All Encompassing Lockout Thread

[disaacks3]

Here's some general questions:

If the Appellate court decides that it DOESN'T have the right to interfere in a labor negotiation (via Norris LaGuardia). What happens then?

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

 

[b0ng]

Here's some general questions:

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

The ones I have a decent guess on:

1. NLGB is being used specifically for the injunction on the lockout. Shouldn't effect the class action suit.

2. There is no criteria. The legal precedent for this was a previous class action anti-trust suit against the NFL in the early 80's and the judges told the NFLPA that they must be de-certified as a union in order to sue their employers.

3. It will be years before Brady vs the NFL is settled. The NFL loses multiple seasons if they wait for that to play all the way out.

 

[TEXANRED]

Here's some general questions:

If the Appellate court decides that it DOESN'T have the right to interfere in a labor negotiation (via Norris LaGuardia). What happens then?

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

Labor negotiations and Anti-Trust are two different things.

I would suspect that if the players get ruled against on the labor dispute then I would expect nothing to happen until the anti-trust case is resolved.

And I don't think there are a whole lot of people who understand how huge this anti-trust case is. The anti-trust laws effect every aspect of business in the United States so this ruling is going to come very slowly and worded in such a way no one wins.

It could be 2 years before football returns. Well the NFL anyways.

 

[IDEXAN]

Why would removing any legal knowledge in any way fix any political bias in the appointment system? And really it is just assumed political bias.

It wouldn't, it's just that a requirement of a legal or any particlar kind of background is unneccessary since it appears the judges are just voting along partisan lines anyway.

 

[infantrycak]

Here's some general questions:

If the Appellate court decides that it DOESN'T have the right to interfere in a labor negotiation (via Norris LaGuardia). What happens then?

Believe the sham issue would be examined first by the NLRB.

Does it have any effect on the players open lawsuits?

Probably no affect on the television money suit. On the Anti-trust suit the owners could make an argument of a stay on a determination in that suit pending the sham determination. The NLRB and Anti-trust are separate but related. The Anti-trust suit is bit odd to me since the players association has freely negotiated multiple contracts with this entity for a long time.

What criteria would the court have to see to determine that the players de-certification was a "sham"?

While there may not be direct NFL precedent there is precedent from other litigation on decertification. But basically it is a preponderance of the evidence standard for whether it was just done as a bargaining tool with lo real intent to not have a union in the future or whether they legitimately want to play non-union football in the future. There sure are a lot of player statements that they wanted to continue to play under a new CBA.

Is it posssible that the players lockout injuction could be thrown out, but that the players could succeed with every other case, including on Anti-trust claims vs. the NFL?

Not real sure on this one but think it is theoretically possible for both. I don't entirely what is going on in the Doty case. So far the reporting is his only ruling is an injunction that the TV money not be paid. Then there are requests by the players for damages but Doty will have to have a trial on the merits in order to award money (unless the request was through summary judgement) and I don't recall seeing a report of either being scheduled. either way it will go to the 8th circuit also.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Probably, the best up to date summary of the NFL vs players fight status.

This situation reminds me of a line in "Dirty Harry." (NFL to NFL players: )

Well, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, Punk?

 

[disaacks3]

Probably, the best up to date summary of the NFL vs players fight status.

This situation reminds me of a line in "Dirty Harry." (NFL to NFL players: )

This part answers pretty much what I was asking:

"The big question," said University of Toledo College of Law professor Geoffrey Rapp, "is how far they want to take this dispute. Based on how the panel of judges indicated they will likely read the jurisdictional issues, the players are unlikely to get an injunction to stop the lockout.
"But my own reading of the law is that while the jurisdictional argument is plausible in connection with the lockout itself, it will have little bearing on the eventual resolution of the antitrust issues relating to free agency, the draft and the salary cap.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

[NOTE THE SCORE!]

This article gives a nice understandable summary of all the separate litigations going on at the same time.:

Dispatches from the NFL lockout fronts

 

[DonnyMost]

This part answers pretty much what I was asking:

That's exactly how I feel.

Whether the injunction is granted or not prior to the ruling will have little bearing on how the case is actually decided.

I wouldn't worry too much about it in the meantime.

 

[GP]

That's exactly how I feel.

Whether the injunction is granted or not prior to the ruling will have little bearing on how the case is actually decided.

I wouldn't worry too much about it in the meantime.

This is getting confusing to me.

There are two separate things: Anti-trust suit and the suit about labor law/CBA.

Am I not understanding these two things correctly? I was under the impression that the anti-trust case (regarding the owners using TV money to withstand a lockout) looks like the players have a legitimate case. But the other case, the one that could lift the lockout and make the NFL bus wheels start turning again, is not looking good for the players.

To me, the fact that 2 out of 3 judges ruled to leave the stay of Judge Nelson's decision in full effect is all the indication I need to know that the lockout will remain in place.

The reports are that even the judges have made comments that say "You know what? It doesn't look too good for the players. You have an uphill road to climb here." Did I misinterpret that, as well?

A liberal-leaning judge ruled for the labor side. She took a few weeks to craft her labor-leaning story, hoping it could withstand a conservative-minded appellate court.

