be very difficult to undue and the hearing is only a month away. I don't think the temporary stay or a stay if granted gives any indication of the ultimate decision.

What is your gut telling you here? Is the lockout going to be lifted today/tomorrow, or do we have to wait until June for more info? You seem to think the stay will be granted, but I am hoping that I am just misunderstanding.

GP
05-04-2011, 02:55 PM
What is your gut telling you here? Is the lockout going to be lifted today/tomorrow, or do we have to wait until June for more info? You seem to think the stay will be granted, but I am hoping that I am just misunderstanding.

I think it's an issue of fairness, if that's even a proper term to be used.

A court would likely grant the stay because of the implications involved if they lifted the stay and allowed a month of business to occur. Until a verdict has been rendered, it would be best if no business transactions took place (probably out of fear of those transactions being ruled, at a later date, as having been made during a time of instability and the unknown factor of how new CBA rules would impact those transactions). Therefore, the safe play for all involved is to stay the Judge Nelson ruling until the 8th circuit has ruled on it. The 8th is going to hear the case and decide if Judge Nelson was right or if she was wrong, which would mean the owners win (win the battle, not the war...yet)and I think the players would have to ask for one final "appeal" on the "appeal" they might lose here.

That's why this could dealy or sink the season. A lot of court and legal wrangling going on.

The best we fans can hope for is that the ruling stands and the lockout is lifted, thus the last year of the CBA is in effect--Meaning we go back to the rules outlined in the CBA and then have to create a new CBA for 2012. It means football for 2011, but another series of CBA negotiations AND an agreement on a new CBA at some point in 2011 or early 2012 for us to have football in 2012.

Am I right in this thinking?

infantrycak
05-04-2011, 03:04 PM
What is your gut telling you here? Is the lockout going to be lifted today/tomorrow, or do we have to wait until June for more info? You seem to think the stay will be granted, but I am hoping that I am just misunderstanding.

My guess is about 2/3rds stay, 1/3 no stay. This is really a balancing act - what happens bad to the players if the injunction does not go into effect v. what happens bad to the owners if the injunction does.

Weigh that one for yourself - what bad does happen to the players if the lockout continues for a month?

rmartin65
05-04-2011, 03:11 PM
My guess is about 2/3rds stay, 1/3 no stay. This is really a balancing act - what happens bad to the players if the injunction does not go into effect v. what happens bad to the owners if the injunction does.

Weigh that one for yourself - what bad does happen to the players if the lockout continues for a month?

I dont really know. Finances should not be a problem. Conditioning should not be a problem. Really the only people it hurts is the free agents (both rookie and veteran) and the rookies.

HoustonFrog
05-04-2011, 03:18 PM
My guess is about 2/3rds stay, 1/3 no stay. This is really a balancing act - what happens bad to the players if the injunction does not go into effect v. what happens bad to the owners if the injunction does.

Weigh that one for yourself - what bad does happen to the players if the lockout continues for a month?

See this is why I think the stay will be lifted and I read this from an attorney that worked on similar things the other day....the players lose out on time..time to explore free agency, time to be working with new teams, etc. They lose bonuses for certain off season workouts. The owners have made money every year. The lose out on nothing. The season goes along and they still get alot of money. From what I've read it will be tough to impose a stay when the original opinion was so thorough and written just for this appeal.

disaacks3
05-04-2011, 04:32 PM
My guess is about 2/3rds stay, 1/3 no stay. This is really a balancing act - what happens bad to the players if the injunction does not go into effect v. what happens bad to the owners if the injunction does.

Weigh that one for yourself - what bad does happen to the players if the lockout continues for a month? I honestly can't see anything "bad" happening to the owners if the lockout is lifted. What, are they going to complain about competitive balance? (that they might be disadvantaged in bidding for services?) Too bad, the rest of the real business world does this every day.

The players, (especially ones like the Texans defenders) lose the most by this lockout. Any team that has undergone any kind of major change will need that much MORE time to get everyone on the same page.

I seriously wonder what (if anything at all) could be considered 'injurious' to the Owners.

infantrycak
05-04-2011, 07:03 PM
See this is why I think the stay will be lifted and I read this from an attorney that worked on similar things the other day....the players lose out on time..time to explore free agency, time to be working with new teams, etc. They lose bonuses for certain off season workouts. The owners have made money every year. The lose out on nothing. The season goes along and they still get alot of money. From what I've read it will be tough to impose a stay when the original opinion was so thorough and written just for this appeal.

Iwouldn't be surprised one bit if the owners had to stipulate on bonuses. That is the players' best argument.

I honestly can't see anything "bad" happening to the owners if the lockout is lifted. What, are they going to complain about competitive balance? (that they might be disadvantaged in bidding for services?) Too bad, the rest of the real business world does this every day.

Everyone is going on the McClain assumption that the old rules automatically apply. Unless the players agree, I don't see that happening and it is in their interest to not agree.

The players, (especially ones like the Texans defenders) lose the most by this lockout. Any team that has undergone any kind of major change will need that much MORE time to get everyone on the same page.

That is the team hurt, not the players. The players get paid either way.

Gotta go...may expound later.

CloakNNNdagger
05-04-2011, 07:03 PM
Analyst: Court's response to NFL's expedited request not normal (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/05/analyst-courts-response-to-nfls-expedited-request-not-normal/1)

By Gary Graves, USA TODAY

A federal appeal court's decision Tuesday to expedite a hearing on the NFL's appeal for a stay on an injunction lifting the lockout didn't surprise one employment law attorney, who believes it could begin the process toward restoring a routine for the league and players.

John Hancock Jr., a Detroit-based lawyer for Butzel Long, also suggested that urgency might have spurred the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to hear arguments on June 3. Without a quick review of the injunction, he said, collective bargaining might have been threatened as well as the 2011 NFL season, set to begin on Sept. 8.

"What's different (from other cases) is how they expedited this," Hancock said. "But I think the court rightfully did so because of the time factor with the possibility of not having a season. Once the season is gone, it's gone.

"The speed at which this has happened is not normal. But what they did is make a quick decision that gives them time to look at it."

