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

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

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

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

I can't imagine many fans still remaining pro-owner if they did that either.
 
How is the NFL going to get out of all the current contracts they have (stadiums, TV, endorsements, players, personnel) and shut down? Not gonna happen.

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

I sure hope we get one of those expansion teams.
 
The UFL is about to get a big influx of talent, TV contracts, and sponsors.

I sure hope we get one of those expansion teams.

That would be nice as an extra option. However, my guess is that preferential to expansion would be a fanatic football fan city that would have no real options to their NFL team. We have high profile football at all levels........high school, college, and professional. Maybe, though, there may still be some room for desert.:thinking:
 
Isn't El Paso the largest city with no sports teams?

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

Hey, if that's what it'd take to wipe out the Cartels, then I'm for 1 game in Mexico City EVERY WEEK. :thisbig:
 
Will there be a ruling on the stay soon?

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

Watched PFT and Florio had NFL's Albert Breer on the other day and this was the same thing he said. I think at this point that's the likely outcome.
 
I can see the NFL hiring out a 1000 man Uzi-equipped security force with tanks and armed armoured helicopters for every game in order to engage the Mexican cartels. Maybe some official NFL gun vendors throughout the stadium. And the peanut man optionally throwing you a bag of 50 rounds of ammo for when you leave the stadium.:kubepalm::wadepalm:

It would be the OLD El Paso Cartel that owns the team. Guess what would be in the concession stand?
 
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

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

This particluar one is an interesting read, as it appears that the owners are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Logan Mankins complaint

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

Remember how Goodell and various owners have gone around trying to do PR on their side saying, "This will all get resolved at the negotiating table. We just want the players to negotiate, get a deal done, and see football this year"? Well, the NFL is using statements from NFLPA player reps who have since (the lockout began) reiterated their willingness to negotiate (albeit as a settlement to the lawsuit) as evidence the union de-certification is a sham.
 
If they haven't lifted the stay by now, then it isn't going to be lifted.

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

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

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

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

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

I would hope that the 8th Circuit can see the reasons why the owners need to lift the lockout. It OUGHT to be looked at from that standpoint, IMO, but then again I have seen a lot of squirrely thiings happen in this country with "leadership" seeking its own gain and profit rather than being a good steward of that which it was entrusted with.
 
Either way, the owners are at fault (IMO). They should make an offer, let the players make a counter-offer, and then perhaps tweak the counter-offer and ask the players to agree to the deal. Why is that so hard to do?

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

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

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

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

What happens if the lock goes on and the season gets cancelled? That would be almost 24 months of me acting like a good husband and father! What if I get hurt? Blow out a knee? Pull a hammy? What if, gasp, my family thinks I love them? What about me?
 
What makes you think that hasn't been done? There have been multiple reports of offers by the owners. No agreement does not equal no negotiation.



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


This is probably the one thing, more than any other aspect of law, that frustrates those who do not understand the system. Following the law is supposed to take the emotion out of decisions. Of course, there are some case study that is cited to support or counter conclusions which are not totally cut and dry. An that is when "bias" in interpretation may occur. It's not perfect, but it's still the best system out there..........even though it doesn't always produce the results we would "expect."
 
Well they just need to hurry up is all I know. We are getting dangerously close to me having to spend full quality time with my family in the fall.

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



I guess, you're screwed!:gun:
 
Well they just need to hurry up is all I know. We are getting dangerously close to me having to spend full quality time with my family in the fall.

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

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

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

Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, like when the Supreme Court gave the election to GW Bush. :kitten:
 
Well the way that is worded they can just ignore the motion for stay and leave the temporary stay in effect.

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

I'm wondering if Benton and Colloton tipped their hand.
 
Yeah, like when the Supreme Court gave the election to GW Bush. :kitten:
Except that all SCOTUS did in that case was to let existing Florida law prevail...big-time activism there. :sarcasm:


...as that applies to the current "lockout", I'd expect that existing case law supports the players, since the owners main argument is based around the contention that the de-certification was/is a sham, but the law doesn't really allow for that.
 
Last edited:
Except that they opted out of the CBA 2 years ago and everything worked fine in 2009 and 2010 and armageddon didn't happen.

