If lockout is lifted, can the Packers now trade...

[RashanGary]

It makes perfect sense, I get it, but when the players didn't get what they wanted at the start of the negotiation and they chose to go to court to strengthen their hand, everyone talked about how the owners were such solid guys, wanting to be reasonable and the players just wanted to have litigation and were unreasonable (not to mention stupid).

Well now that they got what they wanted, they're back at the table. The owners are now choosing to walk away for litigation. Why is it different? I don't think it is, but it seems many others do.

[Bossman641]

It makes perfect sense, I get it, but when the players didn't get what they wanted at the start of the negotiation and they chose to go to court to strengthen their hand, everyone talked about how the owners were such solid guys, wanting to be reasonable and the players just wanted to have litigation and were unreasonable (not to mention stupid).

Well now that they got what they wanted, they're back at the table. The owners are now choosing to walk away for litigation. Why is it different? I don't think it is, but it seems many others do.

Why in the world would the owners just give in when they have every legal right to appeal? Why didn't the players just give in when this whole thing started? Your answer to every problem in this situation is "the owners should just do what the players want."

[Patler]

Isn't it funny though, now that the players have decertification backed by the judge, the owners are the ones not going back to the table now. The good guys were in a big damn hurry to get taht deal worked out when they had the cards. Now the court process is about over, let's see how anxiously they get back to the tables now. Nobody is stopping them. I thought they just wanted a deal? I thought it was urgent?

Now they're dragging it back to court. Just weird. Who's the side of litigation and procrastination now?

What table is it that you expect the owners to go back to? If the decertification is legitimate, there is no union. Just who is it that you want the owners to negotiate with, and what conditions are they to negotiate?

"The court process is about over.." Are you kidding???? What the players started is likely to drag on for years. Football might be played in the mean time, but the litigation could go on for a long, long time.

Before castigating the owners response to the trial court ruling, ask yourself this question: If the judge had ruled that decertification was a shame and the lockout legitimate, do you thing the players would have capitulated, or would they have appealed? Cases of this magnitude are never "decided" by a judge or jury at the trial level, they are decided by appellate court panels. The trial level only establishes the framework for the inevitable appeal.

[Guiness]

"The court process is about over.." Are you kidding???? What the players started is likely to drag on for years. Football might be played in the mean time, but the litigation could go on for a long, long time.

Quite true.

After the '87 strike, they got back to work but the issues dragged through the court systems for years afterwords. Reggie White winning his FA case (in 93?) was still part of that process.

[RashanGary]

Why in the world would the owners just give in when they have every legal right to appeal? Why didn't the players just give in when this whole thing started? Your answer to every problem in this situation is "the owners should just do what the players want."

That's more an exaggeration because all this time teh players were bad guys because they didn't just do what the owners wanted a few months ago.

Right from teh start, if litigation would have strengthened the owners hand they would have done it. When the players did it, they cried foul to the public. Well, now is time for them do what they whined the players wouldn't do. Go back to the table (and in this case, the only way to open it is to give the financial info.) That's all they're asking for and all they've ever asked for to start bargaining.

They obviously don't want to bargain. They want to drag through litigation too.

[Patler]

That's more an exaggeration because all this time teh players were bad guys because they didn't just do what the owners wanted a few months ago.

Right from teh start, if litigation would have strengthened the owners hand they would have done it. When the players did it, they cried foul to the public. Well, now is time for them do what they whined the players wouldn't do. Go back to the table (and in this case, the only way to open it is to give the financial info.) That's all they're asking for and all they've ever asked for to start bargaining.

Why do you insist on framing this as a "good guys" "bad guys" controversy? Personally, I think the players never intended to settle, they ignored everything the owners did present on financial matters, intended always to initiate litigation and will do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them bad guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.

I also think the owners wanted to settle without litigation, but only by providing a level of financial info that they were comfortable with, intended to play public opinion cards whenever possible, and to do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them good guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.

Don't be surprised if they owners pursue the appeal, and if they lose at the appeal, begin to treat the players exactly as the players claim they now are; independent contractors individually deciding whether or not to be members of a loosely organized trade association. I have a sneaking suspicion that some owners will be more than happy to operate in that manner. Other will not be so happy.

Remember that in the scenario requested by the players, the trade association could be considered as a group of "Sellers" of football services for which the teams are the "Buyers". As such, the players trade association can be guilty of collusion, price fixing and any number of things. Whereas the owners could be subjected to various anti-trust restrictions, so too could the players association. Ideally, a free market works both vertically and horizontally in both directions. That is part of the reason the owners need clarification, and why this might not be the panacea you think it is for the players.

The players are asking that the owners be treated as employers of a non-unionized work force, while the owners treat the players as a union. The owners next step is to treat the players as a non-unionized workforce and to demand that the players act as a non-unionized workforce.

[Tarlam!]

JH, you should stick to your strength, which is football commentary. You're looking really foolish in this discussion.

[Smidgeon]

I still think it's relatively ridiculous that the players are one step up on successfully blocking a lockout (a legal method to be used by owners) when the owners didn't have a similar way to block a strike (a legal method to be used by players).

After all, if the players striked, the owners couldn't force them to play the games, but the players are trying to force the owners to play them when they wanted to lockout.

It's something that Lurker (I believe) pointed out a while back, and it still strikes (no pun intended) me as ridiculous.