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted an injunction April 25 lifting the then-45-day lockout and two days later denied the league's request to stay the decision pending an appeal. Team facilities were open to players for several days before the appeals court granted a temporary stay late Friday, keeping players out again.

Hancock believes this gives the league a chance before the three-judge panel to rebut Nelson's assertion in her ruling that the lockout would irreparably harm players. One possible strategy might be presenting opinions from players who might welcome the lockout as a break from training camp.

Another argument is that in tossing the lockout, the owners are denied an economic option allowed by law, just as employees can choose to strike.

"I think the court is troubled that the (former players') union sought to take out an economic weapon that (employers) are entitled to by law," he said. "(Judge Nelson's) decision is putting the situation in a real-world situation, and the NFL isn't the real world. Exxon/Mobil doesn't compete (with another oil company) for the best college graduate like the NFL does.

"The real world is founded on structure and rules, and that's called a collective bargaining agreement. Without a CBA there's chaos, and the court is concerned with the chaos of organizing itself rather than not playing."

rmartin65
05-04-2011, 07:12 PM
So we will hear tonight or tomorrow on whether or not we have to wait until June for more news? Bah, this is killing me. I want football. I want to read about rookie signings, FA signings, trades, UDFAs. I want to read about rookie camp. I want to be able to wildly speculate on who is going to be on the Texans roster.

I think I am an addict...

ChampionTexan
05-04-2011, 07:28 PM
Everyone is going on the McClain assumption that the old rules automatically apply. Unless the players agree, I don't see that happening and it is in their interest to not agree.


A question for you assuming the stay is lifted. Who/what would be agreeing on the players behalf? The NFLPA no longer exists. I don't know if a trade organization is empowered to negotiate these things (although if they are, that could be the answer), and the implementation of rules would seem to extend far beyond the issues brought up by the NFL players who were the plaintiff's in the lawsuit.

Is there an entity that would negotiate and agree (or not agree) to those rules on the players behalf that would have any authority, or would they be unilaterally imposed as deemed best by the league and the franchises and then challenged by individual players via existing government infrastructure (OSHA as an example) and lawsuits?

CloakNNNdagger
05-04-2011, 10:18 PM
From PFT

Clerk says Eighth Circuit simply may not rule on motion for stay

As we continue to wait for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to issue a ruling regarding the league’s motion to stay the order lifting the lockout until the ruling can be reviewed, the Clerk of the Court tells USA Today that there possibly will be no ruling on the pending motion.

“I don’t have any indication whether there is going to be any further ruling on the motion for a stay,” Michael Gans told Gary Mihoces. Gans also said the motion for a stay is “still pending,” and that the “court may rule and the court may not” rule on the motion.

Last Friday, the panel that will hear the appeal voted 2-1 to grant the league’s motion for a temporary stay, while considering the motion for a stay through the resolution of the appeal. Since separate briefs were submitted on the question of whether a stay will be granted, including a final brief from the NFL on Monday, May 2, it’s reasonable to expect that a ruling on the motion will at some point be made. Then again, this is one of the basic realities of the court system. Very often, courts do what they want to do when they want to do it, without giving any explanation or notice.

gary
05-04-2011, 10:51 PM
If a judge decides to wait until June only to rule in favor of the owners then no season is very possible.

Allstar
05-05-2011, 12:40 AM
From PFT

Clerk says Eighth Circuit simply may not rule on motion for stay

I would be very surprised if they didn't rule on the stay. It's called "temporary" for a reason.

disaacks3
05-05-2011, 08:34 AM
That is the team hurt, not the players. The players get paid either way. For this season only perhaps. The damage that can be done to their future earning potential, especially for those like Mario (in a "contract year") could be considered doing irreparable harm.

I still want to know what 'injury' the owners might potentially suffer.

DonnyMost
05-05-2011, 10:14 AM
If a judge decides to wait until June only to rule in favor of the owners then no season is very possible.

A ruling won't come until July.

Timeline will go like this:

- Sometime in the next week or two; Temporary stay will either end or be extended all the way until the 8th circuit rules on the appeal

- First week of June; 8th Circuit will have a hearing on the appeal between the players and owners

- First week of July; 8th Circuit will issue a decision on the appeal

DonnyMost
05-05-2011, 10:17 AM
That is the team hurt, not the players. The players get paid either way.


If a lockout is in effect, no, they do not get paid.

And also, if you as a player are put at a disadvantage by not having time to learn your new scheme, collaborate with new coaches, etc... then it is likely your performance on the field will suffer, and since your future earning power is tied to your performance, yes, it very much affects the players directly.

infantrycak
05-05-2011, 11:18 AM
A question for you assuming the stay is lifted. Who/what would be agreeing on the players behalf?

Excellent question and basically the answer is every single player would have to sign off individually or at least refrain from filing suit contrary to the agreement.

If a lockout is in effect, no, they do not get paid.

During the time period under consideration they aren't getting paid anyway.

And also, if you as a player are put at a disadvantage by not having time to learn your new scheme, collaborate with new coaches, etc... then it is likely your performance on the field will suffer, and since your future earning power is tied to your performance, yes, it very much affects the players directly.

OK, this just strikes me as a lame argument. Cushing won't earn less next year for not knowing the scheme. His contract dictates his price. Even someone like Mario in a contract year won't be affected. This isn't a vacuum. Everyone knows the context and will know how much contact players had, etc.

Dan - as an example of potential harm to owners is the complete disarray of free agency. Take Jacoby for instance. If last year's rules were in place we could keep him with a tender offer. But now the players take the position no rules are in place because the CBA was with a decertified entity. So Houston tenders him but the Bills sign him to a contract. It will be a nightmare to disentangle.

disaacks3
05-05-2011, 12:02 PM
OK, this just strikes me as a lame argument. Cushing won't earn less next year for not knowing the scheme. His contract dictates his price. Even someone like Mario in a contract year won't be affected. This isn't a vacuum. Everyone knows the context and will know how much contact players had, etc.

It would still affect any incentive-laden contracts, as it's hard to have your tackle/sack totals be as high, when you haven't learned the system.


