All Encompassing Lockout Thread

[CloakNNNdagger]

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

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

 

[Allstar]

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

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

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

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

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

 

[XI CMURDER IX]

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

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

This is from what I understand of course!

 

[ChampionTexan]

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

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

This is from what I understand of course!

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

Per Fox News:

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

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

LINK

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Thanks for the clarification, guys.

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

"Absent a stay, there will be trades, player signings, players cut under existing contracts, and a host of other changes in employment relationships" between hundreds of players and the 32 NFL teams, the league's attorneys wrote.

link

 

[IDEXAN]

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

 

[Señor Stan]

All it is going to take is 1 of the last 2 judges to deny the stay and the lockout is over. If the one judge was unwilling to grant even a temporary stay, then he/she is guaranteed not to approve the full stay.

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

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Ruling on stay expected Wednesday or Thursday

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

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

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

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

 

[HOU-TEX]

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

 

[infantrycak]

I believe the loser can ask for another appeal with the entire court making the "final" final eight circuit decision.

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

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

This is from what I understand of course!

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

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

 

[XI CMURDER IX]

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

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

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

 

[GP]

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

I have a question.

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

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

 

[infantrycak]

I have a question.

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

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

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

 

[rmartin65]

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

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

 

[GP]

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

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

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

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

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

Am I right in this thinking?

 

[infantrycak]

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

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

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

 

[rmartin65]

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

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

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

 

[HoustonFrog]

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

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

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

 

[disaacks3]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[infantrycak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gotta go...may expound later.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Analyst: Court's response to NFL's expedited request not normal

By Gary Graves, USA TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rmartin65]

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

I think I am an addict...

 

[ChampionTexan]

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

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

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

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

From PFT

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

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

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

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

 

[gary]

If a judge decides to wait until June only to rule in favor of the owners then no season is very possible.

 

[Allstar]

From PFT

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

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

 

[disaacks3]

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

For this season only perhaps. The damage that can be done to their future earning potential, especially for those like Mario (in a "contract year") could be considered doing irreparable harm.

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

 

[DonnyMost]

If a judge decides to wait until June only to rule in favor of the owners then no season is very possible.

A ruling won't come until July.

Timeline will go like this:

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

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

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

 

[DonnyMost]

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

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

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

 

[infantrycak]

A question for you assuming the stay is lifted. Who/what would be agreeing on the players behalf?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[disaacks3]

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

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


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

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle. The Owners opted out of the CBA, how exactly can they claim harm from an action that THEY are responsible for? The opt-out was dependent on getting a new CBA done, and as Doty already pointed out, the Owners were acting in bad faith with their "partners" regarding the TV contract.

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

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

 

[DonnyMost]

OK, this just strikes me as a lame argument. Cushing won't earn less next year for not knowing the scheme. His contract dictates his price.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[infantrycak]

The Owners opted out of the CBA, how exactly can they claim harm from an action that THEY are responsible for?

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

 

[disaacks3]

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

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

 

[infantrycak]

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

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

 

[disaacks3]

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

Fair enough....didn't mean it to come across as an attack.

 

[Allstar]

Per Adam Shefter:

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

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

 

[rmartin65]

Per Adam Shefter:

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

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

Hope still exists...

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

 

[AcresHomesTexan]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

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

 

[AcresHomesTexan]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

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

Owners case

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

Player's case

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

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Forbes gets in on the act, reviewing the arguments and predicting the next happenings.

Courtroom Football: Where We Are, Where We’re Going

 

[GP]

...The issue of the stay is forward looking, not backwards.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Allstar]

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

Until a ruling is made, I don't think it matters one

I don't know about that, in the few hours the lockout was lifted, leach said his agent was getting phone calls. Also Andy Reid said multiple teams called about Kolb.

 

[GP]

I don't know about that, in the few hours the lockout was lifted, leach said his agent was getting phone calls. Also Andy Reid said multiple teams called about Kolb.

Hmmm....very interesting.

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

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

 

[infantrycak]

I don't know about that, in the few hours the lockout was lifted, leach said his agent was getting phone calls. Also Andy Reid said multiple teams called about Kolb.

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

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Still no news on league’s motion for stay

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

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

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

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

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

 

[b0ng]

Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout.

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

 

[drs23]

Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout.

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

 

[Lucky]

Owners thinking about closing the league if they lose decision on stay of the injunction to lift the lockout.

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