Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[Deus Irae]

Yes, this is what the hack on ESPN seems to be saying. As it turns out, I've read the actual opinion (all 89 pages) and he's wrong. The main bit of authority she relied on was an opinion letter by the General Counsel of the NLRB from 1991. With respect to the part of her opinion that I think is horribly written and wrong and most vulnerable on appeal, she didn't rely on much of any authority, but instead on her views of why certain Supreme Court cases should be distinguished. (This is the Norris Laguardia Act section.)

I, too, have read the decision. Nelson sinks her position in Garmon, Supreme court cases following Garmon, and 8th circuit cases following Garmon, as well as NLRB opinions, so I don't agree with your above claim.

 

[lamafist]

Just what is a fair deal here, townsie. I didn't see this as a money grab. Its not like players salaries were going to decrease. They just weren't going to expand exponentially like they have the past decade. The players don't have right to share equally in the wealth when NONE of them put up a dime of the risk money.

...

Partners???? The players be partners with the owners the day they start ponying the millions of dollars of risk capital that most of these owners have done. They day they start paying for the care and maintenance of the facilities they work at. THEN they will be partners. Right now what they have is a shared interest in the welfare of the business that they are both in. Well they SHOULD have a shared interest in the welfare.

Uh, that day came years ago. Under the most recent CBA alone, several billions of dollars from the players' cut of total revenue were paid out in credit deductions for league operating costs. So we're agreed that they're now partners, right?

Of course, personally, I think it's a little niggardly to not count the extreme amount of sweat equity contributed by the players in the form their putting their future earning potential at risk every time they step on the field. Especially considering that this current generation of owners haven't exactly undertaken any true risk - the value of an NFL franchise has risen so steadily for so long that any personal losses could be more than recuperated by its sale.

If the GB financials are even close to what the reality of profit and loss then it should have shown that while teams may be "making money" the percentage of revenue to net profit is really too low for the money invested. And GB is one of the better run teams at the top of the league in merchandising etc

There's plenty of information available at Forbes.com and published annually in the magazine that tells us that no, the GB financials are not representative of the average NFL franchise, that they are toward the bottom of the league in terms of profit, as is to be expected, given that the Packers are a non-profit organization and must reinvest or reimburse any profits over a certain precautionary margin.

 

[lamafist]

Ataboy!
Go get em Cousin. There is truth to that mindset. The rest is all B.S. The owners can make life much more miserable than the players can. Here is a new rule or two. They can't negotiate. There is no more union!

1) No new FA can be signed until after the bye week of each Team this upcoming season. Opps! Let's see what that pimp "D" does trying to placate 500 NFL free agents. They will never find his body.

2) Players like Mankins would be forced to deal with their existing Teams. Opps!

3) Each player has the schedule. They are responsible to arrive at each game on time or not be paid. Opps! I am sure there is not one line or nit of language is ANY NFL player that has transportation and accommodations stated in their contract.

4) Any player with conducted detrimental can forfeit their pay as in even calling out their coach or owner like Mankins. Opps.

It can go on but business as usual with some rules added can be terminal to the players "win". Nelson can get them on contempt. The players cannot put forth a grievance through the union.

Game, set, match owners. Now settle this B.S. The players had an offer on the table . The League can opt to enforce that one. There is no CBA in place. They can pretty much do what they want. 18 games, no transportation. No meals. No accommodations. Drug tests every day for every player (one herbius weedius molecule and you are banned no pay-I doubt if you have enough players for one game) . As long as business stays open.

It appears someone did not think this through who wears a funny hat and has a face like a torn sneaker. This above is the nuclear we discussed. The players got what they asked for.
DW Toys

League-wide enforcement of almost all of those provisions would be such gross antitrust violations that, after a precipitous judicial intervention and triple damages assessed, the league would end up an entirely owned subsidiary of the NFLPA.

In the real world, the NFL has to tread very carefully regarding the rules it puts in place if it wants to avoid further antitrust violations. The safest bet would be to mirror those of the last year under the previous CBA.