Dan - as an example of potential harm to owners is the complete disarray of free agency. Take Jacoby for instance. If last year's rules were in place we could keep him with a tender offer. But now the players take the position no rules are in place because the CBA was with a decertified entity. So Houston tenders him but the Bills sign him to a contract. It will be a nightmare to disentangle. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle. The Owners opted out of the CBA, how exactly can they claim harm from an action that THEY are responsible for? The opt-out was dependent on getting a new CBA done, and as Doty already pointed out, the Owners were acting in bad faith with their "partners" regarding the TV contract.

Had this conversation w/ Winston - All contracts are Player-to-team and aren't affected by lack of a CBA. The only thing affected is "free agency". If the owners wanted "last years rules", then they could have either A) Written it into the old CBA... B) Kept the old CBA in place, or C) Accepted the consequence of their actions.

Free agents are just that - FREE. That they are free to sign with any team hasn't changed, and the owners claim to being injured if they sign with aniother team could have easily been avoided by not opting-out. I still say that this is NOT a monetary injury (as can be shown with players), but rather a competitive advantage argument - which has ZERO impact in a non-monopoly setting.

DonnyMost
05-05-2011, 12:16 PM
OK, this just strikes me as a lame argument. Cushing won't earn less next year for not knowing the scheme. His contract dictates his price.

That is why I said *future* earning power. Unless, of course, you consider the fact that a player who ends up sucking could get cut and thus not end up getting paid, then he would absolutely "earn less next year".



Even someone like Mario in a contract year won't be affected.

Yes, he will. Mario's time in this system will be shortened, his play may be affected, and thus his next contract will suffer. Hell, you could even go so far as to say that his lack of ability to even work out or receive medical treatment that he would normally have access to would play into this.



This isn't a vacuum. Everyone knows the context and will know how much contact players had, etc.

It still doesn't change the fact that certain players are put at a disadvantage, thus hurting careers and their earning power.

infantrycak
05-05-2011, 01:00 PM
The Owners opted out of the CBA, how exactly can they claim harm from an action that THEY are responsible for?

Legally that is irrelevant. The question is what will happen if the status quo is not maintained. And key to this discussion is what is on appeal. The merits of the case have not been decided. There are preliminary rulings like whether the NLRB should hear the matter. It makes no sense to have a flurry of free agent signings and then have them all voided by an 8th circuit decision that the injunction should never have been issued in the first place. The issue of the stay is forward looking, not backwards.

disaacks3
05-05-2011, 01:54 PM
Legally that is irrelevant. The question is what will happen if the status quo is not maintained. And key to this discussion is what is on appeal. The merits of the case have not been decided. There are preliminary rulings like whether the NLRB should hear the matter. It makes no sense to have a flurry of free agent signings and then have them all voided by an 8th circuit decision that the injunction should never have been issued in the first place. The issue of the stay is forward looking, not backwards. How can it be irrelevant? If the action that is injurious / harmful to you was brought about specifically by your own conduct, then where would this argument end? If it's so "traumatic" to the NFL owners then why did THEY bring it about? It's not like there wasn't existing precedent for the players to decertify. This is specifically why I DON'T understand the granting of the emergency stay.

infantrycak
05-05-2011, 02:04 PM
How can it be irrelevant? If the action that is injurious / harmful to you was brought about specifically by your own conduct, then where would this argument end? If it's so "traumatic" to the NFL owners then why did THEY bring it about? It's not like there wasn't existing precedent for the players to decertify. This is specifically why I DON'T understand the granting of the emergency stay.

I'm not advocating or trying to argue what is policy. I'm just saying the question for a stay is what will or will not change if things aren't held in status quo. In the back's of judges' minds they may consider what brought things about but that isn't the standard.

disaacks3
05-05-2011, 03:07 PM
I'm not advocating or trying to argue what is policy. I'm just saying the question for a stay is what will or will not change if things aren't held in status quo. In the back's of judges' minds they may consider what brought things about but that isn't the standard. Fair enough....didn't mean it to come across as an attack.

Allstar
05-05-2011, 06:59 PM
Per Adam Shefter:

Michael Gans, the 8th Circuit Court Clerk in St. Louis, said he does not expect a ruling on the stay today. Wait continues Friday.

Many assume a stay from 8th Circuit to be a foregone conclusion. But there are those in legal community convinced this could go either way.

rmartin65
05-05-2011, 07:17 PM
Per Adam Shefter:

Michael Gans, the 8th Circuit Court Clerk in St. Louis, said he does not expect a ruling on the stay today. Wait continues Friday.

Many assume a stay from 8th Circuit to be a foregone conclusion. But there are those in legal community convinced this could go either way.

Hope still exists...

Hopefully Smith, Kubes and Wade have their lists all ready, and are calling people as soon as it is allowed.

ArlingtonTexan
05-05-2011, 08:17 PM
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

NFL case filings with 8th Circuit court of appeals. For those wanting a time line of sorts

ArlingtonTexan
05-05-2011, 09:45 PM
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

NFL case filings with 8th Circuit court of appeals. For those wanting a time line of sorts

Owners case

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782671.0.pdf

Player's case

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782366.0.pdf

CloakNNNdagger
05-05-2011, 09:47 PM
Forbes gets in on the act, reviewing the arguments and predicting the next happenings.

Courtroom Football: Where We Are, Where We’re Going (http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/05/05/courtroom-football-where-we-are-where-were-going/)

GP
05-05-2011, 10:14 PM
...The issue of the stay is forward looking, not backwards.

I think that's the only thing we need to all understand here, at the moment.

If the stay moves from temporary status into a more solid status, which I think it will, it freezes certain aspects of league business until a ruling by the 8th circuit.

I also think that even IF the stay is lifted, not a single NFL team's ownership is going to do certain league business (such as acquiring free agents) because--Inserting my speculative theory here--they all have sworn a blood oath that they won't do it if the stay is lifted. The Jerry Jones' of the NFL world are going to hold this over the lesser teams (the Ralph Wilsons' of the NFL) and enforce a no-fly zone of sorts. At the end of the day, the small market teams are servants of the richer market teams because of shared revenue issues...and don't think for a second that JJ wouldn't use that as a bully pulpit to leverage that against the lesser members of the NFL. There are Dons in this family, and everybody else is just a Capo.

