Injunction Junction

[Smidgeon]

If I remember correctly, Judge Nelson will rule today whether or not the lockout is legal. Along with that, I hear there's the possibility that she may require the lockout to be lifted immediately even through the appeals process (which I don't know if I misread that or not since I would think that an appeal would supercede her mandate--but I don't know law well, so anyone else chime in...).

If free agency begins immediately (which could be tomorrow or could be delayed to next Monday on request due to the draft), the landscape is going to get really busy, really fast. It could be fascinating.

Unless, of course, I misinterpreted something somewhere. Then it wouldn't be quite as interesting...

[Lurker64]

Most likely: Nelson issues an injunction lifting the lockout, but agrees to stay the injunction pending appeal. So the lockout won't actually end until there's a deal, or the Appellate court looks at it, probably in June at the earliest.

The NFL's case for getting a stay on the ruling is very, very strong since if the Appellate Court were to overrule Nelson, but the Lockout was already lifted... then resuming the lockout after a brief hiatus would be worse for everybody.

[Smidgeon]

Most likely: Nelson issues an injunction lifting the lockout, but agrees to stay the injunction pending appeal. So the lockout won't actually end until there's a deal, or the Appellate court looks at it, probably in June at the earliest.

The NFL's case for getting a stay on the ruling is very, very strong since if the Appellate Court were to overrule Nelson, but the Lockout was already lifted... then resuming the lockout after a brief hiatus would be worse for everybody.

That's why I started questioning it mid-typing and added the parenthetical comments. But what if that did happen? You'd get free agency done, signing bonuses paid, draft picks through a quick minicamp, etc, then a shutdown. It would give the players more to stave off a lockout with more money in their pockets and would give teams some preparation. It would almost undo the lockout up until this point. It would be horrible for the owners, but I think it would be hugely beneficial to the players...

[Lurker64]

It would give the players more to stave off a lockout with more money in their pockets

Only the guys who sign FA contracts, which would be a relatively small percentage of players. Everybody else doesn't get paid in the offseason anyway.

But anyway, we're much more likely to miss parts of the season if the lockout goes away then resumes in July, than if the lockout persists and we find out it's not going to end in July.

[bobblehead]

I don't see how winning the lockout issue is good. There is effectively no collective bargaining agreement so there is no minimum salary or any rules for that matter. What would stop team A from refusing to pay more than 50k a year to anyone? We need rules that force owners to compete as well.

This just goes back to what I keep saying about the NFL as a whole being the "corporation" and the franchises operating within those rules for a good product. Without any rules of operation the product could really suffer and EVERYONE will ultimately lose money except the owners who refuse to put a decent product out and keep costs to a minimum.

Am I wrong on this? The players decertified so they could get the lockout lifted, but this would effectively mean there are no rules to protect the players either. Only the rules the NFL chooses to put on itself.

[Lurker64]

Well, the players decertified first and foremost to end the lockout. But the secondary part of the strategy is that the players can now file suit under antitrust law and threaten to eliminate things like "the draft" and "free agency restrictions" as leverage points to try to force the league to give the players what they want for fear of having the basic framework of the game destroyed. NFLPA lead counsel Jeffrey Kessler is actually on record as saying that there should neither be a draft nor any free agency restrictions whatsoever.

This, in the end, will end up hurting dramatically the majority of players Kessler supposedly represents as middle-tier and lower-tier players would see their salaries drop dramatically and their careers shortened as teams necessarily treat them as fungible in order to keep costs low so as to afford their actual superstars. But considering that none of these players are names plaintiffs in Brady et. al. vs. NFL they don't honestly have a seat at the decision-making table now so they may just end up getting screwed by the leadership of their former union.

[Guiness]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that mentally added "what's your function" when I read the topic of this thread.

[Tarlam!]

I enjoy lots of sports - hocky, baseball, soccer, rugy, cricket, heck, even chess! The main reason I follow the NFL so staunchly is because of the parity of the league. A club can go from last to first in a few years. In sports like soccer here in Europe, the rich clubs keep getting richer and parity is a myth.

If they take away the draft and the free agency rules my guess is that revenue sharing will be next. Then it is a free fall for many clubs and probably a dagger for more than just a few.

Do the players not know this??

[Smidgeon]

I don't see how winning the lockout issue is good. There is effectively no collective bargaining agreement so there is no minimum salary or any rules for that matter. What would stop team A from refusing to pay more than 50k a year to anyone? We need rules that force owners to compete as well.

This just goes back to what I keep saying about the NFL as a whole being the "corporation" and the franchises operating within those rules for a good product. Without any rules of operation the product could really suffer and EVERYONE will ultimately lose money except the owners who refuse to put a decent product out and keep costs to a minimum.

Am I wrong on this? The players decertified so they could get the lockout lifted, but this would effectively mean there are no rules to protect the players either. Only the rules the NFL chooses to put on itself.

I think the common belief is that the league would apply the most recent year's rules for the go-forward environment until a new deal is negotiated. Then they'd be sued under anti-trust laws, yada, yada, yada.

[Lurker64]

Do the players not know this??

The sense I get is that the players' representation knows this, and they just don't care. They want to justify their paychecks by the players by claiming that they did everything in their power to ensure that they got the players the best deal possible whether or not that deal ultimately destroys the league. The people who pay their paychecks won't be around that long, and the incoming group can be convinced that the problems are somebody else's fault.

The players just don't know what it is that their representation is doing.

[Guiness]

I enjoy lots of sports - hocky, baseball, soccer, rugy, cricket, heck, even chess! The main reason I follow the NFL so staunchly is because of the parity of the league. A club can go from last to first in a few years. In sports like soccer here in Europe, the rich clubs keep getting richer and parity is a myth.

If they take away the draft and the free agency rules my guess is that revenue sharing will be next. Then it is a free fall for many clubs and probably a dagger for more than just a few.

Do the players not know this??

Do they even think about it? For most players, it's about their own well-being. Long term growth and health of the league...not so much. We hear so much about the short lifespan of an NFL career - there was something here just the other day about the average OL lasting 3 years - the players almost by definition have no concern about the viability of the league going forward.

A lot of owners barely think about this. How can you expect the players to? Rozelle, over the years, dragged many of the owners to buy into 'league think'. Al Davis...never quite came around.

[Smidgeon]

Lockout lifted: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/25/report-judge-nelson-lifts-lockout/

Still a few scenarios of when there will be football:

1) If both Judge Nelson and appeals court block a stay, doors open very soon
2) If either Judge Nelson or appeals court grants a stay, doors stay closed until appeal

[Tarlam!]

Judge Nelson rules for players, lockout to be lifted
NFL.com

Judge Susan Nelson Monday granted the plaintiffs' request for an injunction to lift the NFL lockout.

But perhaps the biggest development is that Nelson has decided not to stay the decision, which could force the league to open for business immediately. The NFL now must seek a stay with the Eighth Circuit, where the appeal would be heard, in order to prevent a potentially chaotic beginning to the 2011 league year.

Nelson's decision in the Brady et al v. National Football League et al case comes on the heels of the mediation she appointed going into a nearly-month long recess, with U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan making the decision last Wednesday to adjourn the session until May 16.

The league will likely appeal Nelson's decision swiftly, wanting to avoid the beginning of free agency and offseason programs with the potential that, if the Eighth Circuit rules in its favor, the lockout could be reinstituted in the coming weeks or months.

[Lurker64]

The league can't open its doors until rules for the next season are put into place (odds are the 2010 rules). In the meantime, the 8th Circuit court of appeals will likely issue a stay on Nelson's order.

[swede]

This twist leaves me not understanding what the hell is going on out there.

How does a union which is not a union remain represented by its union leaders and force the owners to treat them as if they are not a union?

[Jimx29]

This twist leaves me not understanding what the hell is going on out there.

How does a union which is not a union remain represented by its union leaders and force the owners to treat them as if they are not a union?
^what he said^

[swede]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_NFL_LABOR?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT




The plaintiffs "have made a strong showing that allowing the League to continue their 'lockout' is presently inflicting, and will continue to inflict, irreparable harm upon them, particularly when weighed against the lack of any real injury that would be imposed on the NFL by issuing the preliminary injunction," Nelson wrote.

Seriously...how the FUCK do these retarded men and women become judges in the first place?

Her legal reason for finding for the players is that the lockout hurts their careers? Would someone please slap her with her bogus law degree and explain to her that--ostensibly--judges are supposed to find LEGAL grounds for making decisions, not listen to sympathetic vibrations emanating from the oracle in Sonia Sotomayor's uterus.

[Lurker64]

The more competent judges move up the ladder through their careers. So the Appeals courts judges are generally noticeably more competent than the people who are beneath them on the totem pole. So that bodes well for the NFL in Round 2.

[red]

i got a question

in the starcaps and that american needle case it was determined that there are 32 seperate entities not just one giant league controlling everything, right?

could the packers then just say, "fuck the rest of the league", go out and break the lockout, sign whoever wants to get paid now, and start offseason workouts with our players

for one, we are the one team in the NFL without a greedy owner trying to maximize his profits. we are also the only team that gave the players what they wanted and opened our books so the whole world could see where the money goes, if every other team would have done this, there would be a new cba by now.

obviously it would benefit the packers to have a cba, but the green bay packers are really getting screwed by the other 31 teams in this whole situation

could we "cross the picket line" and do this?

[red]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_NFL_LABOR?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT






Seriously...how the FUCK do these retarded men and women become judges in the first place?

Her legal reason for finding for the players is that the lockout hurts their careers? Would someone please slap her with her bogus law degree and explain to her that--ostensibly--judges are supposed to find LEGAL grounds for making decisions, not listen to sympathetic vibrations emanating from the oracle in Sonia Sotomayor's uterus.

i read something the other day that really made a lot of sense. minnesota and their laws are really screwing the nfl right now and has become a massive headache for the league. i bet theres a pretty good chance that the league would love to get the hell out of minnesota so they never have to deal with this shit again.

there could be a damn big push to move the vikings, new stadium or not

[KYPack]

Red, there is a school of thought that thinks the NFL based their strategy largely on losing before Nelson. The league plans on focusing (well they better now) their strategy on the appeal. That would take it to another court and be more favorable to the league than the wackier Minny court.

As far as your 'going rogue' idea. Who would we play?

[SkinBasket]

Seriously...how the FUCK do these retarded men and women become judges in the first place?

Seriously, when was the last time the courts in this nation were beholden to "law?"

The judiciary is a liberal playground, especially in matters of employment law, because "conservative" judges feel bound by law and the constitution and whatnot. Liberal, and progressive judges, essential make the rules as they go. Gives the liberal, progressive, labor movement a very very large advantage in the courts these days when one side plays by the rules and the other side doesn't even know what a rule is.

[RashanGary]

Is the players rush to get the court process started starting to make a little more sense to you, skinbasket, or do you still think they're a bunch of dummies out screwing themselves just to show us all how stupid they are?

[swede]

Personally, I think the owners should cash in the whole fucking deal and let the players start their own league, see how it goes. Unless the judge in Minnesota thinks that the league is obligated to continue with no control of its venture paying the players whatever they choose to be paid.

The Boys and Girls Club of Green Bay would get a lot of athletic equipment.

[RashanGary]

Give up the publicly funded stadiums and I think they'd have a nice go of it.

[RashanGary]

I wouldn't mind if the communities each team is in purchased the stadiums with tax dollars and they had 32 Green Bay Packers. They could pay back the tax dollars with the 9 billion dollar profits. I'd be fine getting rid of those owners.

[swede]

I wouldn't mind if the communities each team is in purchased the stadiums with tax dollars...

Some statements just stand on their own.

[RashanGary]

32 Green Bay Packers would be fine with me.

[red]

Red, there is a school of thought that thinks the NFL based their strategy largely on losing before Nelson. The league plans on focusing (well they better now) their strategy on the appeal. That would take it to another court and be more favorable to the league than the wackier Minny court.

As far as your 'going rogue' idea. Who would we play?

i like JH's idea, about cities taking over their stadiums.

i'll take it one step further.

lets say the lockout is about to wipe out the full season. i new league forms, maybe the cities own the teams, maybe its other private owners. they play in the same stadiums but with different team names. you maybe hold an ultimate draft type deal where every player is up for grabs, the players can play if they want, or they can sit around and see if the nfl returns, my guess is many would play. maybe abc and tnt give up some big money to televise these games

current owners would be shit out of luck, new owners or cities would reap the rewards, and the fans would be happy watching pro football

[Lurker64]

All I really want is for the current NFL to persist, the full season to be played, for the draft to continue in perpetuity, for there to be a salary cap and a floor, and for reasonable free agency restrictions (RFAs for years 3 & 4, and the franchise tag, say), and for there to be a rookie wage scale. Why is that too much to ask?

[RashanGary]

All I really want is for the current NFL to persist, the full season to be played, for the draft to continue in perpetuity, for there to be a salary cap and a floor, and for reasonable free agency restrictions (RFAs for years 3 & 4, and the franchise tag, say), and for there to be a rookie wage scale. Why is that too much to ask?

That's what you're going to get. Swede and skinbasket are just pissed that we're not living in the old confederacy any more so they're throwing out silly, "oh just blow it all up" comments because a judge ruled in favor of some workers rather than owners. Football will go on. They'll open the books and the owners will still make billions while still using publicly funded tax dollars to build their stadiums. Nobody is going broke here. This thing is going to get settled and both sides will know what the pie looks like before they settle it so it will be nice and fair. I have less than zero concern about football. It's a 9 billion dollar per year profit industry. They'll be all pissy, but they'll come around.

[MJZiggy]

All I really want is for the current NFL to persist, the full season to be played, for the draft to continue in perpetuity, for there to be a salary cap and a floor, and for reasonable free agency restrictions (RFAs for years 3 & 4, and the franchise tag, say), and for there to be a rookie wage scale. Why is that too much to ask?

In other words, you'd like them to take their collective heads out of their collective asses?

[Lurker64]

That's what you're going to get. Swede and skinbasket are just pissed that we're not living in the old confederacy any more so they're throwing out silly, "oh just blow it all up" comments because a judge ruled in favor of some workers rather than owners. Football will go on. They'll open the books and the owners will still make billions while still using publicly funded tax dollars to build their stadiums. Nobody is going broke here. This thing is going to get settled and both sides will know what the pie looks like before they settle it so it will be nice and fair. I have less than zero concern about football. It's a 9 billion dollar per year profit industry. They'll be all pissy, but they'll come around.

NFLPA lead counsel Jeff Kessler wants to eliminate the salary cap, salary floor, draft, and all free agency restrictions. He is a bad person and I do not want him to get what he wants.


In other words, you'd like them to take their collective heads out of their collective asses?

I thought about appending "and for the two sides to remove their collective heads from their collective asses" but then figured that might be asking for too much. They can keep their heads where they like if I can have the entire aforementioned list.