A bunch of conservative-leaning judges are going to rule for the owner side. These guys will take a few weeks to craft THEIR conservative-leaning story so they can properly tell the liberal-leaning judge how she was wrong.

All in all, people wasting time to write stories and explain their political views through the prism of "law."

This is like watching a movie and knowing halfway into the film how it's going to end. I honestly think the owners are showing they don't care about the game of football. They don't care about how all parties to this issue have been building NFL football into arguably the strongest brand of professional sports with the nearest challenger 10 miles in the rear-view mirror. They just care about squeezing as much as they can out of it, and now we're seeing that we're just a "mark" to be hustled.

THIS is why some fans of sports orgs that strike or lockout, etc., turn from it and never go back to watching the sport again. You get a sense that you're watching less of a "sport" and really just a TV show that could be cancelled at any moment if the powers-that-be decide to end it.

I don't watch MLB. I don't even watch NBA. Heck, I have watched 20 total minutes of playoff basketball this year. Didn't watch a single game or a single minute of March Madness tournament.

NFL and MMA are it for me. I miss the NFL, but over time--if this lingers for a whole season--the law of probabilities state that we find ways to fill voids. Once I fill the void of NFL football, maybe with college football???, I will have a hard time transitioning back to NFL. I admit it. Maybe that doesn't make as genuine of an NFL fan as others might claim to be, but it's just that we all move on if things aren't there. That's my opinion, at least.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Things could get more convoluted for the players.

PFT:

Lockout insurance ruling may not provide lockout insurance for players

If the Eighth Circuit, as is now expected, rules that the lockout will continue beyond the middle of June, the only other short-term source of litigation leverage for the players comes from the damages award from Judge David Doty in the so-called lockout insurance case.

To summarize, Doty found on March 1 that the NFL had breached the CBA (and, in turn, the settlement agreement in the Reggie White antitrust case) by obtaining in the latest TV deals a promise that money will be paid to the owners during a lockout, instead of maxing out the total money to be shared by the teams and the players. We’ve agreed with the concept of the players’ argument since the case was first filed (actually, the moment of realization came while watching the second act of Jersey Boys, seriously), and we’ve been very intrigued by the manner in which Doty will require the NFL to make things right.

Though it wouldn’t be fair to give the players 59.6 percent of the $4 billion to be paid during a full-season lockout in 2011, since most of that money represents only a loan, the players fairly should recover 59.6 percent of the money that the NFL left on the table for 2009 and 2010. The challenge will be to determine the right number.

The players’ effort to obtain punitive damages via a trebling (fancy lawyer term for tripling) of the damages seems to be a bit on the aggressive side, since the violation essentially flowed from a breach of contract. That said, we wouldn’t be shocked by the imposition of a penalty, given that the action also could be characterized as a tort-style breach of fiduciary (fancy term for non-douchery) duty.

Either way, to the extent that the players assume that a large award will be entered by Judge Doty and that the money will help the players get through a full-season lockout without having to take out $500,000 loans at 23-percent interest, they need to realize that they quite possibly won’t see the money until after the 2011 season ends.

And that they may not see it at all.

The decision will be subject to appeal by the Eighth Circuit, and the judges assigned to the case could disagree with Judge Doty on the issue of damages, or even on the issue of liability. The Special Master, for example, viewed the case much differently that Doty did, and the appeal of Judge Nelson’s order lifting the lockout already has demonstrated the reality that what is clearly right to one federal judge may be clearly wrong to another.

Also, the Eighth Circuit’s decision to expedite the appeal of the lockout-lifting order doesn’t mean that it will expedite the appeal of the lockout insurance ruling. Typically, awards of money damages are considered in the normal course of court business, with interest accruing while the plaintiff waits for justice to be dispensed.

Thus, even though the chances of getting this entire mess resolved could be enhanced by an order forcing the league to finance the lockout for the players, there’s a good chance the players won’t see a penny of the money until after the 2011 season has come and gone, even if Judge Doty’s ruling is upheld on appeal.

 

[badboy]

This is getting confusing to me.

There are two separate things: Anti-trust suit and the suit about labor law/CBA.

Am I not understanding these two things correctly? I was under the impression that the anti-trust case (regarding the owners using TV money to withstand a lockout) looks like the players have a legitimate case. But the other case, the one that could lift the lockout and make the NFL bus wheels start turning again, is not looking good for the players.

To me, the fact that 2 out of 3 judges ruled to leave the stay of Judge Nelson's decision in full effect is all the indication I need to know that the lockout will remain in place.

The reports are that even the judges have made comments that say "You know what? It doesn't look too good for the players. You have an uphill road to climb here." Did I misinterpret that, as well?

A liberal-leaning judge ruled for the labor side. She took a few weeks to craft her labor-leaning story, hoping it could withstand a conservative-minded appellate court.

A bunch of conservative-leaning judges are going to rule for the owner side. These guys will take a few weeks to craft THEIR conservative-leaning story so they can properly tell the liberal-leaning judge how she was wrong.

All in all, people wasting time to write stories and explain their political views through the prism of "law."

This is like watching a movie and knowing halfway into the film how it's going to end. I honestly think the owners are showing they don't care about the game of football. They don't care about how all parties to this issue have been building NFL football into arguably the strongest brand of professional sports with the nearest challenger 10 miles in the rear-view mirror. They just care about squeezing as much as they can out of it, and now we're seeing that we're just a "mark" to be hustled.