Until a ruling is made, I don't think it matters one way or another if they stay remains or is lifted. The owners are content in waiting for the 8th circuit ruling before doing anything "next level" on certain business items, such as free agency.

The stay is forward-looking because it's saying "Let's hold our horses here and wait for a ruling," which avoids a flurry of transactions that might be challenged in various court systems. They need to get down to the nitty gritty business of finding out who wins and who loses, IMO, so that it can be settled without numerous "a la carte" legal wrangling due to premature business transactions. That's why I think a stay is a good thing. Forward-looking.

Allstar
05-05-2011, 10:52 PM
I also think that even IF the stay is lifted, not a single NFL team's ownership is going to do certain league business (such as acquiring free agents) because--Inserting my speculative theory here--they all have sworn a blood oath that they won't do it if the stay is lifted. The Jerry Jones' of the NFL world are going to hold this over the lesser teams (the Ralph Wilsons' of the NFL) and enforce a no-fly zone of sorts. At the end of the day, the small market teams are servants of the richer market teams because of shared revenue issues...and don't think for a second that JJ wouldn't use that as a bully pulpit to leverage that against the lesser members of the NFL. There are Dons in this family, and everybody else is just a Capo.

Until a ruling is made, I don't think it matters one
I don't know about that, in the few hours the lockout was lifted, leach said his agent was getting phone calls. Also Andy Reid said multiple teams called about Kolb.

GP
05-06-2011, 09:32 AM
I don't know about that, in the few hours the lockout was lifted, leach said his agent was getting phone calls. Also Andy Reid said multiple teams called about Kolb.

Hmmm....very interesting.

I just figured the owners would be unified and would agree to not do anything until a ruling.

I wonder if those calls were just "feelers" to test out what might be available, meaning that no action would be taken yet BUT a deal would be as good as done in the meantime if they agreed on each side?

infantrycak
05-06-2011, 09:58 AM
I don't know about that, in the few hours the lockout was lifted, leach said his agent was getting phone calls. Also Andy Reid said multiple teams called about Kolb.

Actually what was said was Leach's agent started calling every team.

CloakNNNdagger
05-06-2011, 08:10 PM
Still no news on league’s motion for stay (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/06/still-no-news-on-leagues-motion-for-stay/)

We floated earlier today a theory that’s making its way through league circles regarding the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to drag its tasseled loafers on the NFL’s motion to stay the lifting of the lockout while Judge Nelson’s ruling is reviewed. Then, Albert Breer of NFL Network joined PFT Live to discuss the issue, along with other aspects of the labor dispute.

Breer has since reported that court clerk Michael Gans said that no ruling on the motion is imminent on Friday, or over the weekend. That said, Gans cautioned that nothing can be presumed conclusively unless and until a ruling isn’t issued before 6:00 p.m. ET.

Regardless of the reason for the delay, which makes even less sense in light of the court’s agreement to expedite all aspects of the appeal, the situation should confirm to the NFL, the players, and anyone following this eight-week-old fiasco that allowing problems to be solved by a third party puts control in the hands of that third party — both as to the result and as to the manner in which the result is achieved.

Basically, the game is currently being held hostage by three men with law degrees, black robes, and jobs for life. And all of us who have financial and/or emotional interests hinging on whether any football related activities will occur in the month of May or beyond have no choice but to watch and wait.

For a country not ruled by a king, we’ve got a lot of men and women who, in a wide range of specific situations, have similar powers.

b0ng
05-08-2011, 06:26 PM
Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/).

We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout. Instead, the league essentially would be going out of business — something for which the NFL repeatedly chided the union in the weeks and months preceding decertification of the NFLPA.

drs23
05-08-2011, 06:41 PM
Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/).

Thanks for posting that b0ng. I'm not a lawyer but some here are. Is this more fodder for the player's anti-trust and collusion position or closer to the NFLPA dissolving in a few minutes?

Lucky
05-08-2011, 06:58 PM
Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/).
How is the NFL going to get out of all the current contracts they have (stadiums, TV, endorsements, players, personnel) and shut down? Not gonna happen.

b0ng
05-08-2011, 07:54 PM
How is the NFL going to get out of all the current contracts they have (stadiums, TV, endorsements, players, personnel) and shut down? Not gonna happen.

They would probably be held in contempt if they decided to circumvent a federal ruling like that. Not sure who would hold them in contempt whether it'd be Nelson or the 8th Circuit. I mean, they could face jail time if they did that, on top of what you described.

I can't imagine many fans still remaining pro-owner if they did that either.

TEXANRED
05-08-2011, 10:05 PM
How is the NFL going to get out of all the current contracts they have (stadiums, TV, endorsements, players, personnel) and shut down? Not gonna happen.

The UFL is about to get a big influx of talent, TV contracts, and sponsors.

I sure hope we get one of those expansion teams.

CloakNNNdagger
05-08-2011, 10:27 PM
The UFL is about to get a big influx of talent, TV contracts, and sponsors.

I sure hope we get one of those expansion teams.

That would be nice as an extra option. However, my guess is that preferential to expansion would be a fanatic football fan city that would have no real options to their NFL team. We have high profile football at all levels........high school, college, and professional. Maybe, though, there may still be some room for desert.:thinking:

rmartin65
05-08-2011, 10:37 PM
I hope Columbus (OH) gets a team. Big population, football crazy, no pro team...

TEXANRED
05-08-2011, 10:50 PM
I hope Columbus (OH) gets a team. Big population, football crazy, no pro team...

Isn't El Paso the largest city with no sports teams?

rmartin65
05-08-2011, 10:52 PM
Isn't El Paso the largest city with no sports teams?

I have no idea. All I know, is that Columbus would support a UFL team, especially if the NFL shuts down/locks out.

CloakNNNdagger
05-08-2011, 11:10 PM
Isn't El Paso the largest city with no sports teams?