[VermontPackFan]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_NFL_LABOR?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"emanating from the oracle in Sonia Sotomayor's uterus"


love it...lol.

[SkinBasket]

Is the players rush to get the court process started starting to make a little more sense to you, skinbasket, or do you still think they're a bunch of dummies out screwing themselves just to show us all how stupid they are?

So, by the same token, you admit the players never wanted to negotiate in good faith and the NLRB should find in favor of the owners?

A predictable decision with no legal backing by a judge that favors labor doesn't make the players' move any smarter. It's a gamble where the pay-off may be just as destructive to the league, and their careers, than anything the owners could cook up. Typical union thinking, though. Better to sink the ship at sea than have to swab the deck for less than $45 an hour.

As I've said before, the judiciary is packed to the brim with pro-labor judges, and given the current political situation this nation finds itself in, this is the best time for the players to attempt to gain leverage through a government that believes in unlimited power, unrestrained unaccountability, and a blatant disregard for the law in the name of political objectives. Winning doesn't always make you right. Hell, winning doesn't always make you a winner, even if you claim victory. Just ask "Judge" Kloppenburg.

[mraynrand]

I don't understand the process here. The NFL locked out union players. The union dissolved. Thus, there is no entity that is being locked out. How can the judge lift a lockout that no longer technically applies. Since players are now individually hired by teams, cannot teams decide whether or not to allow them on the premises? Without firing them? Even if you remain hired, your boss can tell you to stay home? How can the judge end this type of 'lockout.' It would seem then that there would be thousands upon thousands of workers similarly locked out across the country.

And about irreparable harm: Is not the arena league currently playing? I would imaging most NFL players could easily find work for one of these teams, at a top league salary. Would improve the prestige of the league and improve their pay I'm sure.

[Bossman641]

Demaurice smith and nfl rep jeff pash (?) both called into mike and mike this morning. Their time was short but smith sounded like a real smug sonofabitch.

[RashanGary]

So, by the same token, you admit the players never wanted to negotiate in good faith and the NLRB should find in favor of the owners?


If negotiating in good faith means taking whatever the owners offer with nothing more than a hand shake and a "we're telling you the truth this time, we promise", then no, they never intended to take that. The courts will open the books. The owners will look sleezy in the courts eyes by the stuff they're doing behind partial audits and things will go according to DeMaurices plan.


A predictable decision with no legal backing by a judge that favors labor doesn't make the players' move any smarter. It's a gamble where the pay-off may be just as destructive to the league, and their careers, than anything the owners could cook up. Typical union thinking, though. Better to sink the ship at sea than have to swab the deck for less than $45 an hour.

Nobody's ship is sinking in any sea. If the owners don't like the new deal, sell their franchises. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing them to own an NFL team. They won't sell because they're making a fortune doing something very fun. Quit with the drama, nobody's going broke here.

[RashanGary]

Demaurice smith and nfl rep jeff pash (?) both called into mike and mike this morning. Their time was short but smith sounded like a real smug sonofabitch.

He's going up against some of the most shrewd, ruthless businessmen in our country. He damn well better have some confidence and conviction along with his education and negotiating skills. Without it, he'd get eaten alive.

[RashanGary]

The players are offering up their preferred avenue of negotiation. Why don't the owners just show good faith and negotiate on the players terms? Lift the silly lockout. Go back to last years rules and go with the court assisted negotiation. Why are these guys being so unreasonable about this negotiation? The owners don't want to get a deal done. The players have the table all set, all they need is for teh other side to sit down and start working out the deal.


Isn't that funny how one silly little detail like financial transparency can make such a difference in who's willing to sit an talk?

So do you side with the people who will exhaust all resources hiding the truth or the people who will exhaust all resources finding it? That's the core issue here. That's why the owners are all of a sudden so unwilling to sit down and talk and why the players weren't willing before.

Through all the legal hoops and business mumbo jumbo, this is actually very simple.

Financial honesty.

I'll bet the deals done within 2 months of it being provided. You wanna take that bet, skin?

[Zool]

Nobody's ship is sinking in any sea. If the owners don't like the new deal, sell their franchises. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing them to own an NFL team. They won't sell because they're making a fortune doing something very fun. Quit with the drama, nobody's going broke here.

I guess the players could just give up playing football and go get a different job. No one is holding them to it.

[Tarlam!]

I think the owners should have shared information as a matter of good business practice. It would have avoided so much stress. It would have been a catalyst for trustful talks. Transparency is a good thing. Heavens, public companies do it as a matter of law all the time. The Packers do it, every year.

Now that the players have publicly, loudly and unconditionally demanded it as the only possible platform by which to negotiate "fairly", it's obvious that the owners will fight it tooth and nail in an attempt to show them who's boss!! Neither want to "lose face". They're like a bunch of chinese!!

I don't see a détente any time soon. And I am in fear of losing the parity.

[RashanGary]

I guess the players could just give up playing football and go get a different job. No one is holding them to it.

If the courts rule against them, they'll have to take whatevers offered or leave. If not, well, they don't have to worry about that. The owners do.

[sharpe1027]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_NFL_LABOR?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT





Seriously...how the FUCK do these retarded men and women become judges in the first place?

Her legal reason for finding for the players is that the lockout hurts their careers? Would someone please slap her with her bogus law degree and explain to her that--ostensibly--judges are supposed to find LEGAL grounds for making decisions, not listen to sympathetic vibrations emanating from the oracle in Sonia Sotomayor's uterus.

What if the law states that the legal decision is based upon whether or not there is irreparable harm? Is this judge still an idiot for following the law?

"To justify an injunction on the lockout, the Plaintiffs had to show irreparable harm had it stayed in place. This is the type of harm which cannot be tied to a particular dollar amount."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-players-show-irreparable-harm-preliminary-injunction-on-lockout-is-granted-2011-4

[Bossman641]

"We're all for anything that allows the players to realize their maximum potential on the free-agent market. The league has grown exponentially based on the rules that have been in place over the years, but a lot of the rules that have taken place have been very restrictive on the players," Mawae said.

As an example of the restrictions on players, Mawae cited the NFL draft, which this year takes place Thursday through Saturday.

"These young players coming up have no choice on what team they can go to," he said. "If indeed there was a true free-agent market, they could go out there and market themselves to any team they want to go to and choose who they want to play for instead of being told what team they're going to go play for for the next three to five years depending on what happens with the contract length."

When asked if the NFLPA wants to see the draft abolished, Mawae said: "I'm saying potentially if there is no draft then every kid coming out of college has the potential to negotiate a contract with any team he wants to negotiate with."

Would that be good for the league?

"It could be, it could not be," he said. "We don't know, we've never had a system where there is no draft."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there it is, what the players truly want. This isn't about financial transparency or open books. It is about changing the landscape of the draft and free agency.

How can anyone back the players when this is what they want the league to become. The players want to turn the NFL into MLB.

[Lurker64]

I hate anybody who wants to take the draft away from me. Those people are bad people.

[Zool]

Eliminating the draft would be akin to LBJ and Bosh going to Miami. Players would figure out where they can make the most money and go to that team. Parity will be destroyed and the NFL will take a huge dive. Lets just eliminate the salary cap while we're at it.

[Scott Campbell]

If they manage to royally fuck up the NFL that bad, I'm throwing my allegiance to the New Mexico Dragons.

[Tarlam!]

I hate anybody who wants to take the draft away from me. Those people are bad people.


"It could be, it could not be," he said. "We don't know, we've never had a system where there is no draft."

I miss the days of Upshaw and Tagliabue.

And somebody should tell that Mawae guy that there, in fact, was a system without the draft. That system was on life support. There was a reason why the draft was deemed necessary. Even the initial rules of the draft (lottery) was only a band aide. What an idiot!

[Tarlam!]

Lets just eliminate the salary cap while we're at it.

And revenue sharing!! Get rid of it! So what if the league is reduced to 16 teams!

[swede]

And revenue sharing!! Get rid of it! So what if the league is reduced to 16 teams!

Sixteen teams with community owned stadiums paying the players whatever they want so they don't get irreparably harmed by those annoying owners.

[RashanGary]

I hate anybody who wants to take the draft away from me. Those people are bad people.

Agreed. All sports have drafts. That's just stupid.

[RashanGary]

I hope it's a negotiating ploy and not real. What a shit hole the NFL would be if they changed some of these things.

[mraynrand]

What if the law states that the legal decision is based upon whether or not there is irreparable harm? Is this judge still an idiot for following the law?

"To justify an injunction on the lockout, the Plaintiffs had to show irreparable harm had it stayed in place. This is the type of harm which cannot be tied to a particular dollar amount."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-players-show-irreparable-harm-preliminary-injunction-on-lockout-is-granted-2011-4

"From here on, you know what Judge Nelson is going to say. Since the players were technically not unionized when the NFL decided to lock out the players, it was technically not a justifiable lockout. Read on and you will understand that Judge Nelson did not believe the decertification of the NFLPA as a union to be any sort of sham."

The decertification wasn't a sham? Then why is the head of the NFLPA still talking as though he's representing the players? Hmmmm.....

[mraynrand]

"These young players coming up have no choice on what team they can go to," he said. "If indeed there was a true free-agent market, they could go out there and market themselves to any team they want to go to and choose who they want to play for instead of being told what team they're going to go play for for the next three to five years depending on what happens with the contract length."


There are plenty of Arena league teams that would take these guys

[get louder at lambeau]

The courts will open the books.

I don't think the players have even asked the courts to force the NFL to open their books. The NFLPA asked the owners to open their books, but not the courts. Or did I miss that?

[RashanGary]

This had better be a ploy.

[RashanGary]

I don't think the players have even asked the courts to force the NFL to open their books. The NFLPA asked the owners to open their books, but not the courts. Or did I miss that?

That's what happned in 1992 or whenever the last one was. They opened the books after the court made them.

[mraynrand]

I don't think the players have even asked the courts to force the NFL to open their books. The NFLPA asked the owners to open their books, but not the courts. Or did I miss that?

Don't we know what the revenues are? Don't we know that the players have consistently been getting 1/2 of revenues? Why do the owners need to open their books? We know what happened - there was an economic downturn and owners - specifically those who invested heavily in their teams - were taking it in the ass, while the cheapskates were getting free cable TV from their unwilling roommates. The players wanted more, and the owners who were shelling out more wanted more. Fortunately for the players, they have a judge who thinks the union decertification is legit. I would like to sell her the I35 bridge.

[Bossman641]

I hope it's a negotiating ploy and not real. What a shit hole the NFL would be if they changed some of these things.

I considered that as well, but then wondered why. Both sides have done their best to win the court of public opinion. Saying something like this does the players no favors. This is an idea that I'm guessing the vast majority of fans would be against.

Also, consider the source. Kevin Mawae is the NFLPA PRESIDENT!!! This isn't AP running his mouth about players being slaves. You would think if anyone knows what is going on, it would be the NFLPA President.

Be careful what you wish for JH. You've been dancing around with glee as the players decertified and then won the court ruling, even as many posters wondered what the true goal of the players was with their continued refusal to work with the owners.

The last thing the NFL needs to do is get rid of the draft, free agency, revenue-sharing, etc.

[get louder at lambeau]

That's what happned in 1992 or whenever the last one was. They opened the books after the court made them.

Do you have any links that talk about that? I don't know much about the Reggie White case. I'm not sure how similar it is or isn't to today's lockout case.

[Tarlam!]

This had better be a ploy.

You sound uncertain. That's actually pretty funny.

[get louder at lambeau]

The players are offering up their preferred avenue of negotiation. Why don't the owners just show good faith and negotiate on the players terms?

You could just as easily say it the other way, and the only thing that changes is your personal bias-
"The owners are offering up their preferred avenue of negotiation. Why don't the players just show good faith and negotiate on the owners terms?"

[sharpe1027]

"From here on, you know what Judge Nelson is going to say. Since the players were technically not unionized when the NFL decided to lock out the players, it was technically not a justifiable lockout. Read on and you will understand that Judge Nelson did not believe the decertification of the NFLPA as a union to be any sort of sham."

The decertification wasn't a sham? Then why is the head of the NFLPA still talking as though he's representing the players? Hmmmm.....

Maybe he hasn't read the memo.

[Patler]

"We're all for anything that allows the players to realize their maximum potential on the free-agent market. The league has grown exponentially based on the rules that have been in place over the years, but a lot of the rules that have taken place have been very restrictive on the players," Mawae said.

As an example of the restrictions on players, Mawae cited the NFL draft, which this year takes place Thursday through Saturday.

"These young players coming up have no choice on what team they can go to," he said. "If indeed there was a true free-agent market, they could go out there and market themselves to any team they want to go to and choose who they want to play for instead of being told what team they're going to go play for for the next three to five years depending on what happens with the contract length."

When asked if the NFLPA wants to see the draft abolished, Mawae said: "I'm saying potentially if there is no draft then every kid coming out of college has the potential to negotiate a contract with any team he wants to negotiate with."

Would that be good for the league?

"It could be, it could not be," he said. "We don't know, we've never had a system where there is no draft."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there it is, what the players truly want. This isn't about financial transparency or open books. It is about changing the landscape of the draft and free agency.

How can anyone back the players when this is what they want the league to become. The players want to turn the NFL into MLB.


I hope it's a negotiating ploy and not real. What a shit hole the NFL would be if they changed some of these things.


This had better be a ploy.

Of course its a ploy. Why would the veteran players go through all this for the sake of giving more initial freedom to guys who have never and may never play in the league? The NFLPA probably cares even less about the interests of college players entering the league than it does for the long-retired players.

I have argued for weeks that the NFLPA has an objective other than getting a closer look at the owners books. I would now say they have an objective other than eliminating the draft. Their likely objective(s)? One or more of the following:

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

[KYPack]

OK sports fans, this is it.

Take P's last four lines and chip 'em in granite....

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

That's what the players are trying to do.

Since the monster money came into the game, that's the logical move.

You don't like the players making big money? You don't like the owners? You don't like unions? It don't matter. That's the players objective and they are gonna use the legal system to try and get their goal.

This whole deal is gonna suck, but that's what's going on.

[SkinBasket]

If negotiating in good faith means taking whatever the owners offer with nothing more than a hand shake and a "we're telling you the truth this time, we promise", then no, they never intended to take that. The courts will open the books. The owners will look sleezy in the courts eyes by the stuff they're doing behind partial audits and things will go according to DeMaurices plan.

You have a poor understanding of "good faith."




Nobody's ship is sinking in any sea. If the owners don't like the new deal, sell their franchises. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing them to own an NFL team. They won't sell because they're making a fortune doing something very fun. Quit with the drama, nobody's going broke here.

I guess we'll just rename it the Communist Football Cooperative then. Your understanding of "ownership" might just be even more retarded than your understanding of "good faith."

