Injunction Junction

[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.