 

[silenthuntr7]

Just a recap, to those who aren't clear:
(and remember, this is my best judgement, personal opinion, don't sue if I'm wrong, etc)

The League (NFL) has already filed for a 'stay of execution' for the injunction to Judge Nelson, which means that they want her to stop the injunction while the appeals are taking place.

She's going to reject this stay of execution, probably tomorrow - if she wasn't, she would have put a stay into the injunction already.

The NFL will then go to the 8th US Circuit Court of appeals, and will ask for two things: 1) A reversal of this injunction, and 2) A 'stay of execution' again.

1) Is VERY UNLIKELY to be granted. To do so, the Court of Appeals would have to rule that Judge Nelson was fundamentally wrong when she decided this was no longer a labour issue, which would be (frankly) shocking, as this isn't really a matter of opinion.

2) is much more likely. If the 8th Circuit Court feels like it has issues with Judge Nelson's decision (they don't have to disagree, just question/feel doubt about) they may take this step. My odds: 50/50ish. I've heard legal opinions on both sides of the stay issue here.

Either way...we're heading towards an injunction, IMHO. It just depends on when it comes.

 

[silenthuntr7]

Also, La Canfora just posted on twitter that "opening a building to someone and implementing new league rules are not one in the same" and that the NFL "would have to impose new rules, ASAP". So even if a stay is granted by the 8th Circuit Court of appeals, if it's not granted fast enough, free agency may still occur.

In my opinion, the NFL right now is trying to delay. They don't want the chaos of free agency on the same day as/during the draft, so they're trying to play the waiting game before they set up free agency rules. That's risky, however, as Judge Nelson could decide (and I would decide) that if they delay, then they're in violation of the injunction.

I would expect Judge Nelson to give more timelines when she denies the stay tomorrow, possibly giving the NFL 24 hours to start free agency, and putting free agency the day before the draft.

Interesting?

 

[stealthdog]

These court cases are such a red herring. I'm not surprised the media hasn't looked beyond the immediate stuff. The players and owners still have to agree on a CBA regardless of anything the courts decide. If they don't, the year will be run (just like last year and several years in the past) without a CBA, which means the owners can spend as much (or as little) on player salaries as they want. A CBA benefits the players (and fans because of forced parity) much more than the owners. No CBA means cheap owners can pocket tons of $, ala MLB.

Regardless, I think a stay will be executed. It seems most of Nelson's ruling was based on harm to players short careers. An appeal to and review/decision by the court of appeals will be made before the season is scheduled to start, minimizing any impact on the players careers.

In the event that a stay is not executed by either Nelson or the court of appeals, the league will take some time (probably a week or two) to develop the rules that will govern the 2011 season. Expecting the league to come up with and publish overnight or within a day or two how it will operate is unreasonable, and any court would see it that way, because it will have to be a very thought out, detailed process that the owners would undoubedtly have to vote on. Teams will need to immediately allow players access to what they typically have until/unless a stay is ordered. That probably involves any bonus money - but even that isn't just writing a check. Some payroll will have to get involved and it will likely be a day or two process - by then the stay will have been decided on anyways.

 

[Patspsycho]

1) Is VERY UNLIKELY to be granted. To do so, the Court of Appeals would have to rule that Judge Nelson was fundamentally wrong when she decided this was no longer a labour issue, which would be (frankly) shocking, as this isn't really a matter of opinion.

The correct way to interpret this is that the Court of Appeals has to find that Judge Nelson acted "unreasonably" or "abused her discretion" in issuing the ruling. In other words, her judgement has to be unsound, and this is highly unlikely.

It's essentially the same principle and philosophy used by the Officials on the field when reviewing challenged plays during a game. They must find clear evidence of wrongdoing or error, in order to overturn the original call.

If you read Judge Nelson's ruling (or part of it) you'll see that it has been written with the appeals process in mind. It is much more polite and more conservative than the last ruling where Judge Doty spent most of his time scolding the NFL in his written decision.