THIS is why some fans of sports orgs that strike or lockout, etc., turn from it and never go back to watching the sport again. You get a sense that you're watching less of a "sport" and really just a TV show that could be cancelled at any moment if the powers-that-be decide to end it.

I don't watch MLB. I don't even watch NBA. Heck, I have watched 20 total minutes of playoff basketball this year. Didn't watch a single game or a single minute of March Madness tournament.
NFL and MMA are it for me. I miss the NFL, but over time--if this lingers for a whole season--the law of probabilities state that we find ways to fill voids. Once I fill the void of NFL football, maybe with college football???, I will have a hard time transitioning back to NFL. I admit it. Maybe that doesn't make as genuine of an NFL fan as others might claim to be, but it's just that we all move on if things aren't there. That's my opinion, at least.

Bolded fits me exactly. I used tolistento Astros and Rockets on the RADIO when not on TV. I have been off baseball for some time and could not get very excited when Astros made it to World Series. They had killed my loyalty. I'me gettingsame way about Rockets. Ilike the young guys but it is an average team. The NBA draft this season is hilarious. ALmost none of these college players are NBA material.

 

[GP]

Bolded fits me exactly. I used tolistento Astros and Rockets on the RADIO when not on TV. I have been off baseball for some time and could not get very excited when Astros made it to World Series. They had killed my loyalty. I'me gettingsame way about Rockets. Ilike the young guys but it is an average team. The NBA draft this season is hilarious. ALmost none of these college players are NBA material.

The only pro sports league that is worth a damn is trying to ruin itself.

This is right up there with Adam & Eve eating the apple.

Way to effin' go. Now I have to watch Red Raider football...oh wait, that got eff'd up too. I suppose I can watch figure skating with my wife now. %$#@!

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Players in all sports are recognizing the importance of this appeal to their future dealings.

The unions for hockey, baseball, and basketball are siding with the players in the NFL lockout court battle, saying the league's lockout should be lifted.

The players associations for Major League Baseball, the NHL, and the NBA filed a brief Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, saying the case presents "vitally important issues" for the unions and their members.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/122379324.html#ixzz1MzTRwDjE

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Another group jumps in...........one supposedly that represents us the fans.
PFT:

A separate “friend of the court” brief was filed on Friday by a group known as the Sports Fans Coalition. Frankly, we’re leery of any group that purports to represent sports fans generally, since different sports fans may have different views and opinions about the issues. To attempt to speak for all sports fans seems to be more than a little presumptuous. In this case, some sports fans would prefer a long-term CBA and the labor peace that goes along with it instead of, as the Sports Fan Coalition prefers, an order lifting the lockout and prolonging the labor dispute indefinitely.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

In Medicine, it's the Hippocratic Oath that teaches us "First do no harm."

With today's NFL and NFLPA joint statement, they have essentially pledged to stick a world of hurt on the fans. VIDEO

 

[TEXANRED]

This is getting confusing to me.

There are two separate things: Anti-trust suit and the suit about labor law/CBA.

Am I not understanding these two things correctly? I was under the impression that the anti-trust case (regarding the owners using TV money to withstand a lockout) looks like the players have a legitimate case. But the other case, the one that could lift the lockout and make the NFL bus wheels start turning again, is not looking good for the players.

The labor laws pertain to how the employers deal with their employees. The Anti-Trust laws regard how business' do business and trade.

Probably the most difficult aspect of the anti-trust laws, the same as the Labor laws (see the Williams' not getting suspended due to Minnesota labor laws) is that it also gives the states individual rights, so what is good in one state might not apply to another state. And because the NFL operates in multiple states its going to become difficult no matter the ruling.

Now normally if a company is operating and registered in one state that company follows the laws of that state even if that company branches out. In the American Needle -vs- The NFL the court ruled:

"The NFL failed to secure the bolstered protection from federal antitrust laws that it had been seeking, as the Supreme Court ruled Monday that the league can be regarded as 32 franchises rather than one business entity on an issue such as selling merchandise.

http://www.news-record.com/blog/53964/entry/90924

The Anti-Trust laws are complicated and have several different acts and exemptions: The first law passed was the Sherman Act of 1890, The Clayton Act of 1914, and The Robinson-Patman act of 1936 are to me, the three big ones. There have been a bunch of amendments, acts, and exemptions added but the core of the anti-trust are these three.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Eighth Circuit’s “serious doubts” fuel apparently powerful argument by players

After spending two hours at the Nike outlet store near Washington, Pa. waiting for Florio Jr. to pick out new shoes and T-shirts and shorts, I decided to do something far less tedious when I got home.

I read the 89-page brief filed by the players who have sued the NFL for various antitrust violations, with the initial goal of overturning the lockout. The document bears the names of 13 lawyers, some of whom possibly charge in excess of $1,000 per hour for their time. Thus, in addition to the fact that revenue has dried up, the lawyers on both sides of this fight undoubtedly are racking up some gigantic bills.