[RashanGary]

Patler,

Eliminating the salary cap seems like the most obvious one, or greatly increasing the revenue sharing and increasing the pot that way. The ultimate goal is money, obviously.

I'd argue eliminating the salary cap, while it may help the players slightly for a decade or two, it would really dwindle as teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay (two teams with huge fan bases that feed the pot) start losing interest. The way to get more pie, the plain and easy way for everyone to get more pie, is to bake a bigger pie. Parity grows the league.

If skinbasket's distaste for these guys is based on that, I see where you guys are coming from. They really might be out to destroy the league.

Or maybe the owners of the biggest markets are hoarding a butt load of cash and they're trying to open up some more sharing and keeping a cap, I don't know.

Time will tell, I'm kind of disappointed they came out with this stinky shit pile of an idea. The owners had a very (make a bigger pie) plan and the players are countering with, (yeah, and we'll take a big stinky shit in it and the courts will wipe our butts) reply. Not good.

[RashanGary]

I guess we'll just rename it the Communist Football Cooperative then. Your understanding of "ownership" might just be even more retarded than your understanding of "good faith."

You're kind of missing the point, those are the choices the owners might have here, today. My idea of ownership is pretty much in line with what is happening. The owners are getting controlled by the courts. Fact.

Maybe you're clinging on to an ideal that isn't really in line with how our labor laws are enforced today.

[RashanGary]

If it were me, I'd eliminate all labor laws. The 10% of our country that doesn't work could bunk up in slave quarters and work the fields during day for food, shelter and $0.50/hour. We can bring them over from Africa or let them in from Mexico if we run out of labor. Those idiots should have planned their life out a little better if they didn't want to become slaves. Pfft. . . dirt of society.

Imagine what that could do for our exports. We could produce food, cars, electronics, textiles even, not to mention tobacco and mine our resources for cheap. Instead of having environment laws, we could pump it into our rivers and lakes. That's cheap as fuck, why did the government ever get in teh way of that. We'd be back to dominating the world. Imagine, the beautiful world it would be. Almost no middle class, but that's beside the point. And if you think were' going to supply any type of health care for these scum bags, hahaha. that's a funny joke. That would drive up the cost of our exports and prevent the 1% filthy freakin rich from getting filthy frickin richer. As far as motivation, the 90% poor can look to the 1% rich and have something to strive for, the American dream. That wealth gap is like a carrot dangling in from of their stupid little mouths. They can't help but chase it.

10% of our country would have the best healthcare in the world. The other 90%, none. Reject them at the door. Their stupid choices earned them what they're getting, even if it is a slow painful death when all they needed was some penacilin.

Oh what a beatiful place the lawless America would be.


But what am I saying, god and everyone else knows that if there are no labor laws, the good people would never employ slave labor or allow for the elimination of the middle class. That's never happened before. Well, if it has, we're so much more sophisticated now. Nothing bad happens in the new world. Laws really do nothing. They have nothing to do with the thriving system we have today. The system, in fact, is thriving despite them even though it's never thrived without them, but that's beside the point.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe you're clinging on to an ideal

Believing in the principles and laws that founded this nation isn't exactly "clinging to an ideal."

[Guiness]

That's what happned in 1992 or whenever the last one was. They opened the books after the court made them.

1982, following the 57-day strike, two strikes ago. I've posted about it a few times, there was a fair amount of fall-out from the book opening. The next strike was 87, after a five year agreement signed in '82 expired.


Do you have any links that talk about that? I don't know much about the Reggie White case. I'm not sure how similar it is or isn't to today's lockout case.

The Reggie White affair didn't resolve directly around a strike, but was, in a way, a long delayed knock-on effect from the '87 strike. Do you remember 'Plan B Free Agency;?

[Lurker64]

If you eliminate the salary cap, you also eliminate the salary floor. The salary floor is what the union should be fighting for, since it's the salary floor that actually helps the vast majority of their membership. Correspondingly, eliminating the cap only helps the top 5% at best of players, and probably ultimately hurts the bottom 95% of players. In fact Kessler's strategy of eliminating the draft and all free agency restrictions seems optimized to help the superstars at the expense of the rank and file. Since without franchise tags, free agency restrictions, and a salary cap you will have the prices of true superstars going up and up and up, so teams (whose expenses are limited by their revenue plus their owner's largesse) will have to cut costs by treating every middle to bottom of the roster players as fungible.

In fact, in Kessler's world there is no minimum salary, and no rules to which college (or high school) players can be signed as free agents (and when). So if you can't convince a third year veteran to run down and cover kicks for $30,000 a year, you can find some college sophomore who will jump ship in the middle of the college football season to do so.

So what you get is Peyton Manning making $40m/year and longsnappers making $25k.

This is bad for the owners, bad for the fans, and bad for the vast majority of the union. I certainly hope the rank and file can hold their leadership in check, since not only would Kessler's world ruin the NFL it would ruin college football as well. Jeffrey Kessler is waging war, not just against the NFL, but against football.

[RashanGary]

Believing in the principles and laws that founded this nation isn't exactly "clinging to an ideal."

Well, they're stomping all over the principals and laws you believe in. To your original claim that I don't understand the definition of ownership, maybe I understand perfectly well how it works. Mabye you don't understand the definition that's actually being used today.


skinbasket "Bahaha. . . The courts can't interfere with what an employer pays it's employees. You don't understand ownership. "

JH "Uh, they just did. Ownership isn't in complete control anymore. If the owners don't like it, they can sell."

In full context, it's not quite as crazy as it sounded at first blush, I reckon. Maybe it's still as crazy, but in a sad, real way. Certainly not in a stupid me way though.

[Freak Out]

OK sports fans, this is it.

Take P's last four lines and chip 'em in granite....

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

That's what the players are trying to do.

Since the monster money came into the game, that's the logical move.

You don't like the players making big money? You don't like the owners? You don't like unions? It don't matter. That's the players objective and they are gonna use the legal system to try and get their goal.

This whole deal is gonna suck, but that's what's going on.

Eliminating the cap will kill the game....the last two not so much.

[Guiness]

I have argued for weeks that the NFLPA has an objective other than getting a closer look at the owners books. I would now say they have an objective other than eliminating the draft. Their likely objective(s)? One or more of the following:

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

While I kind of agree with you that the players have an an unstated agenda all along, I'm pretty sure it's not the first one. They'd have to be pretty thickheaded to not look at what happened in the uncapped 2010, when many teams didn't meet the previous salary 'floor' and realize getting rid of the cap would be bad.

Not saying it's not possible though. They might convince themselves that 2010 was a one year abberation, and given enough time the NFL owners will act like MLB owners and spend like drunken sailors. The problem with that thinking is that NFL teams aren't corporate owned, so can't use the franchise as a loss leader...like Ted Turner does, or the way Labatt's propped up the Jays to their World Series win.

[retailguy]

maybe I understand perfectly well how it works.

No. You don't understand how it works. Justin, you're a good guy, but you're wrong on this. It's a power struggle, on BOTH sides. Honestly, from a strictly financial standpoint, the owners would probably be better in the short term with no draft, no salary cap and no salary floor.

However, after the golden goose dies, so does everything else.

I stand by what I said at the beginning. What the union is claiming only applies to a few teams, I think 8 at the most. For the remainder, what the owners are claiming is EXACTLY true.

The players union only wants to see a couple of the teams books and doesn't give a shit about the other 25 - 27 teams books. Those couple will be published in their entirety and used to discredit ALL the books. No way in hell would that be a good thing by any definition.

[SkinBasket]

Mabye you don't understand the definition that's actually being used today.

I understand the "definition" that you guys in your cool faded Che Guevara tee shirts like to foist upon the rest of us. It's similar to the "definition" that activist judges appointed by progressive politicians like to advance with their rulings. But just because you believe in it doesn't make it the truth. The trust is, from what you've posted here, you want a communist/socialist system implemented. History has already proven that those systems fail. As they say, "Socialism is for the people, not the socialist."

In the end, the system fails. The evil, nasty owners you've been conditioned through repetition to hate take their ball and go home, unless, of course, Obama signs an executive order forcing them to be owners and forcing them to pay the players whatever they demand while making glorious speeches about building the wealth of the rich on the broken backs of the poor, which at this point honestly wouldn't surprise me. And we have either no football, or a greatly degraded version of football. The owners move on to more profitable ventures, the players make a mere fraction of what they did, and the fans are left with something resembling the XFL. Congratulations. That's some victory.

[RashanGary]

I stand by what I said at the beginning. What the union is claiming only applies to a few teams, I think 8 at the most. For the remainder, what the owners are claiming is EXACTLY true.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I also think you make a lot of sense with the caps being lifted helping the owners and players in the short term. The owners who want to skimp would have more money in their coffers for a few years, but eventually their fan bases would dwindle. The big teams would spend more, win and have more money in their coffers, but as interest in the smaller teams dwindled, so would the TV contracts.

I'm starting to buy what you, Patler, skin and others feel on this, that the owners were being very up front (maybe somewhere in the 90-95% range with a couple bad eggs bringing it down a little.) The owners had a great proposal where you could see the clear intention of growing the league to make the pie bigger for everyone. I can see the players wish to view the full financial info, but if they want to tear apart the fundamentals that helped grow the league into what it is today, I'm very disappointed.

I never thought it was possible, but these idiots are treading dangerously close to killing the golden goose.

[Lurker64]

I'm glad you're coming around to the realization that the folks on both sides here are acting like intransigent idiots JH. I think the real problem is that this is the first rodeo of both Goodell and Smith, and so they're under considerable pressure from their constituency to justify their position by "winning" negotiations. Ultimately, one shouldn't be concerned with "winning" in a situation like this, the fact that the players "won" last time was the reason we got into this mess. We really should have never gotten to this point, since there was a deal to get done. The two sides were what? $200m apart at the end? I wouldn't be surprised if the two sides spend more than that on lawyers before this whole mess is over.

I am firmly convinced that if you swap Goodell for Tagliabue or Smith for Upshaw we would have had a CBA long before now. There's too much macho crap between Goodell and Smith.

[Tarlam!]

I am firmly convinced that if you swap Goodell for Tagliabue or Smith for Upshaw we would have had a CBA long before now. There's too much macho crap between Goodell and Smith.

/thread

[KYPack]

I am firmly convinced that if you swap Goodell for Tagliabue or Smith for Upshaw we would have had a CBA long before now. There's too much macho crap between Goodell and Smith.

Probably. Smith hired on with the understanding that he was gonna play hardball. He was going to shoot the cannon and use the sabre that Upshaw had been waving for 20 years.

Goodell got his gig with the idea that the owners felt they signed a shitty deal last time and wanted to claim back many concessions. Goodell has been a good soldier, but I think he's in over his head. His latest statement to the WSJ read, "I just poo-pooed my pants because I realize the evil players are trying to destroy our cool business and it ain't my or the owners fault"!

A war time commissioner, he ain't.

[RashanGary]

1. Owner sign last deal with Gene Upshaw without opening the books. In exchange for not opening the books, they gave a very player friendly deal but added an opt out clause so they could renegotiate sooner if they needed too. I believe the reason they gave the friendly deal was to set a negotiation precedence of not opening the books, so future negotiations would go their way. They planned ahead a little. Give one now for two later kind of thing.

2. Owners want to sit down and work out a deal. They present a deal that has the clear intention of keeping the league competitive, interesting and even adding a few practical changes like benefits for retired players and a no holding out during the offseason clause. All in all it was just practical and smart for the league. Feed the golden goose, it's hunger is insatiable and it's yield is pure, never ending money and power.

3. Players scratched their head. . . “where do these numbers come from? We won’t cut back the previous deal without seeing why. We will not talk until you provide us full financial info. Show us the golden goose."

4. Owners keep coming back with new deals and little snap shots of the goose laying eggs but there is no way to know how many eggs came between shots. Golden eggs could be anywhere. Players refuse to talk. Players know if they decertify, the CBA and all of the collusion rules agreed to therein will be void. The competitive league environment will be shot and the goldengoose, that is the always growing NFL, will be seriously ill, if not dying. That can all change if the owners do what the players want, that is.

5. Owners cannot lockout players (collusion). Current players lose no money unless the league shuts down (will never happen). Pressure is off players. Time to sit back, smile, and wait.

6 Owners have the choice to either give the players what they want or have a league that will lose competitiveness and ultimately a lot of money, allegedly, if you subscribe to the competitiveness grows the golden goose theory.

7. There is still the question of, “what do they want?” I think it’s to see the books before they work out a deal, but it could be a number of other things. I doubt they're dead set on ruining the competitive balance in the NFL. I think they're smarter than that.

We’ll see how it works out. Once the books are open I have a feeling it all goes smoothly. Goodell is whining about how the big bad wolf is ruining his league. Bah, just do what they say and you'll get your goose back. Your goose isn't dead, it's just being held hostage.

But don't worry all you, the poor goosey goosey gander is not really a person or helpless animal of any sort. The goose is cold money. This is a bunch of greedy people fighting over money. Who gives a shit who wins, other than that football goes on.

[SkinBasket]

3. Players scratched their head. . . “where do these numbers come from? We won’t cut back the previous deal without seeing why. We will not talk until you provide us full financial info. Show us the golden goose."

When were the players asked to "cut back?" As far as I can tell, the salary cap would have continued to rise under the last proposal (not to mention the added benefits for retirees and the freeing of current money for vets via a rookie salary structure), unless you and the players have some secret info you're not sharing...

[SkinBasket]

MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL players urged a federal judge Wednesday to deny the league's request to essentially restore the lockout, saying their careers were at stake.

But demanding the immediate end to the lockout, without any kind of CBA in place, resulting in either a complete and total clusterfuck of unregulated contracts or relying on the same rules the players are suing about, won't be harmful to the league... the owners who EMPLOY you!

Jesus Christ. It's almost like this judge didn't have a fucking clue what she was actually doing by issuing her decision or what the implications for both the owners and the players might possibly be.

[RashanGary]

If the owners are so concerned, they should take it in their own hands. So far, the only thing we know was asked by the players that pretty much sent it to court was teh financial info.

Give that so they can move to the next stage of negotiation. Right now, the players are done with court. They got their ace. They want to play cards. The owners know what the players want, it's on them to get back to the table. The whole time everyone knew the players wanted to decertify to gain leverage. Now they have it. They're ready to play. Its' like the owners have no clue what they're doing. It's not up to the court to babysit their desires. The court is there to uphold the law.

Either give teh players what they're asking for or quit bitching and go with no CBA. That's their choices. It's not in teh courts hands.

If not showiing the financial data is that important to them, then they can go down with the boat. Their choice. And until we here otherwise, that's the only piece of info the players have demanded from day 1, for them to even start talks.

[swede]

I keep hearing the word collusion. Isn't collusion a coordinated set of secret practices that undermine the spirit of a contractual agreement?

How can owners be accused of collusion if they openly agree to quit operating with employees that are not part of a union and have no contract with the owners?