The 8th circuit would essentially have to really go out of their way to agree with the stay, it would be borderline favoritism.

 

[JoeShmoe]

According to Twitter reports Wilfork isnt going to Foxboro and Light as the players rep has advised them to sit tight for now

 

[Triumph]

The lockout is off right now, due to the injunction. Absent a stay, the league will be in contempt of court tomorrow, if it doesn't go back to business as usual.

As the NFL tries to figure out exactly what happens now after Monday’s legal setback, the league is telling its coaches not to go back to business as usual.

The league is in contempt wouldnt you say Deus Irae, Esquire?

NFL Managment Council told teams to let players into their buildings Tuesday according to Adam Schefter of ESPN, but also recommended keeping weight rooms closed.

Keeping the weight rooms locked up is not business as usual. The NFL is in contempt according to you. LOL

 

[Rob0729]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the owners revise their strategy and try to get a deal done by giving in more? Will the players allow Jeffrey Kessler get more power to nuke the NFL by creating a free market system where top players get ARod type contracts and the practice squad guys get minimum wage? Will the owners think they will win the appeal and dig in harder? Will the players with the upper hand for at least now be more willing to negotiate without the antitrust lawyers? Will the NFL delay and stall and make the players' lives miserable if they can't get an injuction? If the league re-imposses the 2010 rules that the players agree to in the last CBA, will they sue that they violate antitrust rules?

Personally, I think both sides will end up looking bad. I think we will see the greed and stupidity on both sides. I think the owners need to get to the bargaining table and not be so confident they will win the appeal and think the players need to do what Gene Upshaw did and marginalize Kessler's power before he ruins the cash cow.

 

[BradyManny]

The owners started from a position of strength, went into the negotiations aggressively, and have lost every major battle along the way. Their leverage is now dwindling away, their demands will be more reasonable.

Every time the owners lose leverage, I'd guess we move closer towards an agreement being reached. The more level the playing field, the better the negotiations, I would think.

If the appeal goes in favor of the players - as Rap said on EEI this morning - then it'll be all but over. The players will have all the leverage and the owners will have to revise their game plan.

 

[McCourty Island]

As the NFL tries to figure out exactly what happens now after Monday’s legal setback, the league is telling its coaches not to go back to business as usual.

The league is in contempt wouldnt you say Deus Irae, Esquire?

NFL Managment Council told teams to let players into their buildings Tuesday according to Adam Schefter of ESPN, but also recommended keeping weight rooms closed.

Keeping the weight rooms locked up is not business as usual. The NFL is in contempt according to you. LOL

And according to you there is still a lockout.

 

[Triumph]

And according to you there is still a lockout.

According to the NFL per NFL Network.

 

[McCourty Island]

According to the NFL per NFL Network.

From NFL.com

Players told they can report to work after court lifts lockout

The NFL is a long way from playing football again -- even if players are welcomed back to work with no lockout to stop them.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

iginally Posted by Triumph
As the NFL tries to figure out exactly what happens now after Monday’s legal setback, the league is telling its coaches not to go back to business as usual.

The league is in contempt wouldnt you say Deus Irae, Esquire?

NFL Managment Council told teams to let players into their buildings Tuesday according to Adam Schefter of ESPN, but also recommended keeping weight rooms closed.

Keeping the weight rooms locked up is not business as usual. The NFL is in contempt according to you. LOL

And according to you there is still a lockout.

Well, its sort of in limbo at the moment:

Despite the federal court ruling Monday ending the NFL lockout, doors to team facilities will not automatically swing open for players.

By law, we have to give it a day or so to let the dust settle and see if a stay gets in place and then we'll decide what happens next,'' Quinn said.

Players' lawyer: League has 'a day or so' to figure out new rules - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Someone in one of the linked articles was quoted as saying that this will be "the Wild West" for a few days and was probably right.

