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

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

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:
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
 
I'm fairly certain GP could write 89 pages in about 3 days. This judge just needs to hire him as a ghostwriter...

:D
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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............


imagesCA1P7GGH.jpg


Um, sorry. Carry on..:hides:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Roger Goodell's response to Judge Nelson's ruling. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?mod=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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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_c...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_c...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.
 
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_c...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_c...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 **** 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.
 
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.
 
My question is if the lock out is over shouldn't we go ahead and sign Leach and Aso before the draft tomorrow?
 
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...
 
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.
 
Wasnt the judge suppose tO have the ruling by 9. What's going on I want foooooooooooooooooooooootttttttttttbbbbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaalllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Wasnt the judge suppose tO have the ruling by 9. What's going on I want foooooooooooooooooooooootttttttttttbbbbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaalllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.
 
Players Response To Stay Request by Owners

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.

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Breaking--Judge Nelson in NFL Lockout case: "Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED."
 
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.
 
: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.
 
Back
Top