[Lurker64]

This is a long, long way from over. Judge Nelson crafted her decision with the intention of having it not being able to be overturned on appeal, citing numerous precedents where the 8th circuit deferred to lower courts in various facets. The thing is? The Appeals Court can just ignore all of that, they're not supposed to, but "not supposed to" doesn't stop judges. The Appeals court will consider the potentially monumental precedent set as a reason to look at the whole thing from the beginning. Why do they consider the precedent so monumental? Because the NBA will be in this exact same position come autumn. If Nelson's ruling holds up, what she's essentially saying is that a private business can be forced, by the government, to operate even though it doesn't want to. In the NBA situation, the meaningful difference is that the NBA is losing a lot of money operating under its current system. So Nelson's contention is that essentially the government can force a business to run itself out of business. The notoriously business-friendly 8th Circuit Court is going to take exception to basically endorsing a script that every single sports union can follow any time the owners threaten to lock them out as a bargaining tactic. In essence, Nelson is making lockouts illegal.

If the players win, and the lockout is well and truly ended, and the players decide to play out the rest of their hand, this will take roughly 4-5 years to work out in the courts. The players' strategy once the lockout is ended is to challenge literally everything that the NFL does as an antitrust violation, and those cases will take multiple years.

Remember, if the lockout is well and truly over we still don't have a collective bargaining agreement. The next step is for the league to adopt some sort of work rules (or just neglect to do so). But the first time a player without a current contract (be he a draft pick, an exclusive rights free agent, a restricted free agent, or a tagged player) is told he cannot sign exactly where he wants to then the NFLPA* will sue the NFL telling them that whatever they're trying to do is a violation of antitrust law. There will be many of these fights.

What we have to hope is that neither side actually wants to carry through with this, that both sides are just jockeying for leverage, and honestly the quickest way to return to the pre-decertification situation is for a court to rule that the union decertified improperly, and for both sides to be returned to collective bargaining and knowing where the leverage points are they hammer out something this summer. Since if, in the eyes of the court if the decertified union is actually not a union and they end the lockout, this is going to take a long, long, long time to resolve.

[get louder at lambeau]

Right from teh start, if litigation would have strengthened the owners hand they would have done it. When the players did it, they cried foul to the public. Well, now is time for them do what they whined the players wouldn't do. Go back to the table (and in this case, the only way to open it is to give the financial info.) That's all they're asking for and all they've ever asked for to start bargaining.

They obviously don't want to bargain. They want to drag through litigation too.

The equivalent to what the players did would be for the NFL to pretend to cease to exist as a collective of companies and let all teams go it on their own with their own employment rules, while the NFL would only exist to employ referees and make a schedule. There would be no draft, and it would instantly make the Cowboys and Redskins into powerhouses that can buy any player they want, while small market teams become uncompetitive and go bankrupt.

You think they would do that if it strengthened their hand in this one negotiation, huh? You think they would have thrown away all that they've built and become like Major League Baseball or worse over this one fight over a CBA? I don't.

[Patler]

The equivalent to what the players did would be for the NFL to pretend to cease to exist as a collective of companies and let all teams go it on their own with their own employment rules, while the NFL would only exist to employ referees and make a schedule. There would be no draft, and it would instantly make the Cowboys and Redskins into powerhouses that can buy any player they want, while small market teams become uncompetitive and go bankrupt.

You think they would do that if it strengthened their hand in this one negotiation, huh? You think they would have thrown away all that they've built and become like Major League Baseball or worse over this one fight over a CBA? I don't.

That's where antitrust, union/nonunion, etc. issues get somewhat complicated for the NFL. Generally, owners in any sport have long term interests in the forefront of their plans. However, in a league where careers are extremely short, like the NFL, at any one time a group of players may seek their own personal best interests and not be concerned about the long term health of the league. They won't be around for the inevitable downside that results from some actions they can take to maximize their current gain. MLB is different, where a player who finally makes it can reasonably expect to stay there for a long time.

[Packgator]

I like college ball as well...and wish I could pretend the NCAA was a benevolent organization, but their treatment of the athlete students like 'meat' is probably worse. There's money to be divided up there too, so the same problems exist.

To get away from it, you probably have to follow a team like this one:

http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/index

They play in the NEFC,
http://www.d3football.com/landing/index

What makes you think that? My first-hand experience as a "athlete student" (at a BCS conference school) was great in every way. Whatever the opposite of being treated like meat would be a far better description.

[RashanGary]

Patler, when the players didn't get the info they asked for, they decided to take it to court. Some people believe you should take the owners word for it, others don't. The players didn't. That's their choice and it's looking better every day.

As far as Judge Nelson setting a dangerous precedent, I'm not so sure setting the precedent that owners can financially bully their employees away from rightful anti-trust lawsuits is any better. When illegal practices are happening in the workplace, should the employer have the right to just fire them so they can't afford their lawsuit? That's a tough question. Do you only enforce laws for people who can afford to pursue them, or do you enforce laws for everyone? How do you ensure everyone can be protected by the laws, where do you draw the line?

[RashanGary]

JH, you should stick to your strength, which is football commentary. You're looking really foolish in this discussion.

Thanks, I'm doing fine.

[Tarlam!]

Thanks, I'm doing fine.

No, you're not. You only think you are. You haven't succeeded convincing anybody on any single point you've brought up. Other than being absent of utter logic, your views are insidiously subjective and condascending. You've taken a position that the players have won the leverage. You also have it as a forgone conclusion that the NFL will be forced to bend over and take it by the courts. All this despite reputable, qualified posters pointing out objective facts in a very friendly manner.

Indeed, you look very foolish in this discussion.