My own guess is that nothing "real" will happen until Judge Nelson turns down the Owners' request for a Stay, the case goes to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court rules. Everything I've read or heard suggests that it's a tossup as to whether the Appeal will be successful. Stay tuned, I guess.

 

[Patspsycho]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the owners revise their strategy and try to get a deal done by giving in more? Will the players allow Jeffrey Kessler get more power to nuke the NFL by creating a free market system where top players get ARod type contracts and the practice squad guys get minimum wage? Will the owners think they will win the appeal and dig in harder? Will the players with the upper hand for at least now be more willing to negotiate without the antitrust lawyers? Will the NFL delay and stall and make the players' lives miserable if they can't get an injuction? If the league re-imposses the 2010 rules that the players agree to in the last CBA, will they sue that they violate antitrust rules?

Personally, I think both sides will end up looking bad. I think we will see the greed and stupidity on both sides. I think the owners need to get to the bargaining table and not be so confident they will win the appeal and think the players need to do what Gene Upshaw did and marginalize Kessler's power before he ruins the cash cow.

Kessler wasn't even at the table last time.

 

[Triumph]

From NFL.com

Players told they can report to work after court lifts lockout

From the NFLPA Lawyer


Despite the federal court ruling Monday ending the NFL lockout, doors to team facilities will not automatically swing open for players.
First, the league said it would pursue a stay of the injunction with U.S.



District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson as it appeals her ruling.
But James Quinn, the class counsel for the players' antitrust suit against the NFL, also said that the league legally has a window with which to assemble new work rules before players can report.


"By law, we have to give it a day or so to let the dust settle and see if a stay gets in place and then we'll decide what happens next,'' Quinn said.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The correct way to interpret this is that the Court of Appeals has to find that Judge Nelson acted "unreasonably" or "abused her discretion" in issuing the ruling. In other words, her judgement has to be unsound, and this is highly unlikely.

It's essentially the same principle and philosophy used by the Officials on the field when reviewing challenged plays during a game. They must find clear evidence of wrongdoing or error, in order to overturn the original call.

There's a nuance I would add. There are three "standards of review" in appeals. First, questions of law are reviewed de novo. De novo basically means the review is brand new. The court gives no deference to the trial court. To continue your instant replay comparison, the call on the field doesn't matter, just what the video shows. Second is clear error, which doesn't apply here because there weren't factual findings. Last is abuse of discretion.

While it's true that a decision to issue an injunction is discretionary and thus reviewed for abuse of discretion, when an injunction is based on a legal decision, the court of appeals will review that legal analysis de novo and then decide whether an injunction is still warranted.

Here, there is a significant legal question embedded in the court's analysis. (Actually, there are three, but one of the three I think will get more traction than the others.) Specifically, she interpreted the words "arising out of" in the NLA very narrowly. The court of appeals won't give her any deference on this issue.

Also, FWIW, the NFL filed its appeal last night. Contrary to reports yesterday that Nelson denied a stay of her order pending appeal, she didn't. (She couldn't until there was an appeal.) Now that there is an appeal, she will be asked to stay it. She will probably say no, but she might give the NFL some time to implement her order. Once she issues her ruling, they can ask the 8th Circuit for a similar stay pending appeal. (Actually, they can do it earlier if she takes too much time, but that's usually not good form.)

 

[McCourty Island]

From the NFLPA Lawyer


Despite the federal court ruling Monday ending the NFL lockout, doors to team facilities will not automatically swing open for players.
First, the league said it would pursue a stay of the injunction with U.S.



District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson as it appeals her ruling.
But James Quinn, the class counsel for the players' antitrust suit against the NFL, also said that the league legally has a window with which to assemble new work rules before players can report.


"By law, we have to give it a day or so to let the dust settle and see if a stay gets in place and then we'll decide what happens next,'' Quinn said.

So you're arguing semantics? Even if it takes a day clarify a few items it doesn't change the underlying fact that the lockout is over.