The owners cannot prevent the players from starting their own league or participating in an arena league. If I were the owners I'd keep playing chicken with these malcontents. The next set of employees will work for less.

[get louder at lambeau]

If the owners are so concerned, they should take it in their own hands. So far, the only thing we know was asked by the players that pretty much sent it to court was teh financial info.

Give that so they can move to the next stage of negotiation. Right now, the players are done with court. They got their ace. They want to play cards. The owners know what the players want, it's on them to get back to the table. The whole time everyone knew the players wanted to decertify to gain leverage. Now they have it. They're ready to play. Its' like the owners have no clue what they're doing. It's not up to the court to babysit their desires. The court is there to uphold the law.

Either give teh players what they're asking for or quit bitching and go with no CBA. That's their choices. It's not in teh courts hands.

If not showiing the financial data is that important to them, then they can go down with the boat. Their choice. And until we here otherwise, that's the only piece of info the players have demanded from day 1, for them to even start talks.

You seem to go between well thought out and completely clueless on this. No offense intended when I say that, but it's how it seems to me. It isn't anywhere near "give the players what they're asking for or quit bitching and go with no CBA". That's not even close to reality. You have been pro-player throughout this, which is fine, but it seems to be clouding your vision of what's going on right now.

The reality is that the players have the leverage NOW, based on the judge's ruling. That doesn't mean they will continue to. The NFL gets to appeal that ruling to a higher court, and could even win a stay of the original decision to lift the lockout pending appeal. Then the lockout would be back on, and the leverage would shift back in favor of the owners. The legal battle isn't over yet. It IS in the courts hands, and has been since the players chose to take it there.

[RashanGary]

I keep hearing the word collusion. Isn't collusion a coordinated set of secret practices that undermine the spirit of a contractual agreement?

How can owners be accused of collusion if they openly agree to quit operating with employees that are not part of a union and have no contract with the owners?

The owners cannot prevent the players from starting their own league or participating in an arena league. If I were the owners I'd keep playing chicken with these malcontents. The next set of employees will work for less.

Yeah, that would be really good for the league, to get rid of all the best players. I'm sure Detroit and Jacksonville, Minny and Cinci would all love that when their stadiums aren't full. And what about jersey sales? And then Rodgers and Brady would be in the UFL, you don't think that would pull some money from the NFL? The UFL would double on the spot, maybe quadruple. Even then, they'll have to get a group of players to sign a CBA and even then, those guys would get a union and eventually pull the same stunt if they're not getting paid enough. They can do that every 5 or 6 years just to show what hard asses they are.

Nah, that's not happening. They'll bend over and take it. It's just a matter of how much they'll whine before they give in.

[RashanGary]

It's just like the Pat and Kev case, there is some room for interperatation on the law, but mostly each judge rules pretty similarly. It's just a matter of time. The NFL is arrogant though. They'll try.

[Lurker64]

It's just like the Pat and Kev case, there is some room for interperatation on the law, but mostly each judge rules pretty similarly. It's just a matter of time. The NFL is arrogant though. They'll try.

It's more that the NFLPA has a gift that keeps on giving in the Minnesota Vikings. Because there is a franchise located in Minnesota, the NFLPA can choose to file their lawsuits there. They always do, because sports unions always win in the Minneapolis/St. Paul district court (not just the NFLPA, but other unions as well). These decisions can and have been overturned on appeal, but the district courts uniformly rule against sports leagues.

I half suspect the NFL is in a hurry to get the Vikings out of Minnesota just so they can escape court district, and will never, ever return there for this reason.

[Tarlam!]

It's more that the NFLPA has a gift that keeps on giving in the Minnesota Vikings. Because there is a franchise located in Minnesota, the NFLPA can choose to file their lawsuits there.

This is interesting for me. In ALL German contracts, a clause defines the seat of the court, just in case legal issues arise. For example, if you take out an insurance policy, the seat of the court is usually located in the county where the company's HQ is registered as a tax entity.

So, in any German-sytle CBA signed in the past, New York City would have been stipulated. It would have also been clear-cut in the individual players contracts. They couldn't just "pick a court" as it were. But, Germans invented beaurocracy.

[SkinBasket]

The court is there to uphold the law.

What "law," pray tell, was "upheld" by this decision?

[mraynrand]

And then Rodgers and Brady would be in the UFL, you don't think that would pull some money from the NFL? The UFL would double on the spot, maybe quadruple. Even then, they'll have to get a group of players to sign a CBA and even then, those guys would get a union and eventually pull the same stunt if they're not getting paid enough.

So much for the claim of irreparable harm, eh?

[RashanGary]

I see your point, skinbasket. It's an injunction that basically has no law enforcing reason and serves no purpose but to benefit the workers (in this case players). Hmmm. . .

Even without it, the antitrust lawsuit is their main leverage piece, but this pads the players pockets long enough to insure it gets done.

Very interesting. I'd be curious to know the courts reasoning. She was sort of trying to reasonably mediate and if that's a part of the court's power in these situations, OK, but I don't see a law being directly enforced. I have to claim ignorance on exactly why that was able to be done. I knew it was done in the 87-91 spat and I figured it would follow suit this time.

[RashanGary]

To the credit of the players, the only reason they're being locked out so they will struggle with their impending lawsuit (that will undoubtedly go the players way if the owners are dumb enough to let it). The owners have unlawful antitrust practices. That's just a fact and the players agree to them because it's good for the league (good for everyone.)

There is no doubt they can agree to a temporary deal, but that would mean the lawsuit will definitely go through. That would apply real pressure to the owners to show their books. The owners only real reason for this lockout is to stop the players from filing a legitimate anti-trust suit and continue to negotiate on their terms with no fear of the law. Is the court protecting an employer bullying from employees away from their lawful rights? I'm not sure of Judge Nelsons motives, but this is one possible reason.

Should the court stand back and let an employer financially bully employees away from the laws that protect them? I don't know the answer to that. It's a gray area.

[get louder at lambeau]

To the credit of the players, the only reason they're being locked out so they will struggle with their impending lawsuit (that will undoubtedly go the players way if the owners are dumb enough to let it). The owners have unlawful antitrust practices. That's just a fact and the players agree to them because it's good for the league (good for everyone.)

There is no doubt they can agree to a temporary deal, but that would mean the lawsuit will definitely go through. That would apply real pressure to the owners to show their books. The owners only real reason for this lockout is to stop the players from filing a legitimate anti-trust suit and continue to negotiate on their terms with no fear of the law. Is the court protecting an employer bullying from employees away from their lawful rights? I'm not sure of Judge Nelsons motives, but this is one possible reason.

Should the court stand back and let an employer financially bully employees away from the laws that protect them? I don't know the answer to that. It's a gray area.

It sounds like you think that the players should get anything they want without limit from the NFL. Otherwise, they can always just decertify and file another "legitimate anti-trust suit" to get it. Right?

I think the thing that bugs me, and many others, is that the union gets to play it both ways. They are being allowed to pretend they are not a union when everyone and their mom knows they are just using decertification as a way to be able to fuck the NFL in the courts. I don't think anyone really believes that the NFLPA is gone for good. They are basically being allowed to cheat the system by being a union both before and after this shit, but not being one just so they can claim an anti-trust violation that wouldn't exist if they were still a union. It seems like that is legal loophole exploitation at best, and an illegal sham at worst.

[RashanGary]

I don't know, they're decertifying because now that they don't have a CBA, they would rather have no rules than just do whatever the owners ask. They decertified to either get the rights they deserve or get the owners to negotiate on their terms a little more. I don't know if that's a sham. It's doing what's best for them at the time. If the time comes where being a union is beneficial. they'll go back to being a union.

[RashanGary]

I think what it comes down to is this is 9.3 BILLION dollars every year in PROFIT and these guys are going to fight tooth and nail, till the fat lady sings, over this prize.

-If we do this, what are the chances the court supports us?
-If we do that, what are the chances the players cave?

on and on. . . These guys are taking the path to the money and it's going to be a fight.

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't know, they're decertifying because now that they don't have a CBA, they would rather have no rules than just do whatever the owners ask. They decertified to either get the rights they deserve or get the owners to negotiate on their terms a little more. I don't know if that's a sham. It's doing what's best for them at the time. If the time comes where being a union is beneficial. they'll go back to being a union.

They decertified to file the lawsuit. They knew the lockout was coming, and decertified 7 hours before it could happen. That's the reality. The main reason to decertify was to be able to file a lawsuit against the lockout that they would not be able to file as a union.

[get louder at lambeau]

I think what it comes down to is this is 9.3 BILLION dollars every year in PROFIT and these guys are going to fight tooth and nail, till the fat lady sings, over this prize.

$9.3 billion is the NFL's total revenue actually, not profit.

[RashanGary]

$9.3 billion is the NFL's total revenue actually, not profit.

I thought they were splitting 9 billion. 140 million cap (I'm guesssing) multiplied by 32 teams = 4.5 BILLION. It looks to me like they're splitting a 9.3 billion dollar pot.

[RashanGary]

It's a bunch of lawyers fighting over 9 billion dollars for their clients. And it's about as high profile of a job as you can get. These guys are going to be ruthless, on both sides. To expect players to sign a deal without knowing the financial information is no more likely than the owners just offering up the financial information without a fight. This is a bitter fight over a big pot.

[Bretsky]

/thread

bingo x2

[get louder at lambeau]

I thought they were splitting 9 billion. 140 million cap (I'm guesssing) multiplied by 32 teams = 4.5 BILLION. It looks to me like they're splitting a 9.3 billion dollar pot.

They split gross revenue, not profit. The players were getting 60% of total revenue after $1 million is taken off the top.

[RashanGary]

Well, that's a good deal :) I can see why they want to keep it.

[SkinBasket]

She was sort of trying to reasonably mediate and if that's a part of the court's power in these situations, OK, but I don't see a law being directly enforced.

Like I said, it's a wonderful time to be aligned with the progressive agenda and have your case before a progressive, activist judiciary. As their comrades in the Senate said last spring:

"There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something. And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along." -Democrat Rep Alcee Hastings, impeached U.S. District Judge and current member of the House Rules Committee speaking on Obamacare.

[SkinBasket]

MINNEAPOLIS -- The federal judge who lifted the NFL lockout has denied the league's request to put her ruling on hold.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson wrote late Wednesday that the NFL "has not met its burden for a stay pending appeal, expedited or otherwise."

The league wanted Nelson to keep the lockout in place while it appeals her ruling, arguing that starting free agency and other football activities before there's clarity on the status of this case could be damaging to the league's competitive balance and general operations.

Players wrote to the judge earlier Wednesday to argue against the league's request for a stay, contending that a continuation of the lockout harms the NFL as much as it does the players.

Like I said... better to sink the ship. What's so pressing, other than her ego, that her ruling can't wait until the appeal? What. A. Clusterfuck.

[bobblehead]

The players are offering up their preferred avenue of negotiation. Why don't the owners just show good faith and negotiate on the players terms? Lift the silly lockout. Go back to last years rules and go with the court assisted negotiation. Why are these guys being so unreasonable about this negotiation? The owners don't want to get a deal done. The players have the table all set, all they need is for teh other side to sit down and start working out the deal.


Isn't that funny how one silly little detail like financial transparency can make such a difference in who's willing to sit an talk?

So do you side with the people who will exhaust all resources hiding the truth or the people who will exhaust all resources finding it? That's the core issue here. That's why the owners are all of a sudden so unwilling to sit down and talk and why the players weren't willing before.

Through all the legal hoops and business mumbo jumbo, this is actually very simple.

Financial honesty.

I'll bet the deals done within 2 months of it being provided. You wanna take that bet, skin?

JH, I hope someday you sacrifice everything and work 70 hours a week to build a successful business. I hope you are finally making serious cash for your time and investment. Then at that point I hope the employees that you hired (long after the risk was gone) turn around and find a sympathetic judge to rule that you have to give them whatever they ask for because they are doing the work on the ground. At that point you will understand why many of us side with the owners on this one.

[bobblehead]

If the courts rule against them, they'll have to take whatevers offered or leave. If not, well, they don't have to worry about that. The owners do.

Actually when they decertified the union they declared that they had to take what the owners offered or leave.

[RashanGary]

My grandpa was a farmer turned machinist (both his own businesses.) He worked his ass off, but that doesn't mean he should be able to skirt anti-trust laws or get whatever he wanted if he had a court battle.

I think conservatives ignore the horrible labor practices that went on before these silly laws were enacted and enforced. The owners don't need protection. They're rich and powerful. Without laws the rich would control the world. The laws are there to protect the workers. If that makes it a good time to be in progressive America, I guess I'm glad I'm here. You guys can leave if it's so bad for you. I really don't know why you're still here. There are plenty of great conservative republics where you all could earn the fortunes you deserve. Go there. See how you fare.

[SkinBasket]

I think conservatives ignore the horrible labor practices that went on before these silly laws were enacted and enforced. The owners don't need protection. They're rich and powerful. Without laws they will get whatever they want. The laws are there to protect the workers. If that makes it a good time to be in progressive America, I guess I'm glad I'm here. You guys can leave if it's so bad for you. I really don't know why you're still here. There are plenty of great conservative republics where you all could earn the fortunes you deserve. Go.

When you say "go," what you mean is "go, and leave all your stuff behind," because that's what you're after. Certainly not rights, they don't buy X-Box games and fancy cell phones. And it sure isn't a just and representative government - you've already told us that much. What you want is what you're jealous of and too inept, lazy, or otherwise unable to obtain, which is other people's wealth - at the cost of their rights, their representation, and their welfare. Politics, government, and your uneducated idea of "equality" are simply means to that end. State run banditry - or wealth redistribution as you folks like to call it these days. Very noble.

[get louder at lambeau]

My grandpa was a farmer turned machinist (both his own businesses.) He worked his ass off, but that doesn't mean he should be able to skirt anti-trust laws or get whatever he wanted if he had a court battle.

What if your grandpa and some of his buddies actually invented a new industry, complete with a new career, Professional Football Player, that allowed his employees to earn anywhere from $285,000 to millions of dollars per year for playing a game?

Should he be forced to give these employees whatever they ask because they have the legal flexibility to have it both ways, jumping back and forth from union to non-union status for short periods of time just to gain leverage in negotiations in which they are demanding to be paid like part owners of the business he built? What if some of these players are making more money than he is as an owner and industry founder? Should his employees still have a trump card in any financial negotiations?

[bobblehead]

"These young players coming up have no choice on what team they can go to," he said. "If indeed there was a true free-agent market, they could go out there and market themselves to any team they want to go to and choose who they want to play for instead of being told what team they're going to go play for for the next three to five years depending on what happens with the contract length."
.