Confronted with a three-judge panel including two judges who have expressed “serious doubts” regarding the ability of Judge Nelson to lift the lockout, the players wasted no time. In the introduction to the brief, the players describe the ruling to which the Eighth Circuit has hinted as a “perverse outcome” that “can be predicated only on a seriously erroneous construction of labor law, abetted by a misapprehension of the facts of this dispute.”

In other words, the players are arguing in a very tactful way that the judges would have to be corrupt and/or stupid to eventually find that Judge Nelson lacked the power to lift the lockout.

The brief next calls the NFL a “cartel,” a term that in many respects is accurate but that has a distinctly negative connotation. It was, frankly, a stroke of genius for the lawyers to capture the league’s essence in such a simple yet powerful word. Unfortunately, the lawyers used the term only three times in the entire brief.

Eventually, the lawyers take on — with a vengeance — the argument that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents district courts from issuing injunctions against lockouts. Though Monday’s ruling from the Eighth Circuit contained language hinting strongly at an eventual finding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents federal courts from lifting the lockout, the comments apparently have served as a proverbial cattle prod to the lawyers, prompting them to articulate their reasoning in a manner that seems incredibly persuasive, possibly even more persuasive than it would have been without the express warning from the Eighth Circuit.

Then again, NFL lawyer David Boies also seemed incredibly persuasive before Judge Nelson. And then she ruled against him.

As to the other arguments, the players’ lawyers have fashioned equally compelling contentions. Of course, the NFL presumably will submit an equally compelling reply.

In the end, the outcome will be determined by the arguments that at least two of the three judges find to be more compelling. Though the judges who agreed to stay the order lifting the lockout until resolution of the appeal have expressed “serious doubts” regarding the question of whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act permits the lifting of a lockout, keep in mind the possibility that one or both of the judges were hoping to apply some extra pressure to the players in the hopes of sparking real progress at a mediation session that was occurring on the same day that the ruling was issued.

Thus, there’s a chance that one of the two judges who expressed “serious doubts” will resolve these doubts in favor of agreeing with the players. That in itself could be the difference between the lifting of the lockout, along with a virtual guarantee that football will happen in 2011 — and the preservation of the lockout, along with a strong possibility that no football will be played this year.

The answer will most likely come at some point in the month of June. Given the players’ brief and in light of the possibility that the judges were merely hoping to give the players an incentive to try to work something out, we won’t be surprised if the lockout is lifted — and we won’t be surprised if it isn’t.

 

[Allstar]

I wonder how the draft order would work out if there is no season. I'd be pissed if it was the exact same. Probably more pissed if it was random.

 

[Texans_Chick]

My blog post explains where we are now and how the 8th Cir ruling against the players is actually a mixed blessing for them.

Behold! The best chance for a complete NFL season…

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

My blog post explains where we are now and how the 8th Cir ruling against the players is actually a mixed blessing for them.

Behold! The best chance for a complete NFL season…

It appears that this would be basis upon the "revote" by the 3 justices for a "reversal."

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

I can see where some moves that each of the parties have made will come back to kick them in the butt...........some short term others long term.

From the New York Times:

Uncertainty is the Theme as N.F.L. Owners ConveneBy JUDY BATTISTA
Published: May 23, 2011

In a normal year, the spring meeting of N.F.L. team owners includes the selection of a Super Bowl city.

But in a sign of the uncertainty surrounding the N.F.L. this spring, the vote on the site for 2015 has been postponed until the fall. When the owners gather Tuesday and Wednesday for their meeting, their conversation will center on if - and when - the 2011 season will be played.

The owners won a significant victory last week when the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the league a delay of the injunction that would have lifted the lockout. But while the ruling on the delay used language that indicated the court was likely to side with the owners on the appeal of the injunction, the owners will be briefed on the options under consideration - what rules for free agency and the salary cap could be put in place, for example - if they lose the appeal and the lockout is lifted. That decision is not likely to come before late June or early July.

Until then, the N.F.L. seems to be at a standstill. While the court sent a strong signal about the players’ chances on the injunction, few people expect much movement in negotiations until after the injunction decision is made, although Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who is acting as a mediator, will try to make progress before then. When mediation stopped last week, Boylan instructed both sides to submit confidential proposals by the end of this week, even though mediation will not resume until June 7.

During the most recent round of talks, the two sides were moving further apart, said one person briefed on the negotiations. Owners offered less than they did in their March 11 proposal, the last offer on the table before the union dissolved itself and players were locked out, and players asked for more than they asked for before they decertified. Boylan told them that the new proposals he sought should narrow that gap, although Boylan does not have the power to compel either side to comply. Among the priorities for owners remains a deal that will not be overseen by the federal courts.

Jeff Pash, the N.F.L.’s lead negotiator, said: “The process of litigation has tended to freeze people and made it difficult for discussions to be productive. Judge Boylan has tried. That’s been helpful in providing a forum to spend time with the players association. But it’s artificial. It’s all within the context of ongoing court cases.”