I can see the NFL hiring out a 1000 man Uzi-equipped security force with tanks and armed armoured helicopters for every game in order to engage the Mexican cartels. Maybe some official NFL gun vendors throughout the stadium. And the peanut man optionally throwing you a bag of 50 rounds of ammo for when you leave the stadium.:kubepalm::wadepalm:

disaacks3
05-08-2011, 11:12 PM
I can see the NFL hiring out a 1000 man Uzi-equipped security force with tanks and armed armoured helicopters for every game in order to engage the Mexican cartels. Maybe some official NFL gun vendors throughout the stadium. And the peanut man optionally throwing you a bag of 50 rounds of ammo for when you leave the stadium.:kubepalm::wadepalm:

Hey, if that's what it'd take to wipe out the Cartels, then I'm for 1 game in Mexico City EVERY WEEK. :thisbig:

b0ng
05-08-2011, 11:39 PM
Isn't El Paso the largest city with no sports teams?

Las Vegas?

Double Barrel
05-09-2011, 11:42 AM
Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/).

How is the NFL going to get out of all the current contracts they have (stadiums, TV, endorsements, players, personnel) and shut down? Not gonna happen.

The owners even muttering this is disgusting. I'm sure it's smoke screens and mirrors, but it reveals the depth of these public-swindling a-holes' greed.

b0ng
05-09-2011, 11:49 AM
The owners even muttering this is disgusting. I'm sure it's smoke screens and mirrors, but it reveals the depth of these public-swindling a-holes' greed.

As if tax subsidaries for a stadium aren't slime-ball enough.

DonnyMost
05-09-2011, 11:49 AM
Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/).

Obvious bluff is obvious.

gary
05-09-2011, 11:52 AM
Will there be a ruling on the stay soon?

Double Barrel
05-09-2011, 12:19 PM
As if tax subsidaries for a stadium aren't slime-ball enough.

Exactly. That's why I referred to them as "public-swindling". :handshake:

HOU-TEX
05-09-2011, 12:23 PM
Will there be a ruling on the stay soon?

Nobody knows for sure. Heck, they really don't have to rule again on the stay if they choose not to. The hearing's less than a month away so they could just ride the temporary stay until then.

drs23
05-09-2011, 12:31 PM
Nobody knows for sure. Heck, they really don't have to rule again on the stay if they choose not to. The hearing's less than a month away so they could just ride the temporary stay until then.

Watched PFT and Florio had NFL's Albert Breer on the other day and this was the same thing he said. I think at this point that's the likely outcome.

badboy
05-09-2011, 01:59 PM
I can see the NFL hiring out a 1000 man Uzi-equipped security force with tanks and armed armoured helicopters for every game in order to engage the Mexican cartels. Maybe some official NFL gun vendors throughout the stadium. And the peanut man optionally throwing you a bag of 50 rounds of ammo for when you leave the stadium.:kubepalm::wadepalm:

It would be the OLD El Paso Cartel that owns the team. Guess what would be in the concession stand?

b0ng
05-09-2011, 03:09 PM
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

This is court documents filed to the 8th circuit for the Brady vs NFL case. The league's first filing on the appeal of the injunction should be at this link before midnight CDT.

disaacks3
05-09-2011, 04:30 PM
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

This is court documents filed to the 8th circuit for the Brady vs NFL case. The league's first filing on the appeal of the injunction should be at this link before midnight CDT.

This particluar one is an interesting read, as it appears that the owners are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Logan Mankins complaint (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782366.2.pdf)

Basically, Mankins would have been a free agent, but for the CBA opt out. They designated him a franchise player, but are unable to give him a franchise salary #, due to "uncertainty" in the potential new CBA.

b0ng
05-09-2011, 06:23 PM
Here's another gem:

Remember how Goodell and various owners have gone around trying to do PR on their side saying, "This will all get resolved at the negotiating table. We just want the players to negotiate, get a deal done, and see football this year"? Well, the NFL is using statements from NFLPA player reps who have since (the lockout began) reiterated their willingness to negotiate (albeit as a settlement to the lawsuit) as evidence the union de-certification is a sham.

GP
05-10-2011, 10:46 AM
If they haven't lifted the stay by now, then it isn't going to be lifted.

It's an action via a failure to act, IMO.

I think Judge Nelson's ruling will be overturned. I know some of you say that we should not be on the owner's side nor on the player's side, but rather we should be on the fan's side, but I am for the players. If this thing lingers through the summer, they will be forced to sign a deal that isn't fair (IMO) or not play football.

Either way, the owners are at fault (IMO). They should make an offer, let the players make a counter-offer, and then perhaps tweak the counter-offer and ask the players to agree to the deal. Why is that so hard to do?

If the 8th Circuit upholds Judge Nelson's ruling, then I think we will have football and then have a similar "bargaining situation" in early 2012. A deal has to get done at some point, but with THIS season being the primary concern for all involved, I think they should agree to play out the season and resume these talks in February.

There is a 2011 draft class who came out of college, and they shouldn't sit there and be punished for doing what decades upon decades of previous draft classes have done: Come out of college, for the purpose of playing in the NFL. The owners have several ethical obligations here: To the current players, the dratf class, to the fans, and to those employed at stadiums and might add to the federal debt if they don't have their jobs soon.

I would hope that the 8th Circuit can see the reasons why the owners need to lift the lockout. It OUGHT to be looked at from that standpoint, IMO, but then again I have seen a lot of squirrely thiings happen in this country with "leadership" seeking its own gain and profit rather than being a good steward of that which it was entrusted with.

infantrycak
05-10-2011, 12:13 PM
Either way, the owners are at fault (IMO). They should make an offer, let the players make a counter-offer, and then perhaps tweak the counter-offer and ask the players to agree to the deal. Why is that so hard to do?

What makes you think that hasn't been done? There have been multiple reports of offers by the owners. No agreement does not equal no negotiation.

I would hope that the 8th Circuit can see the reasons why the owners need to lift the lockout. It OUGHT to be looked at from that standpoint, IMO, but then again I have seen a lot of squirrely thiings happen in this country with "leadership" seeking its own gain and profit rather than being a good steward of that which it was entrusted with.