3-5 years heh? How about this scenario. TT finds a young CB that no one else wants. He signs him to a 15 year, 1 million dollar personal services contract to the GB packers. If Tramon Williams developes we own him for his life as a player. If he flops he can mow the lawn and empty trash for the Packers (or we would likely let him out of his contract if he would forgo the remaining payments).

I kind of like this new era of football the players rep wants.

[swede]

In a truly free market the players could go to whatever team would pay them most...and switch uniforms at half-time if the price was right.

[Pugger]

This twist leaves me not understanding what the hell is going on out there.

How does a union which is not a union remain represented by its union leaders and force the owners to treat them as if they are not a union?

I hope a higher court sees this too = the decertification of the union was just a sham all along.

[Pugger]

"We're all for anything that allows the players to realize their maximum potential on the free-agent market. The league has grown exponentially based on the rules that have been in place over the years, but a lot of the rules that have taken place have been very restrictive on the players," Mawae said.

As an example of the restrictions on players, Mawae cited the NFL draft, which this year takes place Thursday through Saturday.

"These young players coming up have no choice on what team they can go to," he said. "If indeed there was a true free-agent market, they could go out there and market themselves to any team they want to go to and choose who they want to play for instead of being told what team they're going to go play for for the next three to five years depending on what happens with the contract length."

When asked if the NFLPA wants to see the draft abolished, Mawae said: "I'm saying potentially if there is no draft then every kid coming out of college has the potential to negotiate a contract with any team he wants to negotiate with."

Would that be good for the league?

"It could be, it could not be," he said. "We don't know, we've never had a system where there is no draft."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there it is, what the players truly want. This isn't about financial transparency or open books. It is about changing the landscape of the draft and free agency.

How can anyone back the players when this is what they want the league to become. The players want to turn the NFL into MLB.

BINGO!!

[bobblehead]

My grandpa was a farmer turned machinist (both his own businesses.) He worked his ass off, but that doesn't mean he should be able to skirt anti-trust laws or get whatever he wanted if he had a court battle.

I think conservatives ignore the horrible labor practices that went on before these silly laws were enacted and enforced. The owners don't need protection. They're rich and powerful. Without laws the rich would control the world. The laws are there to protect the workers. If that makes it a good time to be in progressive America, I guess I'm glad I'm here. You guys can leave if it's so bad for you. I really don't know why you're still here. There are plenty of great conservative republics where you all could earn the fortunes you deserve. Go there. See how you fare.

the owners didn't decertify the union. They are in no way trying to return to the days of the coal mines.

[get louder at lambeau]

For this legal stuff, it's hard to beat profootballtalk.com's Mike Florio, since he is a lawyer turned football reporter. He talked about the current situation today in this video-
http://hqplayer.nbcsports.com/Player.html?PID=44

[RashanGary]

Demaurice Smith talked to ESPN a bit. He seemed calm but firm. He had a personable but professional exterior. He never seemed phased by any questions and when he asserted himself it came off more matter of fact than angry. I got a pretty good impression of him. He seems very strong.

When asked about the WJS article, about the players essentially destroying the game, he said something to the effect of, "well, an article like that, it's hard to take seriously when he didn't even mention the owner imposed lockout." The reporter followed up, "Was it mostly spin?" and Smith said, "that reminded me of the Y2K articles a few years ago." The reporter said, "Y2K ended up not being anything" and Smith said, "Yeah, now you know. Now you know." And with that, the conversation was over. Smith obviously can't come out and say, "we have no intention of forcing the antitrust laws that we're filing for", so instead he hinted at it by calling their whining a scare tactic. It's not a bad play for the owners to make it look like the players want to ruin the game. The players can't say otherwise, or it would expose their act as a sham. The reality though, it's all a ploy to get the owners to the negotiation table on their terms.

Goodell on the other hand had a bit of a sick look on his face. Stressed almost. His calm appeared forced and his smile disingenuous. When he was asked questions about why they haven't lifted the lockout per the judges ruling, he said it took time to get everything in order. He said they were getting the league in order for opening up business.

[bobblehead]

I keep hearing the word collusion. Isn't collusion a coordinated set of secret practices that undermine the spirit of a contractual agreement?

How can owners be accused of collusion if they openly agree to quit operating with employees that are not part of a union and have no contract with the owners?

The owners cannot prevent the players from starting their own league or participating in an arena league. If I were the owners I'd keep playing chicken with these malcontents. The next set of employees will work for less.

Here is the great fallacy swede. The "anti trust exemption" basically says that if the owners can keep other teams from competing in "their" league, and operate with only their teams in the league then the cost of that is....whatever some judge decides it is. here we have a judge saying the cost is that they must all agree to get in bidding wars over the players or else lose the anti trust exemption. Basically this judge is saying that TT can't decide to field all scrubs at 50k a year or else the NFL loses its exemption. I have contended all along that the flaw here is viewing each team as separate organs of the same body. The NFL is ONE business and the franchises are simply the different divisions of the business that create the whole product. Anyone can start a football league, no anti trust exemption there, but not anyone can start a team in the NFL. The entire idea is flawed from the start. Its akin to telling the Arbys in one part of the city that it must compete for labor with the Arbys across town. They must pay top dollar, and in turn no more Arbys can be built ever....but someone can open a BK next door.

[bobblehead]

Yeah, that would be really good for the league, to get rid of all the best players. I'm sure Detroit and Jacksonville, Minny and Cinci would all love that when their stadiums aren't full. And what about jersey sales? And then Rodgers and Brady would be in the UFL, you don't think that would pull some money from the NFL? The UFL would double on the spot, maybe quadruple. Even then, they'll have to get a group of players to sign a CBA and even then, those guys would get a union and eventually pull the same stunt if they're not getting paid enough. They can do that every 5 or 6 years just to show what hard asses they are.

Nah, that's not happening. They'll bend over and take it. It's just a matter of how much they'll whine before they give in.

You are young JH, you never saw the USFL. They signed guys like steve young, Herschel walker, reggie white....and they folded because they could not compete with the NFL. In turn Reggie cried foul and sued the NFL to get a judge who made a bad ruling. It benefited the players immensely as the next agreement involved FA, and most everything we see today. Hint...the players do NOT make the NFL great. They will be gone and replaced, but the dragon will live on. The owners broke the union once by paying SCABS to play. Guys who couldn't even make a team before. People kept watching and cheering for their teams. Got to know the names of the scabs and barely missed a beat. After 8 weeks of that the players realized the league could do without them better than they could without it.

[bobblehead]

I think what it comes down to is this is 9.3 BILLION dollars every year in PROFIT and these guys are going to fight tooth and nail, till the fat lady sings, over this prize.

-If we do this, what are the chances the court supports us?
-If we do that, what are the chances the players cave?

on and on. . . These guys are taking the path to the money and it's going to be a fight.

ummm....9.3 billion in REVENUE, not profit....HUGE difference, and the main issue in this dispute. The players want their cut of revenue, while owners wish to pay the bills FIRST.

[bobblehead]

My grandpa was a farmer turned machinist (both his own businesses.) He worked his ass off, but that doesn't mean he should be able to skirt anti-trust laws or get whatever he wanted if he had a court battle.

I think conservatives ignore the horrible labor practices that went on before these silly laws were enacted and enforced. The owners don't need protection. They're rich and powerful. Without laws the rich would control the world. The laws are there to protect the workers. If that makes it a good time to be in progressive America, I guess I'm glad I'm here. You guys can leave if it's so bad for you. I really don't know why you're still here. There are plenty of great conservative republics where you all could earn the fortunes you deserve. Go there. See how you fare.


That is very rich. Many of the people you despise are doing just that, and you in turn howl that the evil bastards are exporting jobs. You do see the irony in your post do you not?

[bobblehead]

In a truly free market the players could go to whatever team would pay them most...and switch uniforms at half-time if the price was right.

In a truly free market the owner could make them sign a 15 year contract, or seek employment elsewhere.

[SkinBasket]

Demaurice Smith talked to ESPN a bit. He seemed calm but firm. He had a personable but professional exterior. He never seemed phased by any questions and when he asserted himself it came off more matter of fact than angry. I got a pretty good impression of him. He seems very strong.

When asked about the WJS article, about the players essentially destroying the game, he said something to the effect of, "well, an article like that, it's hard to take seriously when he didn't even mention the owner imposed lockout." The reporter followed up, "Was it mostly spin?" and Smith said, "that reminded me of the Y2K articles a few years ago." The reporter said, "Y2K ended up not being anything" and Smith said, "Yeah, now you know. Now you know." And with that, the conversation was over. Smith obviously can't come out and say, "we have no intention of forcing the antitrust laws that we're filing for", so instead he hinted at it by calling their whining a scare tactic. It's not a bad play for the owners to make it look like the players want to ruin the game. The players can't say otherwise, or it would expose their act as a sham. The reality though, it's all a ploy to get the owners to the negotiation table on their terms.

Goodell on the other hand had a bit of a sick look on his face. Stressed almost. His calm appeared forced and his smile disingenuous. When he was asked questions about why they haven't lifted the lockout per the judges ruling, he said it took time to get everything in order. He said they were getting the league in order for opening up business.

I like cheese. My opinion is probably more informed than yours.

[Tarlam!]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

[retailguy]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

wow

[Lurker64]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

Not the least bit surprising. The NFL's strategy was always to win in the 8th Circuit. They don't think they can win, ever, in Minneapolis court but they like their odds in the 8th Circuit.

[sharpe1027]

Here is the great fallacy swede. The "anti trust exemption" basically says that if the owners can keep other teams from competing in "their" league, and operate with only their teams in the league then the cost of that is....whatever some judge decides it is. here we have a judge saying the cost is that they must all agree to get in bidding wars over the players or else lose the anti trust exemption. Basically this judge is saying that TT can't decide to field all scrubs at 50k a year or else the NFL loses its exemption. I have contended all along that the flaw here is viewing each team as separate organs of the same body. The NFL is ONE business and the franchises are simply the different divisions of the business that create the whole product. Anyone can start a football league, no anti trust exemption there, but not anyone can start a team in the NFL. The entire idea is flawed from the start. Its akin to telling the Arbys in one part of the city that it must compete for labor with the Arbys across town. They must pay top dollar, and in turn no more Arbys can be built ever....but someone can open a BK next door.

What makes you think that the issue is about prohibiting new teams from entering the NFL? I've never seen that before. In fact, I haven't seen a lot of the assertions you are making. Where is this coming from?

[SkinBasket]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PmqP5zB9kqk/TQFB04_kZ0I/AAAAAAAABkw/FDACsYev8RA/s1600/peyton-manning-sad.jpghttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/PH2007092502456.jpghttp://www.serioussportsnewsnetwork.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/tom_brady_angry.jpg

One small victory for anti-douchebaggery.

[Guiness]

Rotoworld just reported the 8th Appeals has granted a stay. The Lockout is officially back on.

Holy mother-skin @#$!

I just read this morning that the teams had opened their doors, players were talking to coaches, etc.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15004985/players-returning-to-work-as-teams-open-doors

[Lurker64]

Holy mother-skin @#$!

I just read this morning that the teams had opened their doors, players were talking to coaches, etc.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15004985/players-returning-to-work-as-teams-open-doors

And now they will close the doors again.

[Guiness]

And now they will close the doors again.


Yup. PFT reporting they'll be locked this afternoon - so, by now.

Y'know, I'm getting to the point where I'm enjoying this. Everybody likes a train wreck. ESPN must be loving it too, it's NFL coverage they don't have to pay billions to air!

[imscott72]

All this is such a fucking joke. Just keep pissing on the fans people. I know they'll keep coming, but there will be a good number that will say "eff you" to the NFL and never look back..

[Smeefers]

All this is such a fucking joke. Just keep pissing on the fans people. I know they'll keep coming, but there will be a good number that will say "eff you" to the NFL and never look back..

I don't think they piss on the fans until we start loosing regular season games. If that happens, I believe donkey kong and it's on form a rock group.

[Smeefers]

Rotoworld writes ESPN retracts it's report that the stay was granted

[Guiness]

Rotoworld writes ESPN retracts it's report that the stay was granted

From Rotoworld


ESPN has retracted its report that St. Louis' Eighth Circuit Court granted a "stay" of the lockout injunction Friday.


Yahoo Sports' Mike Silver is still reporting that a stay is expected, but it isn't official yet. Some reports claimed teams were already kicking players out of their facilities; that isn't the case. Expect a formal ruling to be handed down from the Eighth Circuit Court before the start of round two.

[SkinBasket]

http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/zzzPM.jpghttp://www.dailyworldbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Drew_Brees.jpghttp://www.twilightfashion.com/media/blogs/models//tom_brady_smile.jpg

Suck it NFL! You can't lock us out! Our careers are on the line!

[Lurker64]

They may still grant a stay, it's just that when they do so they'll do it about 5PM. In fact, they probably will grant an administrative stay, since NFL business happens on weekends but court business does not. Nobody's careers are jeopardized by being locked out an additional 2-3 days.

[retailguy]

http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/zzzPM.jpghttp://www.dailyworldbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Drew_Brees.jpghttp://www.twilightfashion.com/media/blogs/models//tom_brady_smile.jpg

Suck it NFL! You can't lock us out! Our careers are on the line!

Can't keep the "little men" down! Damn the torpedos! We want JUSTICE damnit!

[bobblehead]

What makes you think that the issue is about prohibiting new teams from entering the NFL? I've never seen that before. In fact, I haven't seen a lot of the assertions you are making. Where is this coming from?

It was the best understanding I could gather from reading about the NFL's anti trust exemption on wiki. If you can explain what it is better please enlighten me as I admit that I haven't found anything solid, just the stuff I wrote above. I USED to think the MLB exemption meant no one could start a competing LEAGUE, but it can't mean that since the NFL has had several competing leagues. As I read as much as I could I came to understand it that it meant that the NFL doesn't have to allow anyone in THEIR league...thus, anti trust exemption. If you have different understandings I am not being sarcastic, I am truly trying to understand this.

[get louder at lambeau]

So, lockout. Then no lockout. Then lockout. Next week, maybe no lockout again. It's like Brent Faver is running this shit.

[mraynrand]

I don't think they piss on the fans until we start loosing regular season games. If that happens, I believe donkey kong and it's on form a rock group.


THe fans won't leave unless the NFL screws up the competitive balance. Once fans think their team hasn't a chance, it's over. Like the NBA. Like baseball. Once fans know that a groups of guys can just up and form whatever team they want at any time, with no rules, it's over. Like the Miami Heat pickup team. That's the crap fans will flee from. Most fans want an even shake for the players and they want their owners to try to win. Fans will flee teams with owners who are trying to leach off the league too - eventually.

[sharpe1027]

It was the best understanding I could gather from reading about the NFL's anti trust exemption on wiki. If you can explain what it is better please enlighten me as I admit that I haven't found anything solid, just the stuff I wrote above.

If some potential team owner was suing, then you might have a point. The issue at hand, however, is regarding the players and the owners setting the prices for the players. I don't understand why you are talking about letting another team into the league.


