Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/appeals-court-grants-nfls-motion-for-stay-lockout-still-on/

I am sure this one is legit. Stay granted until appeal is resolved, minimum three weeks as arguments on appeal will be heard in early June.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/report-breakthrough-in-talks/

This breakthrough report is shakier as it seems the only thing that has happened is that the owners agreed to present an offer at the request of the mediator. The report is from Sal Palantonio with his source being Carl Eller. But the breakthrough might be ephemeral as the owners have agreed to make a proposal but no one has seen it yet.

So don't let go of that bird in your hand yet. To mix a metaphor.

[pbmax]

Florio thinks the Appeals Court has tipped its hand and it looks favorable for the owners.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/eighth-circuit-tips-its-hand-judge-nelsons-ruling-is-in-serious-jeopardy/

[Lurker64]

Looks like the league holds pretty much all the cards now. It just comes down to whether the league decides to try to make a deal that both sides can live with now that they have the leverage, or whether they elect to try to grind the union into dust. The remaining card for the players (Judge Doty and the Lockout Fund) could give the players the ability to withstand a long lockout, or at least longer than the league would prefer, so "breaking the union" might not be an attractive option.

Though, on the other hand, whatever Doty rules the NFL can appeal that to the 8th Circuit, and the 8th Circuit appears to have the NFL's back here.

But if the decision issued today really does include the quote: “We have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits" then the players have really no chance at preventing Judge Nelson's injunction enjoining the lockout from being rescinded.

[retailguy]

I can't wait to hear if our resident Union supporter thinks the appeals court is "upholding the law" by invalidating what Judge Nelson apparently inaccurately decided.

We have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League's lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.

Pretty damning statement right there. Wow.

[SkinBasket]

The league has a chance to act like grown-ups in the wake of its victory. For 66 days and counting, neither side has. Maybe Day 67 will see the stewards of the game setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the players and instead offer a fair deal that the players will regard as fair both now and in the future.

Gee. I wonder which side of the dispute NBC Sports is on. That has to be the most idiotic bass ackward bit of moronic thought I've seen published in the last few months. So now the owners, the employers, are taking from, nay! "squeezing!" the poor, downtrodden players by paying them billions of dollars! Ah! THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!

And as usual with the progressive-liberal folks, even when they've lost and been found to be wrong, it's always up to the "adults" (read: not them) to make a "fair" decision in the wake of the player [not]union temper tantrum. In other words, give them what they wanted anyway.

[RashanGary]

I'm sure all the judges are doing their best in these cases. Whatever happens, I'm not too invested in the result.

[RashanGary]

Isn't this all sort of expected though, were they really going to not let the 8th circuit court not hear the NFL's arguement. It seems like a bunch of business as usual, dragging through the process. I'm still thinking the players win this thing. There's certainly opposing evidence to that view, but I have my money on Demaurice.

The NFL will get their day in court. Now they just have to win.

[SkinBasket]

I'm sure all the judges are doing their best in these cases. Whatever happens, I'm not too invested in the result.

Yeah, you've made that abundantly clear.

PS: I would have made more LOL faces if Joe's cocksucking faggot software didn't suck so much donkey cock.

[Patler]

Isn't this all sort of expected though, were they really going to not let the 8th circuit court not hear the NFL's arguement. It seems like a bunch of business as usual, dragging through the process. I'm still thinking the players win this thing. There's certainly opposing evidence to that view, but I have my money on Demaurice.

The NFL will get their day in court. Now they just have to win.

No, its not really just business as usual. The stay of the injunction has nothing to do with giving the NFL their day. If the court had ended the stay, or not even entered it in the first place, the arguments on appeal would have still gone on. The stay wasn't necessary for the court to hear the NFL's argument. That was certain to happen as soon as the request for appeal was accepted. The stay was a separate matter, but can be a hint at the direction the appellate court is leaning based on what is required for a stay to be entered.

[RashanGary]

We'll see. I'll stand by my thinking, the players leadership have a good idea of what they're doing. We'll see how it all shakes out. This is certainly new evidence to support the players leadership not knowing what they're doing, but I'm locked in on my original prediction and I'll either be right or wrong when it plays out. I'm fine with that. I don't know everything. I'm just right a lot

[Patler]

We'll see. I'll stand by my thinking, the players leadership have a good idea of what they're doing. We'll see how it all shakes out. This is certainly new evidence to support the players leadership not knowing what they're doing, but I'm locked in on my original prediction and I'll either be right or wrong when it plays out. I'm fine with that. I don't know everything. I'm just right a lot

I don't look at it as one side knowing what they are doing and the other side not knowing what they are doing based on a court ruling on a specific issue. The decisions on these issues will be much closer than that, as evidenced by the 2-1 split of the appellate panel on the ruling supporting the stay. Even the justices were not unanimous on which side was right. That tells me that both sides had credible arguments worthy of pursuing. Whether any of us is right or wrong in predicting the outcome isn't much, since we basically have a 50-50 chance of being right.

[Scott Campbell]

Even in defeat, De Smith rolls out the rhetoric

Posted by Mike Florio on May 16, 2011, 11:22 PM EDT
Getty ImagesIn response to the recent remarks of NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith comparing the labor dispute to a mob war, we suggested that Smith dial back the rhetoric. But now, even with his effort to lift the lockout on the verge of sleeping with the fishes, Smith continues to talk tough.
“It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,” Smith told reporters after Monday’s ruling. “Congratulations.”

We’re not sure what that means.
The league hasn’t sued anyone. The league wants to impose economic pressure on the players via a lockout, and the players decertified and filed an antitrust lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the lockout. Today’s ruling that the lockout won’t be lifted pending resolution of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit hardly represents the NFL suing to not plays its game.
With a reversal of Judge Nelson’s ruling now looming, Smith’s comments likely have less to do with shaping public opinion and more to do with scrambling to keep the players unified, even if doing so requires Smith to distort the facts in the hopes of playing to the players’ emotions.
The problem is that, while such comments may be help keep the players on the same page, they’ll make it harder for the players and the league to ever make it into the same library again.

[Patler]

Kind of a peculiar comment from Smith, when one considers that NFL player strikes in the past caused lost time, lost games and games to be played by replacement players; and the NHL owners lockout resulted in an entire season to be cancelled.

[Smeefers]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?

[Scott Campbell]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?

I think they de-certified and became a trade association. Just a legal maneuver.