Injunction Junction

[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...K-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?