I USED to think the MLB exemption meant no one could start a competing LEAGUE, but it can't mean that since the NFL has had several competing leagues. As I read as much as I could I came to understand it that it meant that the NFL doesn't have to allow anyone in THEIR league...thus, anti trust exemption. If you have different understandings I am not being sarcastic, I am truly trying to understand this.

First, the MLB and NFL exemptions are different. Second, what WIKI page were you reading? The only one I could find says that the NFL exemption relates to TV rights including, a unitary video package to TV networks, a right for blackouts and a general right to allow the NFC-AFC merge. Where did you find talk about an exemption relating to adding teams to the league, and why would the NFL need one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961

[bobblehead]

If some potential team owner was suing, then you might have a point. The issue at hand, however, is regarding the players and the owners setting the prices for the players. I don't understand why you are talking about letting another team into the league.



First, the MLB and NFL exemptions are different. Second, what WIKI page were you reading? The only one I could find says that the NFL exemption relates to TV rights including, a unitary video package to TV networks, a right for blackouts and a general right to allow the NFC-AFC merge. Where did you find talk about an exemption relating to adding teams to the league, and why would the NFL need one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961

I can't find the page I was reading, but nowhere did I ever see anything regarding owners rights to set prices for players....as a matter of fact just the opposite has happened. If they truly had a collusion exemption they wouldn't have lost the Reggie White case. Again, I don't understand a lot of this stuff. Again, I don't even understand why the NFL needs rights to negotiate TV contracts in the way they wish to. As for the merger that actually makes sense, because by allowing it you gave a monopoly at the time....but again, that doesn't stop anyone else from creating a competing league as the WFL and the USFL have tried. I'll try and do more reading on it and get a better understanding when its not 2am and I'm not dead tired. I still would like even more information though (or better comprehension maybe).

[sharpe1027]

I can't find the page I was reading, but nowhere did I ever see anything regarding owners rights to set prices for players....as a matter of fact just the opposite has happened. If they truly had a collusion exemption they wouldn't have lost the Reggie White case. Again, I don't understand a lot of this stuff. Again, I don't even understand why the NFL needs rights to negotiate TV contracts in the way they wish to. As for the merger that actually makes sense, because by allowing it you gave a monopoly at the time....but again, that doesn't stop anyone else from creating a competing league as the WFL and the USFL have tried. I'll try and do more reading on it and get a better understanding when its not 2am and I'm not dead tired. I still would like even more information though (or better comprehension maybe).

The current lawsuit is about the owner's right to set prices for players. You can google and find the player's complaint, and there was also a thread in here discussing it in detail. Thus, the current issue has nothing to do with adding a new team and that's why I don't understand your point. As far as I know, the NFL has never tried to stop a competing league so it has never been raised as an issue that needed some type of exemption.

[Guiness]

I can't find the page I was reading, but nowhere did I ever see anything regarding owners rights to set prices for players....as a matter of fact just the opposite has happened. If they truly had a collusion exemption they wouldn't have lost the Reggie White case. Again, I don't understand a lot of this stuff. Again, I don't even understand why the NFL needs rights to negotiate TV contracts in the way they wish to. As for the merger that actually makes sense, because by allowing it you gave a monopoly at the time....but again, that doesn't stop anyone else from creating a competing league as the WFL and the USFL have tried. I'll try and do more reading on it and get a better understanding when its not 2am and I'm not dead tired. I still would like even more information though (or better comprehension maybe).

It is interesting...if by interesting you mean 'dry' :neutral:

MLB and NFL anti-trust exemptions are different. MLB has more sweeping protection, from what I understand. The NFL's major exemptions are related to being allowed to bargain as a unit to negotiate their TV contracts.

In the early Rozelle days, the NFL did try and get MLB-like exemptions, and were initially denied. However, the lawmakers never pressed the issue, so the NFL decided to let sleeping dogs lie.

If you want information on this, have a look at the book "The League: The Rise and Decline of the NFL" by David Harris. It deals a lot with Al Davis, and his long fight with the league, but gives a good overview of everything that was going on. I started a thread about it a while back, but, amazingly, no one was interested.:-?

[Tarlam!]

The current lawsuit is about the owner's right to set prices for players.

It'll be interesting to see how the courts view this. I actually disagree with the premise that the owners set individual player prices. They have a bandwidth of a minimum/ maximum spend for their players. They have a minimum salary based on years in the league.

I have no idea how many players are really negatively impacted by the rules the league has to guarantee parity. That parity, though, is what has attracted fans world wide and has allowed th league to expand. Thus, more jobs for more players were created. Without that parity, it becomes as boring as club soccer has become in Europe, where only 4 teams per season out of between 12 and 20 clubs per league have a realistic chance.

That's also why the per capita revenue of the NFL is sooooooo high by comparison.

[get louder at lambeau]

Looks like the NFL might actually have a counter move equivalent to the NFLPA decertifying. They can just shut down the league completely and just not exist as a business for a while, similar to what the NFLPA is doing by not being a union anymore. Looks like both sides can use bullshit legal maneuvers and "not exist" temporarily as negotiating leverage.

The story-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/

[MJZiggy]

So are we on again or off again? Do we exist or don't we? Can't we just play some fucking football and instead of worrying about how to divvy up the billions, give them back to the fans so we can afford a beer and a hot dog at the game?

[bobblehead]

The current lawsuit is about the owner's right to set prices for players. You can google and find the player's complaint, and there was also a thread in here discussing it in detail. Thus, the current issue has nothing to do with adding a new team and that's why I don't understand your point. As far as I know, the NFL has never tried to stop a competing league so it has never been raised as an issue that needed some type of exemption.

The reason I bring up the issue of other teams being allowed to join the league is because if you want TRUE competition amonst the 32 teams (which the court is basically saying) then you have to have ease of entry into the market. The NFL is NOT 32 seperate businesses as the court has previously ruled or else I could create a 33rd team and join in. The LEAGUE is the business and they should have the right to set salary caps and keep it competitive as that is in their best business interest (and in the best interest of the consumer which is what anti trust is really all about). As Guiness has pointed out, and you have, I misunderstood the antitrust exemption to be similar to MLB. As it stands I have zero idea why it EVER came up since it has zero to do with this negotiation (other than it does not apply).

So with all that being said, I am where I am right now. The NFL actually should void all contracts negotiated under the decertified union and play with players they wish to sign for whatever they wish to sign. They shouldn't close shop at all imo, they should scab it up again and wait for the scabs to unionize and then negotiate a new CBA that will create good fun competition again for the fans.

[RashanGary]

Bobble,

Your first point, the NFL being one entity, not 32 separate teams; you have no evidence siting law showing a combined league of individual owners is one entity, not several separate entities. If they wanted to opperate that way, it would only make sense that each individual owner give up their team in exchange for part ownership of the entire league. I imagine that's not something the owners are willing to give up. In absense of any actual proof to the contrary, common sense tells you that the supreme court judges are upholding the law. I have no intention to prove it. It's common sense, if you don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, conversation over. We agree to disagree. Your opinion is based in best guess. Mine is. Neither have proof. Time will tell.

The other point, owners getting scabs and going down that avenue. That would be horrible for football and horrible for their pocket books. Call it a hunch, but that's not going to happen.


Nobody at packerrats has shown any actual law based evidence for what is happening, what going to happen and why. There are a bunch of opinions. I really don't care to prove anything, but in time I think you'll find the players have a lot of leverage here and the owners will have to open up their books before an eventual deal gets done. Oh, and football will be played in the mean time. Count on it.

[RashanGary]

The assumption that the judges aren't following the laws in this public case is just crazy. It's the same as everyone pining for Obamas birth certificate. Get a clue, people. The government isn't executing a big conspiracy to ruin your lives.

[get louder at lambeau]

The assumption that the judges aren't following the laws in this public case is just crazy. It's the same as everyone pining for Obamas birth certificate. Get a clue, people. The government isn't executing a big conspiracy to ruin your lives.

No, it's not the same in any way. Comparing a complicated class action anti-trust case in a unique industry with a "now you see it, now you don't" labor union to the people up in arms about the President's birth certificate is just stupid. Especially when you follow it with "Get a clue, people." I would suggest you do the same.

The law is complicated in this case, and there are different ways to interpret it, as evidenced by the lack of consensus among the judges in the appeals court ruling. It's not just a simple "follow the law, or don't follow the law" type thing.

[mraynrand]

The reason I bring up the issue of other teams being allowed to join the league is because if you want TRUE competition amonst the 32 teams (which the court is basically saying) then you have to have ease of entry into the market. The NFL is NOT 32 seperate businesses as the court has previously ruled or else I could create a 33rd team and join in. The LEAGUE is the business and they should have the right to set salary caps and keep it competitive as that is in their best business interest (and in the best interest of the consumer which is what anti trust is really all about). As Guiness has pointed out, and you have, I misunderstood the antitrust exemption to be similar to MLB. As it stands I have zero idea why it EVER came up since it has zero to do with this negotiation (other than it does not apply).

So with all that being said, I am where I am right now. The NFL actually should void all contracts negotiated under the decertified union and play with players they wish to sign for whatever they wish to sign. They shouldn't close shop at all imo, they should scab it up again and wait for the scabs to unionize and then negotiate a new CBA that will create good fun competition again for the fans.

This is a good argument. The AFL was able to form and compete with the NFL as well in the past. The Arena league can compete as well. Contracts should be void and NFL players can immediately go get big bucks with the arena league or start their own teams and negotiate contracts with publicly or privately owned stadiums. The NFL can re-hire them, some of them, or others, depending on what the various parties decide to do. This is if the lockout is ended.

[mraynrand]

No, it's not the same in any way. Comparing a complicated class action anti-trust case in a unique industry with a "now you see it, now you don't" labor union to the people up in arms about the President's birth certificate is just stupid. Especially when you follow it with "Get a clue, people." I would suggest you do the same.

The law is complicated in this case, and there are different ways to interpret it, as evidenced by the lack of consensus among the judges in the appeals court ruling. It's not just a simple "follow the law, or don't follow the law" type thing.


JH has said in FYI that he cares not for any law whatever, only that he wants the players to win and "Those fuckers" (the owners, in his eloquent words) to lose, no matter what law, rule or principle they have to violate to do it.

[Patler]

The assumption that the judges aren't following the laws in this public case is just crazy. It's the same as everyone pining for Obamas birth certificate. Get a clue, people. The government isn't executing a big conspiracy to ruin your lives.


Hasn't the Appellate Court restored the lockout by their temporary stay of the injunction against the lockout?
Isn't that in direct contradiction to the trial judge's ruling not to enter a stay of the injunction against the lockout, pending the appeal?

Trial judges are reversed, or partially reversed regularly. Often cases are simply remanded for further findings on issues the appellate courts feel are potentially determinative but not fully ruled on at the trial level.

There is a reason for Appellate Courts that does not include rubber-stamping what the trial court finds.

[Patler]

Bobble,

Your first point, the NFL being one entity, not 32 separate teams; you have no evidence siting law showing a combined league of individual owners is one entity, not several separate entities. If they wanted to opperate that way, it would only make sense that each individual owner give up their team in exchange for part ownership of the entire league. I imagine that's not something the owners are willing to give up. In absense of any actual proof to the contrary, common sense tells you that the supreme court judges are upholding the law. I have no intention to prove it. It's common sense, if you don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, conversation over. We agree to disagree. Your opinion is based in best guess. Mine is. Neither have proof. Time will tell.

Nobody at packerrats has shown any actual law based evidence for what is happening, what going to happen and why. There are a bunch of opinions. I really don't care to prove anything, but in time I think you'll find the players have a lot of leverage here and the owners will have to open up their books before an eventual deal gets done. Oh, and football will be played in the mean time. Count on it.

You might want to brush up on franchise law.

You want someone at Packerrats to prove the case?? I don't think the lawyers involved can tell you with absolute certainty what will happen. That's why it has gotten to court. Each side has highly experienced and competent attorneys who believe they can win their case. That's why it has gotten to where it is.

If you are ever involved in a protracted complex litigation you will learn that the more that things seem to be going your way, the more likely it seems to be that you will be slapped in the face with a decision you didn't see coming on some issue. That's just the way it goes. The worst thing you can do is become overconfident in your position. The best thing that you can do is look for the strengths of your opponents case and the weakness of yours. Completely dismissing your opponents case is a sure path to failure.

[RashanGary]

I like the time will tell approach. I don't believe for a second these judges are doing anything but their best to uphold the law.

Whatever happens, either way (I could care less how it's ruled, so long as they do their best to interpret the law, something I have trust in anyway)

At the end of this thing, if there are people sitting around whining and bitching about the big, bad court justice who didn't do her job, I'll just scoff because nobody with those claims has had an ounce of evidence to back their opinion. Very similar to the Obama whining. Baseless drivel.

[Patler]

I like the time will tell approach. I don't believe for a second these judges are doing anything but their best to uphold the law.

Whatever happens, either way (I could care less how it's ruled, so long as they do their best to interpret the law, something I have trust in anyway)

At the end of this thing, if there are people sitting around whining and bitching about the big, bad court justice who didn't do her job, I'll just scoff because nobody with those claims has had an ounce of evidence to back their opinion. Very similar to the Obama whining. Baseless drivel.

Why are you so condescending of anyone who disagrees with you? I don't think the judge is intentionally acting in direct contradiction to the law (although judges sometimes do, its called "legislating from the bench".) However, judges are influenced by their own beliefs, prejudices and misunderstandings, which can lead to erroneous decisions. Appellate Courts sit with three judge panels, if not full panels, so that collectively they can overcome their prejudices and misunderstandings.

Disagreeing with a trial judge is not "whining and bitching," it is simply disagreeing.

[RashanGary]

Disagreeing with a trial judge is not "whining and bitching," it is simply disagreeing.

Patler, I really don't care much about this outcome. What happens, happens. About my only piece of evidence is the last time the players did this, the lockout was ruled against and the deal was worked out while the game was played. Also, the judge seems well on her way to following suit. What actually happens, that's yet to be determined.

There's probably no need to condescend. That would probably be me over-stating my side to counter the 3 or 4 people I'm disagreeing with.

We'll see how it shakes out. Those who think this whole thing has been a progressive urination on the law and constitution might end up a little surprised where it ends up. That's all I'm saying. The odds that some supreme court justice just ignoring law to fulfill some progressive pro-labor conspiracy mission are pretty slim.


1. The last time the players pushed this direction, the lockout was ruled against and the game was allowed to be played while the players negotiated with added leverage.

2. Demaurice Smith pushed for this from day one. I think he's a pretty smart guy (just a hunch) and the fact he wanted this makes me think it's good for them. (similar to MM wanting Rodgers)

3. Judge Nelson began this process by ruling against the lockout, showing the rulings are on track with what the players expected.