In the wake of the stay decision, players quickly turned their attention to their next legal possibilities - the antitrust suit and the damages expected from the television contracts case - as ways to generate pressure . In a filing with the Minneapolis District Court, the players asked for discovery, which would probably include the players’ request for detailed team financial documents, in the antitrust case to begin immediately. On Monday, the court gave the N.F.L. until June 6 to respond to the antitrust filing. The league had wanted to wait until July 6, arguing that the decision on the appeal was likely to shape future decisions about how to proceed with the case.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

If the lockout is not court lifted, it appears that the players will be forced to make a response to the owners' last offer......if they want a 2011 season.

“True up” still represents biggest issue between NFL and players

As the lockout continues with no end in sight — unless the Eighth Circuit lifts it — it’s important to keep in mind the fact that, as Peter King of SI.com pointed out in today’s Monday Morning Quarterback, the two sides aren’t really all that far apart.

The crux of the dispute relates to money, especially since the non-economic terms offered by the NFL on March 11 contain many very player-favorable provisions, including a drop in offseason workouts so significant to prompt at least one high-level team source to express relief that the players didn’t accept the offer. As to the fight over money, the formula had shifted from a procedure that takes a lump sum off the top for the owners and divides the rest. Instead, the parties were focusing on a “pegged cap” concept, with a fixed figure for salary and benefits determined in each year of the deal.

Though the gap was $10 million per team in 2011, the league agreed to the players’ request of $161 million per team in the fourth year of the deal. The most significant difference came from the question of whether and to what extent the players would receive a portion of the revenues earned over and above the projections on which the cap numbers are based. The parties had been negotiating a system for sharing the money, but the NFL’s offer omitted that term.

The impact of that maneuver depends on perspective. From the players’ point of view, the move was interpreted as a message that there would be no sharing in the excess; that if the players were to receive guaranteed salary cap numbers without regard to actual revenue generation, they were not entitle to a piece of the upside. From the league’s point of view, the players needed only to make a response to the March 11 offer, including a suggested formula for sharing the excess.

We’re not sure what is or isn’t true about the “true up,” but we are sure that the only way to find out whether the league is telling the truth is to respond to the March 11 offer.

Progress cannot and will not be made until the players respond to the league’s most recent offer. We assume that the players haven’t responded because they have instead chosen to see whether the Eighth Circuit lifts the lockout.

If the lockout isn’t lifted, the players’ first order of business should be to respond to the March 11 offer. Until that happens, there’s simply no hope for football to be played in August, September, or beyond.

 

[Lucky]

If the lockout is not court lifted, it appears that the players will be forced to make a response to the owners' last offer......if they want a 2011 season.

The players should make a response. That's how agreements are reached. Trying to bring each other to their knees via the court system (and the lockout) isn't working. My dream scenario is for the lockout to be lifted, but the 2010 CBA rules to remain intact. That would force both sides to either live with rules they don't like or make concessions. Either way, we would have football.

 

[gary]

The players should make a response. That's how agreements are reached. Trying to bring each other to their knees via the court system (and the lockout) isn't working. My dream scenario is for the lockout to be lifted, but the 2010 CBA rules to remain intact. That would force both sides to either live with rules they don't like or make concessions. Either way, we would have football.

Sometimes in life you have to give an inch to get inch per say but in this case both sides seem to want that whole yard which is why this is already in a court room.

 

[TEXANRED]

Ultimately the owners win this battle.

Make $0 in 2011 or collect a check is what it boils down to and the owners know it.

It was a good attempt on the players part but if the court rules against the players they don't have much choice. The popular vote will be to end the lockout among the players.

 

[OzzO]

They better get it together quick, before their golden goose is cooked. I think more fans may start resembling this Brown's fan.

Barry McBride - OBR Founder

...I may not be the hardest of hard-core football fans, but I'm up there, and I don't like what I see. I'm sure that common sense, or economic necessity, will prevail and we'll see football again this year. And the media will act like nothing ever happened, and many fans will return. But I can't in good conscience give you money that could be better used by my family for other things. I love your product, and the community which supports it, but not what your business has become....

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

They better get it together quick, before their golden goose is cooked. I think more fans may start resembling this Brown's fan.

Barry McBride - OBR Founder

I know more than just a couple of fans that could have substituted this story for theirs. A sad but increasing reality.

For those of you who have not clicked on the link, I would encourage you to do so and read this fan's entire post.

 

[OzzO]

/\ add another to your list then, as I voluntarily relinquished my season tickets for the first time this upcoming season. (No PSL attached, but still... had the same seats or upgraded since year one)

 

[disaacks3]

Ultimately the owners win this battle.

Make $0 in 2011 or collect a check is what it boils down to and the owners know it.

It was a good attempt on the players part but if the court rules against the players they don't have much choice. The popular vote will be to end the lockout among the players.

While true, the owners could find themselves levied with > 1 billion in fines and no income coming in to offset it either. The lawyer fees are sure to be astronomical as well.

I know more than just a couple of fans that could have substituted this story for theirs. A sad but increasing reality.

For those of you who have not clicked on the link, I would encourage you to do so and read this fan's entire post.

It's a fantastic level-headed read. A good synopsis of the situation is had in this paragraph.

We are now in the third month of an NFL lockout, where team owners are trying to extract concessions from players, after regretting their previous labor deal and, perhaps, self-inflicted wounds created by all those concrete monuments to themselves. They will never admit this, of course, happy to cry poor while keeping their financial ledgers closed up tight, free from prying eyes.

