Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

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.
 
Allstar said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that moron Rick Smith lets him walk...
 
Full Opinion On Denial of Stay

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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
b0ng said:
Full Opinion On Denial of Stay



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."
Click to expand...

So basically the NFL council just pulled a Kubiak. Not understanding what it is they are challenging and throwing out the red flag anyway.
 
Dutchrudder said:
I'm fairly certain GP could write 89 pages in about 3 days. This judge just needs to hire him as a ghostwriter...

:D
Click to expand...

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

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 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

commie pinko LIEberal judge said:
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.
Click to expand...

hah.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
DonnyMost said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on it. They'll likely inform teams to stay closed until they get a ruling from the other court.
 
HOU-TEX said:
I wouldn't count on it. They'll likely inform teams to stay closed until they get a ruling from the other court.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DonnyMost said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
(Underlining added for emphasis).

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

(Underlining added for emphasis).

LINK
Click to expand...

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.
 
DonnyMost said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the NFL teams "Agree" to not engage in trades per direction from the NFL office, they are (by definition) acting in collusion.
 
disaacks3 said:
If the NFL teams "Agree" to not engage in trades per direction from the NFL office, they are (by definition) acting in collusion.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
per profootballtalk.com

Facilities open tommorrow at 8am

Details of trading, free agents (start of years) coming probably tommorrow.
 
ArlingtonTexan said:
per profootballtalk.com

Facilities open tommorrow at 8am

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

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.
 
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:

Adam Schefter said:
Players sent letter to owners demanding NFL to start year -- or it will ask for contempt of court.
Click to expand...

EDIT2:

Adam Schefter said:
NFL plans to announce timing for commencement of 2011 League Year, free agent signings and other player transactions tomorrow.
Click to expand...
 
b0ng said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
GlassHalfFull said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GlassHalfFull said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Double Barrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HOU-TEX said:
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.
Click to expand...

What a cluster. Part of me feels bad for the GM's tomorrow.
 
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:
 
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 The lockout is back, for now

Lockout back on, for now.
 
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.
 
Double Barrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Double Barrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
League doesn’t 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.
Click to expand...
 
ArlingtonTexan said:
Given Wade was hired early and Gary is in control of the offense, I would think the veteran players would aleady have them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
One judge wasn’t 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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
infantrycak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The same Goodell handles the appeals to his own decisions...............

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top