4. An appeal is just an appeal. If it's actually successful, it will be the first evidence suggesting the owners have a chance here. All evidence so far suggests the players will gain leverage through this court process.


That's my opinion. That's where it came from. Anyone who disagrees, I love to hear it, but if I disagree, I'm more than happy to take a wait and see. It seems like there are a bunch of people who don't like the way this is going and want to call the union idiots and claim our country is being destroyed by liberal/progressive labor movement. It all seems like a big conspiracy theory, not based in anything but stubborn conservative thinking.

[SkinBasket]

I like the time will tell approach. I don't believe for a second these judges are doing anything but their best to uphold the law.

Whatever happens, either way (I could care less how it's ruled, so long as they do their best to interpret the law, something I have trust in anyway)

At the end of this thing, if there are people sitting around whining and bitching about the big, bad court justice who didn't do her job, I'll just scoff because nobody with those claims has had an ounce of evidence to back their opinion. Very similar to the Obama whining. Baseless drivel.

Nice to see you run away from the same argument in FYI after being thoroughly proven wrong only to pop up here a few days later making the same dumb arguments, sans all the common sense, evidence, and logic several people tried imparting to you. Or making the same non-arguments, I should say. How about we save everyone the trouble and you can just go re-read, or apparently read for the first time, the same "drivel" back there. Here's the link in case you're as lazy with your web browsing as you are with your thought process: http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?22065-What-labor-laws-are-you-OK-with-and-why

"I could care less how it's ruled..." Who are you kidding? Do you really need someone to paste all your comments to the contrary to see how ridiculous that sounds coming from you?

BTW, you're thoughts might carry some more weight if you didn't admit you have absolutely no evidence to back them up, which makes you admittedly ignorant. But at the same time, you demand evidence of everyone who disagrees with you, which just kind of makes you an admittedly ignorant asshat.

[bobblehead]

Bobble,

Your first point, the NFL being one entity, not 32 separate teams; you have no evidence siting law showing a combined league of individual owners is one entity, not several separate entities. If they wanted to operate that way, it would only make sense that each individual owner give up their team in exchange for part ownership of the entire league. I imagine that's not something the owners are willing to give up. In absence of any actual proof to the contrary, common sense tells you that the supreme court judges are upholding the law. I have no intention to prove it. It's common sense, if you don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, conversation over. We agree to disagree. Your opinion is based in best guess. Mine is. Neither have proof. Time will tell.

The other point, owners getting scabs and going down that avenue. That would be horrible for football and horrible for their pocket books. Call it a hunch, but that's not going to happen.


Nobody at packerrats has shown any actual law based evidence for what is happening, what going to happen and why. There are a bunch of opinions. I really don't care to prove anything, but in time I think you'll find the players have a lot of leverage here and the owners will have to open up their books before an eventual deal gets done. Oh, and football will be played in the mean time. Count on it.

JH, my "evidence" is common sense. The owners have a draft in reverse order of previous season record. They (in the past) didn't allow players to be FA, and even now limit it. The league is set up to COMPETE. The LEAGUE makes the rules to keep it competitive because they know that without those rules the fans (read consumers) will leave otherwise. 32 teams don't compete for your business in the same way Target and Wal Mart compete, and that type of competition (trying to be profitable by winning market share) isn't conducive to business. If one team were to win all the market share, the market share would plummet. The LEAGUE is the product, not the Packers, Cowboys, or any single team. If 31 teams go out of business there isn't a product. I understand that the courts (not the supreme court) have ruled otherwise, but that is what skin is bitching about....judicial activism.

My opinion on this, vs. yours is a no brainer. You know as well as I do that if Jerry Jones buys the next 20 superbowls the league revenue will drop. The league takes strides to not kill the golden goose of parity. There is a reason MLB players must play 162 games to make a little more than NFL players. I am in favor of players getting a fair payday for their talents, I really am. However I am even more in favor of the guys that built a national product watched by millions getting reimbursed first. You and I have very different political philosophies and you won't agree with me, but simply put you are wrong.

We disagree. You think that once someone has risked everything, worked his ass off and created a great venue he owes his employees more than the paycheck required to get them to do the job. A good friend of mine works as a supervisor at the Venetian Casino owned by Sheldon Adelson. Sheldon pays him well for this. If my friend quits, Mr. Adelson can replace him with whoever he wants and pay him whatever he wants. Its his company. My good friend is NOT entitled to anything more than what the owner and creator of the Venetian chooses to pay him. His choice is to work somewhere else.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have a right to see Jerry Jones' books. He has a right to quit playing football and go do whatever he pleases with his life. The free market will strike a balance on whether the NFL is putting a good product on the field or not. If they simply refuse to pay great athletes enough, another league will spring up and compete.

You see, its not Tom Brady that makes the NFL great, its the guys who engineered the league into a global entertainment venue. Those individuals deserve the profits. The programmers at Microsoft do NOT deserve any more of the company than Bill Gates chooses to pay them, and he will pay them exactly enough to keep them working for him. They did not create the company, did not negotiate global contracts, did not have the vision to transform operating systems, simply put, their skill set was replaceable. A handful of people improve our standard of living, the difference between you and I is that I want to free them up to get rich while enriching my life, but you are filled with envy and somehow think that the rewards of their efforts should be partly yours (as if they would put forth the effort for no reward).


As for Obama's birth certificate, it should bother you just as much as it did some nut on the far right. He is the president. I want him to prove his eligibility for office as much as I want GW, Ronald Reagan or George Washington to prove it. It should be automatic that to file to run you have to show up with your birth certificate....I needed mine to get a drivers license for fucks sake.

[bobblehead]

4. An appeal is just an appeal. If it's actually successful, it will be the first evidence suggesting the owners have a chance here. All evidence so far suggests the players will gain leverage through this court process.


Actually the players no longer have a right to negotiate as they decertified their union, so I am curious what this "leverage" is being applied to?

[Patler]

Patler, I really don't care much about this outcome. What happens, happens.

You're kidding, right? No one has been as vehement in stating their opinion and their contempt for the other side as you have been.


About my only piece of evidence is the last time the players did this, the lockout was ruled against and the deal was worked out while the game was played. Also, the judge seems well on her way to following suit. What actually happens, that's yet to be determined.

When was that? When was there a lockout that was ruled illegal? I believe the past situations were all started with a players' strike. Ultimately the players ended their strikes and the owners resumed operations without choosing to lockout the players. I could be wrong, but I don't recall another lockout. Games were played while negotiations continued because that is the way the owners decided to proceed, without a lockout.


There's probably no need to condescend. That would probably be me over-stating my side to counter the 3 or 4 people I'm disagreeing with.

We'll see how it shakes out. Those who think this whole thing has been a progressive urination on the law and constitution might end up a little surprised where it ends up. That's all I'm saying. The odds that some supreme court justice just ignoring law to fulfill some progressive pro-labor conspiracy mission are pretty slim.

Who has argued this is a "progressive urination on the law and constitution"? I have not seen these arguments. I really don't see much for constitutional issues on either side of this labor debate.



1. The last time the players pushed this direction, the lockout was ruled against and the game was allowed to be played while the players negotiated with added leverage.

I will simply repeat, when was that? When was there a lockout that was ruled against?


2. Demaurice Smith pushed for this from day one. I think he's a pretty smart guy (just a hunch) and the fact he wanted this makes me think it's good for them. (similar to MM wanting Rodgers)

Sorry, but most predicted this scenario from before Smith was hired. Almost since the rumor first surfaced that the owners would opt out early, legal pundits predicted the players would try to play the anti-trust card.


3. Judge Nelson began this process by ruling against the lockout, showing the rulings are on track with what the players expected.

This is just one step in a complex situation. I doubt the owners believed they had a real strong case at the district court level. I suspect they always felt their better chance would be with the court of appeals, and ultimately the case would go there regardless of which way the trial judge ruled.


4. An appeal is just an appeal. If it's actually successful, it will be the first evidence suggesting the owners have a chance here. All evidence so far suggests the players will gain leverage through this court process.

You are ignoring a key point, the Court of Appeals reversed the judge and entered a stay of the injunction. That would not have happened if the Court did not see merit in the owners' appeal, a chance of success by the owners on their appeal and equities on the side of reinstating the lockout. Doesn't mean the owners will ultimately win, but it is an indicator that they have a worthy argument. It clearly shows that this is not a slam dunk for the players. It is an indication that the owners might be right, that their better chance is with the court of appeals.



That's my opinion. That's where it came from. Anyone who disagrees, I love to hear it, but if I disagree, I'm more than happy to take a wait and see. It seems like there are a bunch of people who don't like the way this is going and want to call the union idiots and claim our country is being destroyed by liberal/progressive labor movement. It all seems like a big conspiracy theory, not based in anything but stubborn conservative thinking.

I don't recall anyone calling the union idiots. I don't recall anyone commenting with the same divisive tone as you have. I don't recall any comments as derogatory of the union or the players as yours toward the owners and the league. Just my opinion and perception.

[Patler]

You see, its not Tom Brady that makes the NFL great, its the guys who engineered the league into a global entertainment venue. Those individuals deserve the profits. The programmers at Microsoft do NOT deserve any more of the company than Bill Gates chooses to pay them, and he will pay them exactly enough to keep them working for him. They did not create the company, did not negotiate global contracts, did not have the vision to transform operating systems, simply put, their skill set was replaceable. A handful of people improve our standard of living, the difference between you and I is that I want to free them up to get rich while enriching my life, but you are filled with envy and somehow think that the rewards of their efforts should be partly yours (as if they would put forth the effort for no reward).


Bobble brings up a good point. The extension of that is this: If the players are successful in securing for themselves the biggest piece of the pie, and the NFL is no longer a place where an owner who is willing to take chances can make obscene amounts of money if he succeeds, it will no longer be attractive to the risk takers. It will become a group of more conservative investors. Like it or not, the need to "keep up" with the high flyers is what has pushed the league to where it is. The risk-takers and visionaries have spurred its growth.

Would the stadium expansion in GB have happened but for the need to keep up with the risk takers?
Would the Packers be talking of further expansions if they weren't pushed to it by the likes of Jerry Jones?

The players should want the owners to see opportunities for great wealth, because the players portions of the profits will go up with them. When the owners feel that further growth is more for the players than for themselves, there will be little incentive for an owner to do it.

[pbmax]

You are ignoring a key point, the Court of Appeals reversed the judge and entered a stay of the injunction.

A stay is not a reversal, unless you mean the Appellate Court issued an emergency stay when the Trial Judge denied the League's initial request for a stay.

In this particular case, the Circuit Court issued an emergency stay, while deciding about the full motion for a stay. That is, two of three judges thought the NFL owners would suffer damages if the court order was implemented while appeals were heard. The temporary stay was one of four basic steps that could happen at the Circuit Court (emergency stay, stay, appeal, appeal before full 18 judge panel).

At this point, it's believed that the Appeals Court might sit on the full motion for a stay until it hears the appeal on June 3rd. In fact, I read the League submitted its brief today and the Players are due to respond by the 20th. By the first week of June, we might have a reversal of the injunction, but not yet.

[RashanGary]

Eh, just let it play out. I don't need to iron clad my predictions. They're just right and that's all that matters to me.

[pbmax]

The NFL has a long and distinguished history of losing anti-trust cases. In fact, the running joke about the NFL right through the first salary cap was that the NFL was the best run sport in America, except for the lawyers it hired. The reason for this is precisely because the NFL does not have a full exemption from anti-trust law like baseball does. And NFL owners kept banging their head on that wall over and over again, essentially financing Al Davis ownership of the Raiders and several large trusts and charitable foundations for the descendants of litigators along the New York-Washington axis.

In fact, one of the few significant anti-trust victories for the NFL was actually a loss. A jury found the NFL to behave like a trust and to have violated those laws when sued by the USFL for anti competitive practices. The NFL was cited for its player contracts, stadium contracts, TV deals and several other items I have forgotten. But the jury failed to see a connection between this behavior and losses sustained by the USFL and fined the NFL one dollar.

Because the NFL exists in a near constant state of violating those statutes, it doesn't want to be anywhere near a Federal Court unless its deciding cases brought through Federal labor laws and the NLRB. That is in no small way ironic.

Bobble makes the case that perhaps the NFL should have an exemption like baseball. But the feeling that always emerges on Capitol Hill when the question gets discussed is a near universal refusal to grant an exemption to another league. The general feeling is that the exemption has harmed baseball more than helped it.

[Patler]

A stay is not a reversal, unless you mean the Appellate Court issue an emergency stay when the Trial Judge denied the League's initial request for a stay.

The owners first asked the trial judge to stay the injunction pending their appeal. She denied their request. They then asked the appellate court for a temporary stay, which was granted, then extended. Effectively, the Court of Appeals has reversed the trial judge's decision on the immediate temporary stay of the injunction pending the appeal. It's not a reversal of the trial judges decision on the injunction, but it was a reversal of her decision on the temporary stay. That's why the lockout was "off" for a day or two, then back on again.



In this particular case, the Circuit Court issued an emergency stay, while deciding about the full motion for a stay. That is, two of three judges thought the NFL owners would suffer damages if the court order was implemented while appeals were heard. The temporary stay was one of four basic steps that could happen at the Circuit Court (emergency stay, stay, appeal, appeal before full 18 judges).

Yes, but there also was (I assume, I haven't read their decision) a finding that the owners have at least a reasonable chance of success on the appeal, and that the equities of damage to owners versus damage to players depending on who wins or loses slanted to the owners. Otherwise, orders of the trial court are not generally stayed pending an appeal.


At this point, it's believed that the Appeals Court might sit on the full motion for a stay until it hears the appeal on June 3rd. In fact, I read the League submitted its brief today and the Players are due to respond by the 20th. By the first week of June, we might have a reversal of the injunction, but not yet.

Quite likely, since they granted the request for an expedited hearing on the appeal. It may come down to how clearly the panel perceives the issues on the appeal. If there is a lot of debate among them (or among their clerks doing the research) the actual decision on the appeal could be delayed, in which case they might again take up the matter of the temporary stay of the injunction.

[Tarlam!]

Patler. I would love to have you on my negotiating team; I would hate to have you on the the other team.

[Patler]

The NFL has a long and distinguished history of losing anti-trust cases. In fact, the running joke about the NFL right through the first salary cap was that the NFL was the best run sport in America, except for the lawyers it hired. The reason for this is precisely because the NFL does not have a full exemption from anti-trust law like baseball does. And NFL owners kept banging their head on that wall over and over again, essentially financing Al Davis ownership of the Raiders and several large trusts and charitable foundations for the descendants of litigators along the New York-Washington axis.

In fact, one of the few significant anti-trust victories for the NFL was actually a loss. A jury found the NFL to behave like a trust and to have violated those laws when sued by the USFL for anti competitive practices. The NFL was cited for its player contracts, stadium contracts, TV deals and several other items I have forgotten. But the jury failed to see a connection between this behavior and losses sustained by the USFL and fined the NFL one dollar.