 

[badboy]

The only pro sports league that is worth a damn is trying to ruin itself.

This is right up there with Adam & Eve eating the apple.

Way to effin' go. Now I have to watch Red Raider football...oh wait, that got eff'd up too. I suppose I can watch figure skating with my wife now. %$#@!

Great analogy, everybody had plenty but just got greedy. I will watch more college football as I think we will see a turnaround with Texans & ireally enjoy evaluating players for the draft.

 

[badboy]

In Medicine, it's the Hippocratic Oath that teaches us "First do no harm."

With today's NFL and NFLPA joint statement, they have essentially pledged to stick a world of hurt on the fans. VIDEO

Are you sure? I thought that was the mandate of the Starship Enterprise? I don't remember Dr McCoy mentioning it.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Roger Goodell: Lockout has had an impact on our fans already

When fans booed NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell at the draft, he heard them loud and clear.

Goodell said Wednesday at the conclusion of the NFL spring meeting that he realizes fans are unhappy about the lockout and already losing interest in America’s most popular sport.

“I think it’s clearly had an impact on our fans already. You see that in the various metrics we have, whether it’s ratings or traffic on NFL.com — we see that,” Goodell said. “I think you all are aware that our ratings were down in the draft, for example.”

Even if there weren’t a lockout, Goodell said, the struggling American economy would make it tough for fans to justify spending money on football tickets. But he said he thinks the lockout is making it easier for fans to choose not to buy tickets.

“I don’t think you can ever underestimate that fans are going through difficult challenges just in the general economy here,” he said. “That’s something they have to consider when they’re putting down money for a season ticket or a club seat or anything else.”

Although Goodell expressed sympathy for fans who are hurting in the economy, he sounded less sympathetic toward team employees who have had their pay cut during the lockout.

“They all understand the circumstances we’re going through,” Goodell said of team employees. “This is a collective sacrifice. We go through a difficult time, we go through it together. We’re all going to feel that impact.”

The Raiders had a particularly unusual way of dealing with the lockout, telling all club employees — including the coaching staff — that while there’s no football going on, they’re responsible for helping to sell tickets. Goodell said he likes that approach.

“I thought it was innovative. I thought it was very creative,” Goodell said. “My hat’s off to the Raiders. I thought it was very creative.”

Goodell acknowledged that if the lockout doesn’t end relatively soon, the league is going to have to start canceling preseason games.

“We don’t have a date, but obviously that time is coming,” Goodell said. “We canceled our rookie symposium, so we’re getting close enough where those will have to be considerations. Obviously we would prefer to get a negotiated agreement so we don’t have to make those decisions.”

Still, as he stood in Indianapolis, the site of next year’s Super Bowl, Goodell said the locals should feel confident that the game will, in fact, be played.

“It’s our intention to be here and play a full season,” Goodell said. “We look forward to concluding the 2011 season here in Indianapolis.”

After reading your comments, Roger, I suggest you might consider taking the route of taping your mouth shut during the remainder of the lockout.

 

[gary]

If there were more fans like the one above then maybe both sides would see that we are not just going to be there when they all arrive back to business. They leave all of us in the dust in order to achieve there more than likely very one sided goal. A goal that is very different than one another and all the while they piss on the hand the feeds them and pays them that is we the fans. There was a time when no one made hardly enough to only play football and that's it. Players once took the field with broken and beat down body parts because their job and it's salary was not as certain as it is today. By no means am I suggesting that we should just out of spite go back to that same level of football but just maybe the players and owners don't understand how much better off they all have than the man next door to me who has held season tickets for forty years. Or even those players my father grew up watching who made a lot less money and did not have the same gear that is played with in the present day NFL. Everyone knows by now that the NBA will soon be headed in the same direction as the NFL stands right now. I just have to wonder if any sport really should be considered a favorite pass time anymore I am sure they all truly once were. Although today I from time to time wonder if it is worth the wild of you and me to be as emotionally invested in sports as we seem to be only at the end of the day we don't have any say so and just feel like we are poo pooed on and left out in the cold. Well, because we are and it is true when you really sit down and put some thought into it. After spending your time and money on your favorite team all you are left with is one lonesome thought being processed through your brain which is when will there be football again and no one has any answers right now. /End rant.

 

[DonnyMost]

If only the XFL had survived long enough to make it to this point...

Maybe the threat of competition in their market would force both sides, in particular the owners, to work a deal.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

NFL sees signs fans are turned off
By BARRY WILNER AP Pro Football Writer © 2011 The Associated Press


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/football/7581005.html#ixzz1NOWzwKFx

I found this "digression" somewhat interesting and humorous.

A portion of these meetings was spent on adopting rules amendments for player safety. The league also announced a policy of "club accountability" for teams whose players repeatedly are fined for flagrant hits.

Punishments for the teams will be financial, but also could include further discipline by Goodell, including stripping of draft picks, for repeat offenders - something Goodell said he has "not contemplated yet."

That announcement brought a strong reaction from two Pittsburgh Steelers linebackers: LaMarr Woodley and the oft-fined James Harrison.

"Thoughts on "the steelers rule"??? lol im sorry that im not sorry we hit 2 hard," Woodley tweeted.

