NFL Lockout has begun - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

Triumph · 03-12-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naF staP

Is it a lockout or a players strike? Or does it just depend on who's point of view you are looking at?

Lock out

The players can only strike if they are in a union.

Sean Pa Patriot · 03-12-2011, 08:01 AM

well if this thing drags into june, count on missing some games... there will be some football all be it a shabby product of it.. the draft is a joke this year, yeah we have all these picks, but there is no rookie mini camp , there is no training camp, you cant trade players .. its a shame that it has come to this, shame on both parties, but i put the blame squarly on the owners who backed out of this deal, a deal that was voted 30-2, in 06, demauice smith is not no great leader, but the owners are treating the players like objects....

***patsinthesnow*** · 03-12-2011, 08:12 AM

One thing I don't get is ESPN is spinning it as the 2011 season is toast. Isn't this false?

Sure, free agency, the draft, rookie minicamps, minicamps, and some of training camp could be compromised.

But based on what I'm reading here the court will rule one of the sides correct, so there will be football in some form. The only thing that matters is which side "wins" this stupid battle?

There is 6 months until opening day, I'm pretty sure this will be settled by then.

***Wolfpack*** · 03-12-2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan-1982

dose this mean there will be no NFL draft. and if there is one i heard someone say that you cant trade you have to stay at your spot and pick is that true ?

There will be a draft this year since that was stipulated in the prior CBA. The ability to trade players will depend on if the lockout is invalidated or not.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 03-12-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsinthesnow

One thing I don't get is ESPN is spinning it as the 2011 season is toast. Isn't this false?

Sure, free agency, the draft, rookie minicamps, minicamps, and some of training camp could be compromised.

But based on what I'm reading here the court will rule one of the sides correct, so there will be football in some form. The only thing that matters is which side "wins" this stupid battle?

There is 6 months until opening day, I'm pretty sure this will be settled by then.

It may well be settled as in settlement by then. But the courts won't ultimately necessarily rule against a lockout even if the first judge up does... The league would immediately then appeal to the 8th circuit court (a 3 judge appeals panel) and could continue on to the Supreme Court. And while sides can request expedited hearings those aren't always granted. The courts actually have more important business to deal with in the grander scheme of things, not to mention some history of not choosing to inject themselves into collective bargaining disputes.

In 1987 we went down this road and the courts didn't ever get it all hashed out pending appeals until 1993 - at which time after a jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of free agency, the two sides decided to reach a settlement agreement to end all the litigation. That settlement overseen by Doty did, however, still include things like restricted FA and transition and franchise tags... The league chose to play through the court proceedings at that time (under their own rules) but many owners today feel that was their first mistake because it allowed the players to trudge on through the courts at all because they were getting paid even as they sued them. And as a result they got an agreement they could live with although they also got stuck with Doty as an overseer until that CBA ended. Decertification yesterday was in part an attempt on the unions part to retain Doty into infinity. If the decertification tactic is ultimately ruled invalid by the NLRB or a higher court, Doty is gone. Different courts tend to have different leanings...

***patsinthesnow*** · 03-12-2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

It may well be settled as in settlement by then. But the courts won't ultimately necessarily rule against a lockout even if the first judge up does... The league would immediately then appeal to the 8th circuit court (a 3 judge appeals panel) and could continue on to the Supreme Court. And while sides can request expedited hearings those aren't always granted. The courts actually have more important business to deal with in the grander scheme of things, not to mention some history of not choosing to inject themselves into collective bargaining disputes.

In 1987 we went down this road and the courts didn't ever get it all hashed out pending appeals until 1993 - at which time after a jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of free agency, the two sides decided to reach a settlement agreement to end all the litigation. That settlement overseen by Doty did, however, still include things like restricted FA and transition and franchise tags... The league chose to play through the court proceedings at that time (under their own rules) but many owners today feel that was their first mistake because it allowed the players to trudge on through the courts at all because they were getting paid even as they sued them. And as a result they got an agreement they could live with although they also got stuck with Doty as an overseer until that CBA ended. Decertification yesterday was in part an attempt on the unions part to retain Doty into infinity. If the decertification tactic is ultimately ruled invalid by the NLRB or a higher court, Doty is gone. Different courts tend to have different leanings...

Thanks for the info and help. That is nuts...

Would you know how long it would take for the appeal to reach the 8th circuit court?

***MoLewisrocks*** · 03-12-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsinthesnow

Thanks for the info and help. That is nuts...

Would you know how long it would take for the appeal to reach the 8th circuit court?

At least a couple of months I'd expect, although it may never get that far because the union chose to decertify BEFORE the CBA expired and that provides for the league to employ the sham defense per the CBA:

Article LVII, Section 3(b) of the CBA, which states as follows: “The Parties agree that, [b]after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement[b], the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.”

That being the case, an injunction against the lockout should not be granted.

***AndyJohnson*** · 03-12-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

At least a couple of months I'd expect, although it may never get that far because the union chose to decertify BEFORE the CBA expired and that provides for the league to employ the sham defense per the CBA:

Article LVII, Section 3(b) of the CBA, which states as follows: “The Parties agree that, [b]after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement[b], the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.”

That being the case, an injunction against the lockout should not be granted.

There is a spot in the lawsuit that conflicts with this and states something to the effect on "at or near" the end.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 03-13-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

There is a spot in the lawsuit that conflicts with this and states something to the effect on "at or near" the end.

It doesn't matter what the lawsuit contends. It's what the CBA stipulates. The case has now been re-assigned from the initial judge, and it didn't go to Doty, either. Went to a former law clerk for Antonin Scalia...

IllegalContact · 03-13-2011, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

It doesn't matter what the lawsuit contends. It's what the CBA stipulates. The case has now been re-assigned from the initial judge, and it didn't go to Doty, either. Went to a former law clerk for Antonin Scalia...

there is no CBA to stipulate. and now there is no union. but there are several hundred players under contract to NFL teams. will the pats honor Tom Brady's contract, or will a court deem a breach of contract on the part of the team, require payment of all guarantees, and then deem the contract null and void.......could happen.......the whole league could be starting from scratch.......