Because the NFL exists in a near constant state of violating those statutes, it doesn't want to be anywhere near a Federal Court unless its deciding cases brought through Federal labor laws and the NLRB. That is in no small way ironic.

Bobble makes the case that perhaps the NFL should have an exemption like baseball. But the feeling that always emerges on Capitol Hill when the question gets discussed is a near universal refusal to grant an exemption to another league. The general feeling is that the exemption has harmed baseball more than helped it.

True, but that begs the question of what more there is for them to lose? I suspect not much beyond what they have lost already. That removes the fear of further litigation, but does open the possibility of winning small battles and having a court-defined outline for their dealings with the players, particularly if they gain clarity on the here-today-gone-tomorrow union representation.

An anti-trust exemption for any sport other than baseball will pretty much necessitate similar exemptions for other professional sports. Then there will be arguments for exemptions for other types of competitive entertainment, and it will snowball. Not likely to happen. Courts are much more likely to continue the fantasy of the unique position of MLB in American society than to open the Pandora's box.

[pbmax]

I understand your point on the stay, but saying "reversed the Trial judge" calls to mind something more significant than a stay, don't you think? As in, "reversed the court's decision on the full matter in question?"

The NFL did not argue financial damages would ensue (at least the summaries that I have read), but complications from reinterpreting rules for an entirely new calendar that might need to be changed back if they are successful. However, the stay does not need to pass a likely to succeed on the merits test. That would be for the injunction (or the removal of the injunction). The stay would be to prevent actions that could not be undone (say for a deportation matter).

And I don't think the temporary stay was extended. The Appeals Court is currently sitting on the full motion for a stay. The Clerk said its possible that there will be no ruling on the full motion at all.

[Patler]

Patler. I would love to have you on my negotiating team; I would hate to have you on the the other team.

:lol: Funny thing is, I spent a big part of my career negotiating deals, and had a reputation of being good for both sides. The deals I was a part of worked for both sides.

[pbmax]

True, but that begs the question of what more there is for them to lose? I suspect not much beyond what they have lost already. That removes the fear of further litigation, but does open the possibility of winning small battles and having a court-defined outline for their dealings with the players, particularly if they gain clarity on the here-today-gone-tomorrow union representation.

An anti-trust exemption for any sport other than baseball will pretty much necessitate similar exemptions for other professional sports. Then there will be arguments for exemptions for other types of competitive entertainment, and it will snowball. Not likely to happen. Courts are much more likely to continue the fantasy of the unique position of MLB in American society than to open the Pandora's box.

Oddly, the league with the exemption, baseball, has one of the higher rates of competition among its teams for talent and revenues. The disparities are greater in baseball despite the exemption that would allow them to remedy them by almost any means among the clubs (short of altering the CBA) and suppressing competition.

I wonder if the players would be willing (or have truly entertained) the notion of open competition among teams for players? What if this plays out as an anti-trust matter and the NFLPA does not reform itself? No cap, no minimum. It would be interesting. And I would think it might settle once and for all the question that lies at the heart of this matter: Local Revenue Sharing.

If the least valuable teams faced such a competitive environment, they would be forced to move, sell or completely change their approach. Not having a team in LA would be remedied very quickly. But I wonder if the pressure would be effective enough to raise revenue for the bottom clubs and keep them operational. Some might hang on like the Pirates and others might get contracted.

If competition was successful, it might eliminate the need for Local Revenue Sharing.

[pbmax]

Though I should point out that inequalities between teams in baseball has yet to sort itself out and baseball has moved closer to the NFL model recently.

Not to mention the public pressure that would exist if teams were actually contracted.

[Patler]

I understand your point on the stay, but saying "reversed the Trial judge" calls to mind something more significant than a stay, don't you think? As in, "reversed the court's decision on the full matter in question?"

Not to me it doesn't because I tied it directly to the stay. What I wrote was; "You are ignoring a key point, the Court of Appeals reversed the judge and entered a stay of the injunction." That is, they reversed the judge on the matter of the stay. I also thought it was clear because the matter of the injunction has not even been argued yet, just the stay. However, if my meaning was not clear to you, that is the fault of my writing.

[Patler]

The NFL did not argue financial damages would ensue (at least the summaries that I have read), but complications from reinterpreting rules for an entirely new calendar that might need to be changed back if they are successful. However, the stay does not need to pass a likely to succeed on the merits test. That would be for the injunction (or the removal of the injunction). The stay would be to prevent actions that could not be undone (say for a deportation matter).

And I don't think the temporary stay was extended. The Appeals Court is currently sitting on the full motion for a stay. The Clerk said its possible that there will be no ruling on the full motion at all.

I will admit to not knowing what exactly either side argued. I haven't even seen a link to their briefs, although I am sure they are available. However, there normally is some balancing of equities in the matter, and generally in a civil suit it comes down to something of a pecuniary nature. I know the quotes I have seen from the dissent focused on the NFL failure to prove the financial injury, so I imagine there was at least lip service given to it.

I could be wrong, but I thought they initially entered a stay of just a couple days, then extended it. I very well might be wrong on that.

It's not a "likely to succeed" standard that is applied, it is less than that. But there has to be a finding (I've forgotten the magic phrase) that there is the possibility of success on the appeal and the equities slant to the appellant if they do win. Otherwise, court orders are not stayed, or shouldn't be stayed.

[SkinBasket]

RE: NFL's filing today...


The arguments in the filing were an expanded version of what the league has claimed all along: that the union's move to decertify after the initial bargaining talks broke down is a sham; that Nelson does not have the jurisdiction to lift the lockout; and, that she should have waited for a decision from the National Labor Relations Board before issuing that ruling.

The league also said that lifting the lockout with no labor deal in place would cause chaos, with teams trying to make decisions on signing free agents and making trades under a set of rules that could change drastically under a new agreement.

"It would be difficult, if not impossible, to unscramble the eggs and return those players to clubs that otherwise may have had contract arrangements with [or, at least, a greater ability to enter into contracts with] such players in the absence of an injunction," the league's court brief said.

The group of players suing the league, including star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, have said the lockout is inflicting irreparable harm on their brief playing careers by preventing them from working out at team headquarters, holding full practices with teammates and coaches and jeopardizing games. Nelson agreed and issued the injunction.

But the NFL said Monday that the judge "failed entirely to consider the serious, immediate and irreparable harm the injunction posed to the NFL" and "vastly overstated both the harm to the [players] and the nature of that harm."

Pretty much what we've been saying here. Either we're really smart or the NFL needs better lawyers.

[pbmax]

Why would the league year calendar need to be reset to Day 1 if the League prevails after the lockout was enjoined? There was substantial uncertainty about League rules last year; both that they had changed and no one was certain of the impact and the fact that entirely new rules would likely be in place for 2011.

Is there that much more uncertainty now? I am not sure scrambled eggs is the right metaphor. Walking through a minefield, maybe.

It would definitely mean a signing bonus is a risk, but there are other mechanisms available (and other dates).

[Patler]

I love the arguments in litigation! The players argued that "the lockout is inflicting irreparable harm on their brief playing careers by preventing them from working out at team headquarters, holding full practices with teammates and coaches and jeopardizing games." Then, when the get around to negotiating the new CBA they will argue for less and less mandatory activity during the off season. Many don't train at the team facilities unless required, don't show up for voluntary camps, etc.

[Patler]

Why would the league year calendar need to be reset to Day 1 if the League prevails after the lockout was enjoined? There was substantial uncertainty about League rules last year; both that they had changed and no one was certain of the impact and the fact that entirely new rules would likely be in place for 2011.

Is there that much more uncertainty now? I am not sure scrambled eggs is the right metaphor. Walking through a minefield, maybe.

It would definitely mean a signing bonus is a risk, but there are other mechanisms available (and other dates).

It might require both parties agreeing to a transition year if the injunction is enacted lifting the lockout under one set of rules and the rules are changed by a new CBA. Making the CBA effective for the following league year would seem to do it. It certainly doesn't seem to be an insurmountable task, does it? The biggest obstacle would be that it would require some cooperation between the owners and players.

[Tarlam!]

:lol: Funny thing is, I spent a big part of my career negotiating deals, and had a reputation of being good for both sides. The deals I was a part of worked for both sides.

After you bent them over the board room, had the drop their pants and had your way woth thim, what else do you think they were were gonna say? :grin:

[Zool]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

[Smidgeon]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

For me, it depends on what the product looks like on the other side...

[Guiness]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

Yup. I'm not a big NBA fan but can forgive them for going out, because their system is badly broken. If they fix it, fine.

MLB was/is broken. Difference with them is that they went out, but didn't fix any of their problems.

My issue with the NFL is that nothing was broken, the league was good and healthy. And they're messing it up.

[bobblehead]

Bobble makes the case that perhaps the NFL should have an exemption like baseball. But the feeling that always emerges on Capitol Hill when the question gets discussed is a near universal refusal to grant an exemption to another league. The general feeling is that the exemption has harmed baseball more than helped it.

Thats not quite right pb. I don't like anti trust exemption for anyone...baseball or NFL included. I believe competition makes the world advance and I want the NFL to be challenged when they slip. Where I disagree is that the courts have treated 32 FRANCHISES as seperate businesses and applied anti trust laws to them that should not be. One godfathers pizza place does NOT compete with the next, but they all compete with pizza hut. The parent company sets workplace rules to benefit all owners and by extension employees.

The only sense of the work where the Cowboys compete with the Packers is on the field, but when it comes to growing the NFL pie they work in unison. Now....if the players wish to decertify and ask for a free for all, that is not their right. They can choose to leave the NFL to work in any other football league they wish, but the NFL requires competitive balance to be enjoyable. Trying to compare and NFL employee to a godfathers employee and saying he should be allowed to go work for a different godfathers is apples and oranges. The very product the NFL is built around means we need certain rules to assure a decent product on the field. It is in the CONSUMERS best interest. It also happens to be in the players (employees) best interest overall.

Now, we can go to a free for all system like Mr. Smith wants, and I guess you could argue that its the right thing under the law as the above paragraph is hard to prove, but if we do that, everyone loses. The fans lose the great product, the owners and players lose money. Anti trust laws are designed to ensure against that very thing.

[get louder at lambeau]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

Most casual fans don't even know what's happening right now, and won't until games are missed. Hardcore football fans will come back anyway, because they're hardcore fans. I don't think the NFL will lose much of anything unless they miss a significant amount of the regular season.

[pbmax]

Thats not quite right pb. I don't like anti trust exemption for anyone...baseball or NFL included. I believe competition makes the world advance and I want the NFL to be challenged when they slip. Where I disagree is that the courts have treated 32 FRANCHISES as seperate businesses and applied anti trust laws to them that should not be. One godfathers pizza place does NOT compete with the next, but they all compete with pizza hut. The parent company sets workplace rules to benefit all owners and by extension employees.

The only sense of the work where the Cowboys compete with the Packers is on the field, but when it comes to growing the NFL pie they work in unison. Now....if the players wish to decertify and ask for a free for all, that is not their right. They can choose to leave the NFL to work in any other football league they wish, but the NFL requires competitive balance to be enjoyable. Trying to compare and NFL employee to a godfathers employee and saying he should be allowed to go work for a different godfathers is apples and oranges. The very product the NFL is built around means we need certain rules to assure a decent product on the field. It is in the CONSUMERS best interest. It also happens to be in the players (employees) best interest overall.

Now, we can go to a free for all system like Mr. Smith wants, and I guess you could argue that its the right thing under the law as the above paragraph is hard to prove, but if we do that, everyone loses. The fans lose the great product, the owners and players lose money. Anti trust laws are designed to ensure against that very thing.

I don't think Smith, nor any player, wants a completely free system and its a strawman argument to suggest they do. Anti-trust is the point of the players greatest leverage currently. But they will happily concede if owners move toward their position. Just like I believe the NFL does not want HGH testing and absolutely doesn't want WADA conducting the tests. I actually think the league would survive and do well, but I doubt any current participant wants to take a step backward to take two steps forward.

As for pizza versus sport, I don't think they are comparable. No pizza franchise controls the market like the NFL. And unless you envision the league letting the Cowboys open a small developmental franchise in Appleton, they will not come to resemble each other any time soon. They behave and indeed have been found multiple times over to act in anti-competitive ways that violate anti-trust laws. You do not need to be 32 separate entities to violate anti-trust laws. A singe entity that engaged in exclusive stadium and TV deals would face the same kind of scrutiny. Only it might not be the players fighting it, it would be the next USFL.

[get louder at lambeau]

As for pizza versus sport, I don't think they are comparable. No pizza franchise controls the market like the NFL. And unless you envision the league letting the Cowboys open a small developmental franchise in Appleton, they will not come to resemble each other any time soon.

I kinda like the pizza franchise analogy. Godfathers Pizza wouldn't have to allow one of it's franchisees to open another location in Appleton if it didn't want to, as far as I can think, so I'm not sure what you are saying there.

The main thing that makes the NFL different and subject to antitrust legislation is market share. If the NFL didn't control so much of the industry of professional football, it would be much more like Godfather's, but they do, and that changes everything as you mentioned.

[bobblehead]

If they tried to negotiate a TV contract with NBC and stipulated that NBC can't show any other football, that would be an anti trust violation. If they simply dominate the market share so broadly that no one WANTS to show or watch any other football....well, that is called crushing the competition legitimately.

[pbmax]

I kinda like the pizza franchise analogy. Godfathers Pizza wouldn't have to allow one of it's franchisees to open another location in Appleton if it didn't want to, as far as I can think, so I'm not sure what you are saying there.

The main thing that makes the NFL different and subject to antitrust legislation is market share. If the NFL didn't control so much of the industry of professional football, it would be much more like Godfather's, but they do, and that changes everything as you mentioned.

Much depends on the franchiser, but some franchisee owners can pick when and where. The franchiser controls territories to prevent overlap. But you are right, if the NFL wasn't in its dominating position, it wouldn't be an issue. But the number and location of franchises comes up in every Congressional discussion of sports legislation.

[pbmax]

If they tried to negotiate a TV contract with NBC and stipulated that NBC can't show any other football, that would be an anti trust violation. If they simply dominate the market share so broadly that no one WANTS to show or watch any other football....well, that is called crushing the competition legitimately.

I agree. However, if memory serves, the NFL wrote memos to both the Networks and its advertisers that stated it would be difficult for it to continue to do business if they were not their exclusive outlet for professional football entertainment. In tone the memos tried to strike a chord that the NFL was like a song that would only be licensed to appear in commercials for one supplier in one market segment at a time. Basically that they wouldn't do business with them if other professional football appeared in the fall.

As I said, until recently, the League has shot itself in the foot over anti-trust multiple times.

[Guiness]

dp