No it should be looked at by the judges from a legal standpoint. Folks love to piss and moan about activist judges and it is exactly this reasoning - "I want the result." It isn't activist judges near as often as it is activist viewers.

TEXANRED
05-10-2011, 12:22 PM
No it should be looked at by the judges from a legal standpoint. Folks love to piss and moan about activist judges and it is exactly this reasoning - "I want the result." It isn't activist judges near as often as it is activist viewers.

Well they just need to hurry up is all I know. We are getting dangerously close to me having to spend full quality time with my family in the fall.

What happens if the lock goes on and the season gets cancelled? That would be almost 24 months of me acting like a good husband and father! What if I get hurt? Blow out a knee? Pull a hammy? What if, gasp, my family thinks I love them? What about me?

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2011, 01:04 PM
What makes you think that hasn't been done? There have been multiple reports of offers by the owners. No agreement does not equal no negotiation.



No it should be looked at by the judges from a legal standpoint. Folks love to piss and moan about activist judges and it is exactly this reasoning - "I want the result." It isn't activist judges near as often as it is activist viewers.


This is probably the one thing, more than any other aspect of law, that frustrates those who do not understand the system. Following the law is supposed to take the emotion out of decisions. Of course, there are some case study that is cited to support or counter conclusions which are not totally cut and dry. An that is when "bias" in interpretation may occur. It's not perfect, but it's still the best system out there..........even though it doesn't always produce the results we would "expect."

CloakNNNdagger
05-10-2011, 01:06 PM
Well they just need to hurry up is all I know. We are getting dangerously close to me having to spend full quality time with my family in the fall.

What happens if the lock goes on and the season gets cancelled? That would be almost 24 months of me acting like a good husband and father! What if I get hurt? Blow out a knee? Pull a hammy? What if, gasp, my family thinks I love them? What about me?



I guess, you're screwed!:gun:

Double Barrel
05-10-2011, 01:35 PM
Well they just need to hurry up is all I know. We are getting dangerously close to me having to spend full quality time with my family in the fall.

What happens if the lock goes on and the season gets cancelled? That would be almost 24 months of me acting like a good husband and father! What if I get hurt? Blow out a knee? Pull a hammy? What if, gasp, my family thinks I love them? What about me?

Watching NFL games are quality time around my house! :D

I can't begin to tell you how fun it is to have a kid on each knee as the Texans put on their "exciting brand of football" (patent pending). It definitely reminds me of what is really important in life, which is the little ones on my knees and not the diversion on the big screen. :winky:

b0ng
05-10-2011, 02:08 PM
....

Question:

Why are the judges apparently not deciding to rule on the temporary stay? I know oral arguments don't begin until June 3rd and then a decision is not likely to come down until July or August. I know it sort of goes directly against Judge Nelsons opinions and it seemed to be granted rather quickly as well.

Is it normal for appellate circuits to just over turn the district judges ruling when it was written as so without a much more permanent decision on the stay of the injunction in the near future? I was sure that Nelson outlined in one of her arguments that a few weeks does in fact matter when it comes to the issue of "irreparable harm to the players".

infantrycak
05-10-2011, 02:16 PM
Question:

Why are the judges apparently not deciding to rule on the temporary stay? I know oral arguments don't begin until June 3rd and then a decision is not likely to come down until July or August. I know it sort of goes directly against Judge Nelsons opinions and it seemed to be granted rather quickly as well.

Is it normal for appellate circuits to just over turn the district judges ruling when it was written as so without a much more permanent decision on the stay of the injunction in the near future? I was sure that Nelson outlined in one of her arguments that a few weeks does in fact matter when it comes to the issue of "irreparable harm to the players".

I haven't seen the order for the temporary stay. Generally they have an expiration date so instead of being a pocket veto grant of a longer stay it would expire according to its own terms at some point. Yeah particularly in big cases it is typical for courts to keep things as close to as when the parties walked into court before they rule.

b0ng
05-10-2011, 02:21 PM
I haven't seen the order for the temporary stay. Generally they have an expiration date so instead of being a pocket veto grant of a longer stay it would expire according to its own terms at some point. Yeah particularly in big cases it is typical for courts to keep things as close to as when the parties walked into court before they rule.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782657.0.pdf

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
The motion of appellants National Football League, et al., for a temporary stay of the district court’s order dated April 25, 2011, pending a decision by this court on the appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal, has been considered by the court and is granted. The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d 230, 232 (8th Cir. 1988) (describing grant of temporary stay to consider motion for stay pending appeal); see also Cobell v. Norton, No. 03-5262, 2004 WL 603456, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (describing administrative stay procedure); Arnold v. Garlock, Inc., 278 F.3d 426, 433 (5th Cir. 2001) (describing implementation of temporary stay to provide sufficient time to consider fairly whether a formal stay pending appeal
2
should issue); Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133, 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (describing entry of a temporary administrative stay to permit time for full consideration of motions). The district court’s order of April 25, 2011, is temporarily stayed.

The rest is Judge Bye's dissent.

infantrycak
05-10-2011, 02:32 PM
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3782657.0.pdf

The rest is Judge Bye's dissent.

Well the way that is worded they can just ignore the motion for stay and leave the temporary stay in effect.

CharloTex
05-10-2011, 02:33 PM
This is probably the one thing, more than any other aspect of law, that frustrates those who do not understand the system. Following the law is supposed to take the emotion out of decisions. Of course, there are some case study that is cited to support or counter conclusions which are not totally cut and dry. An that is when "bias" in interpretation may occur. It's not perfect, but it's still the best system out there..........even though it doesn't always produce the results we would "expect."

Yeah, like when the Supreme Court gave the election to GW Bush. :kitten:

b0ng
05-10-2011, 02:40 PM
Well the way that is worded they can just ignore the motion for stay and leave the temporary stay in effect.

Seems rather odd they just granted that temp stay without having the ability to rule on it in an expedient manner, especially when it completely overturns the district court ruling.

I'm wondering if Benton and Colloton tipped their hand.

disaacks3
05-10-2011, 02:46 PM
Yeah, like when the Supreme Court gave the election to GW Bush. :kitten: Except that all SCOTUS did in that case was to let existing Florida law prevail...big-time activism there. :sarcasm:


...as that applies to the current "lockout", I'd expect that existing case law supports the players, since the owners main argument is based around the contention that the de-certification was/is a sham, but the law doesn't really allow for that.

