Injunction Junction

[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.

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.