Harrison's tweet was: "I'm absolutely sure now after this last rule change that the people making the rules at the NFL are idiots."

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

From the LA TIMES:

Time for the players to adopt new game plan

Here are the conclusions. Read the link to follow the reasoning for the conclusions.

A public that had generally been in the players' corner at the outset already appears to have grown tired of Smith's unconventional tactics. In a recent poll taken by the popular website Pro Football Talk, more than 45 percent of fans favored the owners' side in the labor dispute, compared to only 23.4 percent for the players (over 31 percent of voters didn't have a preference).

To put it in football terms, the players will soon be entering the fourth quarter of a game with a deficit that even Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees would have a tough time overcoming, and at some point the union's going to have to face the cold reality that the playing field probably isn't going to stay the same as it was prior to the expiration of the last CBA. While Smith's persistence and unwavering attitude has been somewhat commendable, he still runs the dangerous risk of inciting two very angry mobs -- that of fans and his own constituents -- and faces the unwelcome prospect of a credibility level synonymous with Harold Camping (you know, the rapture guy) the longer the lockout lingers.

Even a false prophet can see that coming.

 

[gary]

NFL sees signs fans are turned off
By BARRY WILNER AP Pro Football Writer © 2011 The Associated Press


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/football/7581005.html#ixzz1NOWzwKFx

I found this "digression" somewhat interesting and humorous.

Good read and count me in as one of those fans.

 

[Double Barrel]

NFL sees signs fans are turned off
By BARRY WILNER AP Pro Football Writer © 2011 The Associated Press


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/football/7581005.html#ixzz1NOWzwKFx

I found this "digression" somewhat interesting and humorous.

Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:

"We're approaching 2011," Goodell added, "as we would any other season."

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:

"We're approaching 2011," Goodell added, "as we would any other season."

"Tool" is certainly a kind description. Yea, "they" aren't on the field.........or in the "pay" seats.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

The legal just got messier.

Citing job security, coaches side with players in labor dispute
By Albert Breer NFL Network
NFL Network Reporter

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief with the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, supporting the players' cause as the league appeals an injunction granted to lift the lockout.

The NFLCA's contention, as stated in the brief, is that the NFL "is attempting an end-run around a unanimous Supreme Court," saying that the court clearly stated the league is subject to the Sherman Act in the American Needle case last year and held it responsible for subsequent antitrust violations.

"To me, this is a real simple deal: Coaches are opposed to the lockout because it's negatively affecting coaches," said Larry Kennan, director of the NFL Coaches Association. "If it were a strike, we would be against the strike, like we were in '87. This just happens to be the owners, and we're opposed to them, because they're locking out. But if it was a strike, we'd be against the players."

The brief does not have the names of any current coaches attached to it.

"It's not something you need names to do," Kennan said. "We are by definition a friend of the court, we're telling the court we're doing this because we'd like the strike to end. It was never a requirement to put names on it."

Kennan confirmed that the association filed an AMICUS on American Needle. He also said that his belief is 10 to 12 teams have cut salary/benefits of coaches already.

The trade association representing the coaches went on to say that its members are suffering irreparable harm as part the lockout, now in its third month.

The brief reads: "Coaches who cannot produce immediate results suffer irreparable harm. They must uproot their families to seek employment elsewhere, and they have difficulty overcoming the perception of failure. The hours and effort demanded of assistant coaches are justified only by the prospect of lucrative and stable employment that follows proven success. Failure at an early stage of one's career, however, can falter career aspirations for many subsequent years."

In particular, the brief cited the NFL's eight new head coaches -- two of whom were promoted from positions as interim coaches -- as being in a particularly precarious situation.

Of those eight, only John Fox has previously been an NFL head coach, something that was also raised in the brief.

"To me, it's simple: The league mandated new coaches get an extra minicamp, because they realize they need extra time to get everything taught," Kennan said. "This is not the NFL of 20 years ago, where coaches have five years to get the program up and running. They have two or three years max, and then they're fired."

Kennan acknowledges there will be some "mixed emotions" among coaches regarding the association's decision.

"Some coaches will get nervous about it, most of them will probably be on teams not having salaries and benefits cut," Kennan said. "And those who are having those things cut will probably be more for us than against us. The reason we formed the coaches association is so we could speak with one voice, and guys didn't have to do that themselves."

The brief reads: "The lockout, if left in force, will prevent the coaches from meaningfully preparing and readying themselves for the season. While all coaches will be exposed to greater risk of failure, the eight teams with new coaching staffs are at particular risk. Since unforgiving expectations for immediate results will persist regardless of any lack of opportunity to prepare, these eight coaching staffs are losing irreplaceable time to prepare for a job that demands success.

"Thus, a lockout that prevents coaches from preparing their players for the season will inflict irreparable harm on all coaches; coaches on the eight new staffs -- especially the new assistant coaches on those staffs -- will suffer even greater harm that will be even more impossible to repair."

The coaches' brief also included charts showing an uptick in coaches fired after two and three years in an effort to show how important a single year with players can be.

From a legal standpoint, the NFLCA used the irreparable harm argument, as well as its stance on the Sherman Act and also the Norris-LaGuardia Act, to seek protection for its members as "nonunion employees."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello released a statement making it clear the league wasn't caught off guard by the Coaches Association's stance.

