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...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?