However, the CBA that they opted out of still provided the structure for those two years. If anything, it provided more restrictions than would have been in place otherwise.
 
What makes you think that hasn't been done? There have been multiple reports of offers by the owners. No agreement does not equal no negotiation..

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

The players said they would not strike. The owners locked them out. Now tell me which side is extending the hand and which side is slapping it away?
 
An unfair, lopsided "offer" can be a non-offer. It can actually be used to cause the other party to bristle with contempt and drive a deeper wedge between the two entities.

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

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

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

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

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

I'd rule for the players.

Good for you. Classic results oriented decision making without having any idea what the law on the issues involved are. Perfect example of what my comment was about - folks calling judges activist when they don't like the result when really it is the citizens being activist.
 
However, the CBA that they opted out of still provided the structure for those two years. If anything, it provided more restrictions than would have been in place otherwise.

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

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

Regardless, given the amount of non-shared revenue we're talking about now compared to whenever the last games not under a CBA were played, I think we're dealing with a very different world.
 
Good for you. Classic results oriented decision making without having any idea what the law on the issues involved are. Perfect example of what my comment was about - folks calling judges activist when they don't like the result when really it is the citizens being activist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can't say who you think is more right or wrong?
 
You either have a personal opinion that the owners are wrong or the players are wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Marvez reports the players are seeking $707 million in TV money as well as unspecified damages.
 
AWESOME (imho) article on deadspin regarding the Pro-Owner "fanboys".

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

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

I hope they're planted by the league. I really do, though some polls suggest otherwise. Because if you are a real, living, breathing person and you're actually rooting for the league to continue to, you know, not playing, then you can go ****ing die. If you have a beef with the union breaking up and suing the NFL, then you're too stupid to understand that suing the league was essentially ALL the players could do, because for years now the owners have been hellbent on losing games in the 2011 season specifically to squeeze more money out of the players, as much as humanly possible. Many owners didn't bother to show up for the initial negotiating sessions in March. They want their lockout, and they're going to exhaust every shitty, awful option they can to make it happen. And they sure as **** don't care about your concerns in the process. You're the fan. You're just a ****ing sheep.
Linky
 
Right now fans have the NBA and NHL playoffs but once those are over and July rolls around that hunger for football will be there but the game might not be.
 
AWESOME (imho) article on deadspin regarding the Pro-Owner "fanboys".

Linky


This particular league concession proposal was evidently glossed over by the media in March. It certainly sounds like a game changer for many players.


Pash: Proposal to players offered unprecedented 90 percent of salary cap in cash

In an interview yesterday on Sirius NFL Radio with Tim Ryan and Pat Kirwan, NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash noted that the NFL clubs offered players an unprecedented guarantee – an average of 90 percent of the salary cap spent in cash over a three-year period.

“For the first time, we were going to have a cash minimum as opposed to just a cap minimum,” Pash said. “You understand what the difference means and of course so did the union, which is why they pushed for that. The 90 percent was an agreed upon figure and because of the way teams change over time, we all thought that you couldn’t do it year-by-year so we were doing it at on a three-year basis to allow for the fact that teams go through cycles. Everyone on both sides thought that was a sensible compromise. It would have done a lot.”

Noted Kirwan, a former NFL club executive, “I think that is going to help a lot of guys in the middle-income bracket.”

In previous seasons with a salary cap, there had never been a requirement that clubs had to spend a minimum amount of cash. The salary cap floor applied only to the salary cap - not cash spent – and thus included “dead money” including prorated money from bonuses paid in earlier years of player contracts and money that was accelerated from future years for players no longer with that club.

Under last week’s proposal, such “dead money” would not be counted in the minimum cash guarantee ensuring that actual cash would be paid to players each season.
 
This particular league concession proposal was evidently glossed over by the media in March. It certainly sounds like a game changer for many players.

I've no doubt that concessions were offered, potentially some that should have been considered more seriously by the NFLPA at the time. The kicker is that the league started talking lockout 2 years ago when they opted out of the CBA. The Jerry Joneses of the world didn't do rest of the NFL Owners any favors by his little macho performance during negotiations either.

At this point I just want both sides to work out how exactly that they're going to get rich together so we can get on with the NFL season.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top