"The Coaches Association offices with the Players Association in Washington. So this comes as no surprise."

Kennan made it clear coaches just want to get back on the field.

"We want to get back to coaching; If there's a normalcy to coaching, we'd like that to return."

 

[steelbtexan]

Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:

Yep

look at what has happened on his watch. He is ruining the game by changing the rules. His arrogance has greatly contributed to the current labor situation. He went around talking to the players about the pending lockout last TC. He couldn't even answer the players questions about what the owners wanted to avoid the lockout.

He's the most ineffective Comissioner in NFL history. But he still has managed to keep a significant amount of power. Instead of worrying about coming up with a solution to the lockout, he's more concerned about players hitting each other too hard. LOL This shows the fans where his heart is, and it sure isn't about what the majority of the fans want to see on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[DonnyMost]

Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:

The NFL commissioner has always basically been a tool for the owners to use in regards to labor relations and PR.

But yeah, he needs to shut up.

 

[drs23]

It appears that this would be basis upon the "revote" by the 3 justices for a "reversal."

Doc Jean, once again, thanks for posting a great read. I don't think this statement could be presented any better by any one. MSR

 

[Double Barrel]

The legal just got messier.

Thanks for another great article! Very interesting development, too. I never saw this one coming, and it appears neither did the NFL and owners.

This part made me laugh, though, for oh-so-obvious reasons around these parts:

"To me, it's simple: The league mandated new coaches get an extra minicamp, because they realize they need extra time to get everything taught," Kennan said. "This is not the NFL of 20 years ago, where coaches have five years to get the program up and running. They have two or three years max, and then they're fired."

"Modern NFL to Bob McNair, come in Bob McNair"

<silence>

 

[HoustonFrog]

Goodell is a tool, I'm convinced of it now:

Agree. I thought the guy was kind of cool at first with how he handled things but now you can see he just is in the pocket of owners and is clueless as to the repercussions of what is going on. I wish he would do one of those phone calls to a team's fans and they would go "Eff off, you are causing alot of this."

 

[IDEXAN]

If my understanding is accurate which is that all legal appeals ultimately go thru the 8th Circuit Court which we've learned is very pro business/Repub/owners, why do the owners have a problem ?
Why would they not basically be in a good position from their perspective
anyway ? I mean I don't think anybody thought this would be resolved this quick did they ?

 

[AcresHomesTexan]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791867.0.pdf

owner's reply to player (may 21) brief

 

[HoustonFrog]

Love this. I have said this all along...that the owners are full of it. I liked Brees before and I like him even more now. The guy is educated about what is out there and what the owners were doing long before this. I've heard some say this is classless but I think it is great

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../05/26/lockout/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

Saints quarterback Drew Brees ponders the timeline and presents a different starting point for the league's first work stoppage in 24 years. It is Aug. 20, 2008, the day longtime union leader Gene Upshaw died of pancreatic cancer. Few people knew about Upshaw's illness, and his passing created a temporary void within the Players Association.





"Ever since Gene Upshaw passed away -- I'm just going to lay it all out there -- the owners saw blood in the water," Brees said Wednesday after a players-organized workout at Tulane University. "They felt like, 'This is our opportunity to take a significant piece of the [financial] pie back at all costs, a piece that we will never have to give back again. This is our chance, while they don't have leadership, while they're scrambling to find a new executive director. This is our time.'

"I can point to about five different things to prove to you that they were ready to lock us out. They opted out of the last year of the [CBA] deal; they hired Bob Batterman [who oversaw a lockout of NHL players]. They tried to take the American Needle case to the Supreme Court to basically give them an antitrust exemption or single-entity status, but were defeated 9-0; they established new TV deals to pay them in the event of a lockout, but we were able to put a freeze on that money because they did not negotiate in good faith and broke the law. And they had an internal NFL document that was leaked -- a decision tree -- that said smack dab in the middle of it 'financial needs in a lockout.' That was in 2008, OK? So you're telling me that they had no plans to lock us out and really wanted to get a deal done? I don't think so."

"Their philosophy was, We're going to give you a very subpar deal, a slap-in-the-face deal, and hope that you'll accept it because hopefully we've intimidated you enough into thinking that this is a take-it-or-leave-it deal, and you're just going to succumb to the pressure," he said. "Well, guess what. We're a lot more informed and educated than in the past, and we're much better businessmen than you think and we're going to stand up for what is right and what is fair. Fifty-fifty is fair. It's been fair for the last 20 years and I think the game has done pretty well over the last 20 years. I think franchise values have gone up at a pretty good rate over the last 20 years. So you can't sit here and tell me that the system is broken."

 

[Double Barrel]

Love this. I have said this all along...that the owners are full of it. I liked Brees before and I like him even more now. The guy is educated about what is out there and what the owners were doing long before this. I've heard some say this is classless but I think it is great

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../05/26/lockout/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

After reading that very informative article, I don't know how any fan can be on the owners' side in this lock out. It is clear that the owners have been planning this for years, and they never had any intentions of getting a deal done. Owners are clearly willing to sacrifice football at the alter of their greed. Friggin' bourgeoisie jerkoffs.