TEXANRED
05-10-2011, 10:57 PM
MINNEAPOLIS — Lifting football's labor lockout without a new contract in place would allow better-off teams to sign the best players, tipping the NFL's competitive balance and damaging the league, attorneys for the owners argued in court papers Monday.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/7557562.html

b0ng
05-11-2011, 07:54 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/7557562.html

Except that they opted out of the CBA 2 years ago and everything worked fine in 2009 and 2010 and armageddon didn't happen.

ChampionTexan
05-11-2011, 09:29 AM
Except that they opted out of the CBA 2 years ago and everything worked fine in 2009 and 2010 and armageddon didn't happen.

However, the CBA that they opted out of still provided the structure for those two years. If anything, it provided more restrictions than would have been in place otherwise.

GP
05-11-2011, 10:13 AM
What makes you think that hasn't been done? There have been multiple reports of offers by the owners. No agreement does not equal no negotiation..

An unfair, lopsided "offer" can be a non-offer. It can actually be used to cause the other party to bristle with contempt and drive a deeper wedge between the two entities.

The players feel there's a lot of ground to be made up.

I never said there wasn't "negotiation," I'm saying there hasn't been a good enough offer by the owners to make the players feel that both sides are getting a fair share of the pie.



No it should be looked at by the judges from a legal standpoint. Folks love to piss and moan about activist judges and it is exactly this reasoning - "I want the result." It isn't activist judges near as often as it is activist viewers.

How would you rule? Based on your comments, I'm thinking you would rule in favor of the owners. Right? All things taken into consideration, the things we "know" about this deal, who would 'Cak rule for if he were judge?

I'd rule for the players. I am not related to a player, nor to an owner, but I watch NFL football. I follow the arguments that both sides have presented. I see the owners trying to set a precedent and use that as a stepping stone for future CBAs. If this country has taught me anything, it's that once a precedent has been established (legally and governmentally) it's damn hard to reverse it. Therefore, I would rule that the owners are using an unfair lockout to leverage their position at the bargaining table which doesn't display the sort of "good faith" negotiation that should be existent.

IMO, the owners planned on a course of action and they have manipulated the process the whole time. Yeah, we could all sign an agreement if it was the Don Corleone type of contract negotiation style that the owners had been using.

The players said they would not strike. The owners locked them out. Now tell me which side is extending the hand and which side is slapping it away?

infantrycak
05-11-2011, 11:22 AM
An unfair, lopsided "offer" can be a non-offer. It can actually be used to cause the other party to bristle with contempt and drive a deeper wedge between the two entities.

The players feel there's a lot of ground to be made up.

I never said there wasn't "negotiation," I'm saying there hasn't been a good enough offer by the owners to make the players feel that both sides are getting a fair share of the pie.

Again you are looking at result only. Maybe the owners made a very fair offer and the players are being unreasonable. At least one report was the owners made an offer which would not have reduced what the players received at all. I don't claim to know the details since they haven't been released, but as usual your crystal ball is working.

How would you rule? Based on your comments, I'm thinking you would rule in favor of the owners. Right? All things taken into consideration, the things we "know" about this deal, who would 'Cak rule for if he were judge?

I would have to do a whole lot more research before I would rule. And there is the point. I wouldn't go off emotion or media reports. I would look at prior case law and follow it.

I'd rule for the players.

Good for you. Classic results oriented decision making without having any idea what the law on the issues involved are. Perfect example of what my comment was about - folks calling judges activist when they don't like the result when really it is the citizens being activist.

gary
05-11-2011, 11:30 AM
This just totally sucks is all I know.

b0ng
05-11-2011, 12:46 PM
However, the CBA that they opted out of still provided the structure for those two years. If anything, it provided more restrictions than would have been in place otherwise.

This is not the first time that the league has been without a CBA and games were played.

ChampionTexan
05-11-2011, 12:59 PM
This is not the first time that the league has been without a CBA and games were played.

Yeah, but your point was regarding '09 & '10.

Regardless, given the amount of non-shared revenue we're talking about now compared to whenever the last games not under a CBA were played, I think we're dealing with a very different world.

GP
05-11-2011, 01:08 PM
Good for you. Classic results oriented decision making without having any idea what the law on the issues involved are. Perfect example of what my comment was about - folks calling judges activist when they don't like the result when really it is the citizens being activist.

Oh, I didn't know we were supposed to all go to Law School and then meet back here to discuss. I guess we also need to be privvy to all the court's documents, too?

Or, we could sit here and call it like we see it.

Not everything has to be 100% waterproof, 'Cak. You either have a personal opinion that the owners are wrong or the players are wrong. Because ONE SIDE has to win this battle, and neither side wants to concede...because to do so would impact future CBAs. Once a precedent has been set, you always work from that point and can't go back. It's like in Japanese business culture--You don't increase your asking amount...you have your initial starting point and can only go down.

Geezus, we CAN sit here (as a discussion board) and say "You know, this situation looks like this and I don't think that's right." Yeah, at the end of the day it's just our opinion. Duh.

You sitting there saying "No comment, I'd have to see all the stuff first" is just silly. I won't be ruling on it. You won't be ruling on it. But based on what we DO know, it's easy to come out and say who you support and who you think is wrong here.

I am normally NOT anti-business either, so I don't think I'm being "activist" when I sit here and say I would side with labor on this issue. It's all on a case-by-case basis for me, and for me--on this issue, considering all sides--I don't think the owners have a leg to stand upon.

You can't say who you think is more right or wrong?

GlassHalfFull
05-11-2011, 02:00 PM
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/mascots_commish/

Just to lighten up the thread. I miss Chester Pitts.

Watch Crankin' the NFL Commish

infantrycak
05-11-2011, 02:16 PM
You either have a personal opinion that the owners are wrong or the players are wrong.

Nope. Option three is saying you don't know enough to properly judge the dispute.

You sitting there saying "No comment, I'd have to see all the stuff first" is just silly. I won't be ruling on it. You won't be ruling on it. But based on what we DO know, it's easy to come out and say who you support and who you think is wrong here.

Easy for you but you also think you know the hearts and minds of every player, coach and owner as well. I don't operate that way.

I am normally NOT anti-business either, so I don't think I'm being "activist" when I sit here and say I would side with labor on this issue. It's all on a case-by-case basis for me, and for me--on this issue, considering all sides--I don't think the owners have a leg to stand upon.

The activist comment was about the way people make comments about judges being activist. Often times those comments are made by people like you who have no idea what the underlying law is, little if any information and yet have become cheerleaders for one side. Then a result comes out you don't like and you blame the judge(s) and call them activist because you didn't like the result.

You can't say who you think is more right or wrong?

Right now I have seen nothing to say either side is right or wrong. To me it just looks like a negotiation with some maneuvering.

CloakNNNdagger
05-12-2011, 01:34 PM
PFT reports:

Hearing on TV damages over; players seek $707 million
The hearing is over to determine what damages the NFL must pay for violating the previous CBA while negotiating the last round of television contracts.

Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: No decision is immediately forthcoming.

“To be honest, I didn’t think we’d have this hearing. And I’m a bit disappointed we’re having it,” said Judge David Doty to start the hearing, according to Albert Breer of NFL.com.

Alex Marvez of FoxSports.com reports that Doty indicated no decision will come on Thursday. We’ll hear again from Doty “in due season.”

Hoping to capitalize from desperate football fans, Vegas bookmakers have installed Doty as a 1:2 favorite to make a ruling before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

UPDATE: Marvez reports the players are seeking $707 million in TV money as well as unspecified damages.

eriadoc
05-12-2011, 01:56 PM
Vegas bookmakers have installed Doty as a 1:2 favorite to make a ruling before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is my favorite part of the entire lockout.

disaacks3
05-12-2011, 04:07 PM
AWESOME (imho) article on deadspin regarding the Pro-Owner "fanboys".

There's a distinctly political turn to much of these lockout arguments among fans. I guess if you think the players are right (and I do), that makes you a dirty liberal and there can't possibly be a decent case to be made. All unions are bad, which means the NFL players are ungrateful and lazy and deserve to be booted out on their ass because the owners are the beginning and end of why the NFL is successful.

No success is ever entirely self-made. Billionaires don't just crawl out of a ****ing swamp and then work 23-hour days until they're filthy rich and deserving of every penny. There are a million factors that go into the making of a successful person, and hard work is merely one of them. There's an element of luck. There's certainly an element of breeding. There's an element of good timing, of catching the wave at the precise right moment. All of those things factor in, not to mention the millions upon millions of tax dollars used to subsidize the stadiums many of these fine gentlemen happen to now own. But these pro-owner people seem to believe that NFL owners are ****ing magical money unicorns that came out of a glowing cistern on a mountaintop, and they have carte blanche to strongarm people accordingly.

I hope they're planted by the league. I really do, though some polls suggest otherwise. Because if you are a real, living, breathing person and you're actually rooting for the league to continue to, you know, not playing, then you can go ****ing die. If you have a beef with the union breaking up and suing the NFL, then you're too stupid to understand that suing the league was essentially ALL the players could do, because for years now the owners have been hellbent on losing games in the 2011 season specifically to squeeze more money out of the players, as much as humanly possible. Many owners didn't bother to show up for the initial negotiating sessions in March. They want their lockout, and they're going to exhaust every shitty, awful option they can to make it happen. And they sure as shit don't care about your concerns in the process. You're the fan. You're just a ****ing sheep. Linky (http://deadspin.com/5800887/the-bizarre-cult-of-pro+owner-nfl-fanboys)

gary
05-12-2011, 04:15 PM
Right now fans have the NBA and NHL playoffs but once those are over and July rolls around that hunger for football will be there but the game might not be.

CloakNNNdagger
05-12-2011, 07:09 PM
AWESOME (imho) article on deadspin regarding the Pro-Owner "fanboys".

Linky (http://deadspin.com/5800887/the-bizarre-cult-of-pro+owner-nfl-fanboys)


This particular league concession proposal was evidently glossed over by the media in March. It certainly sounds like a game changer for many players.



Pash: Proposal to players offered unprecedented 90 percent of salary cap in cash (http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/18/pash-proposal-to-players-offered-unprecedented-90-percent-of-salary-cap-in-cash/)

In an interview yesterday on Sirius NFL Radio with Tim Ryan and Pat Kirwan, NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash noted that the NFL clubs offered players an unprecedented guarantee – an average of 90 percent of the salary cap spent in cash over a three-year period.

“For the first time, we were going to have a cash minimum as opposed to just a cap minimum,” Pash said. “You understand what the difference means and of course so did the union, which is why they pushed for that. The 90 percent was an agreed upon figure and because of the way teams change over time, we all thought that you couldn’t do it year-by-year so we were doing it at on a three-year basis to allow for the fact that teams go through cycles. Everyone on both sides thought that was a sensible compromise. It would have done a lot.”

Noted Kirwan, a former NFL club executive, “I think that is going to help a lot of guys in the middle-income bracket.”

In previous seasons with a salary cap, there had never been a requirement that clubs had to spend a minimum amount of cash. The salary cap floor applied only to the salary cap — not cash spent – and thus included “dead money” including prorated money from bonuses paid in earlier years of player contracts and money that was accelerated from future years for players no longer with that club.

Under last week’s proposal, such “dead money” would not be counted in the minimum cash guarantee ensuring that actual cash would be paid to players each season.

disaacks3
05-12-2011, 08:23 PM
This particular league concession proposal was evidently glossed over by the media in March. It certainly sounds like a game changer for many players.

I've no doubt that concessions were offered, potentially some that should have been considered more seriously by the NFLPA at the time. The kicker is that the league started talking lockout 2 years ago when they opted out of the CBA. The Jerry Joneses of the world didn't do rest of the NFL Owners any favors by his little macho performance during negotiations either.

At this point I just want both sides to work out how exactly that they're going to get rich together so we can get on with the NFL season.