Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[lamafist]

Well the league doesn't act in concert regarding the player's opportunities outside the NFL. Any player not under contract can work for anyone they want for as much as they want. If the UFL wanted to sign Peyton Manning for $40 million a year, the NFL couldn't stop him.

No. Nor could they stop him if Saturday Night Live offered him a spot in next season's cast. That's all well and good.

But they are acting in concert when it comes to his ability to ply his trade with any of the 32 competing businesses that supposedly comprise the NFL.

 

[DaBruinz]

I responded because it was part of your post




No, I inferred the obvious, based upon your implication. Pretty standard.



You continue to get it wrong.

No. You made an assumption based on what YOU wanted people to believe I was saying. You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now. You just can't deal with it. You've never been able to when you have made a BS assumption and someone told you that you were full of it. Numerous people have done so.

No. So you get it through your thick skull. I made no inference or insinuation in my response to McCourty Island about the NFL's status as a monopoly or otherwise. What I said was that they were NOT the only professional football team that the players could work for. I stand by that. If you chose to make an ASSUMPTION, that is your ASSUMPTION and has nothing to do with me.

 

[lamafist]

If the owners lose, I fear they will seek to recoup lost revenue by charging the fans. PSLs for the Pats, higher ticket prices. I would not surprise to me to see NFL games pay per view.

Im concerned about the draft being abolished and total free agency without restrictions. I dont want the NFL to look like baseball.

Wait, are you suggesting that the owners aren't already charging full market value for PSL's, tickets, etc?

The cost to the fans is dictated by the price point at which expense would curtail sales to the point that revenue would drop. It has little or nothing to do with how much profit the league is already making.

 

[lamafist]

BTW -- I really wasn't kidding about being interested in reading any dissenting legal critique of Nelson's ruling. Has anyone here read one?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The NFL has an anti-trust exemption to act as a collective. So what they do is not monopolistic, anti-competive, or illegal in the eyes of the law. The anti-trust exemption they have for this is separate from any exemption they have given to them through a CBA. That is very different from not having competition by law that the players can play with.

Rob -- I'm reasonably certain that the NFL's statutory anti-trust examption only gives them protection with respect to cartel activities in dealing with the networks. In other words, they don't need to bargain collectively with the nets.

It's not a broad exemption -- in fact, they didn't even try to argue it applied in the American Needle case. And, more fundamentally, it doesn't allow them to act collectively viz. labor absent a CBA.

 

[Deus Irae]

No. You made an assumption based on what YOU wanted people to believe I was saying. You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now. You just can't deal with it. You've never been able to when you have made a BS assumption and someone told you that you were full of it. Numerous people have done so.

No. So you get it through your thick skull. I made no inference or insinuation in my response to McCourty Island about the NFL's status as a monopoly or otherwise. What I said was that they were NOT the only professional football team that the players could work for. I stand by that. If you chose to make an ASSUMPTION, that is your ASSUMPTION and has nothing to do with me.

No, I responded to an obvious implication. You can couch it anyway you choose. You've been wrong on, essentially, all the facts, and you're now down to griping because I pointed out that the existence of other leagues does not mean the NFL is not a monopoly in response to your "they have the option to play elsewhere" post.

 

[townes]

Not just Deus. Judge Nelson, too. And every legal analyst I've read regarding this decision.

I'd actually be really interested in reading an independent dissenting opinion on Nelson's ruling, but I honestly can't find one.



.

Apparently those on the pro owner side can't either because they have been given the chance and at least one claimed there were "plenty" of them, yet not a one has been presented.

 

[townes]

My argument is that the judge overlooked and blatantly ignored facts of the case. Again, you make things up. And the ramifications are going to be serious. Football, as we knew it is done. It's too bad ignorant people like yourself can't understand that.

So you are saying the judge understood it she just deliberately ignored the facts or overlooked them. I guess that is why all those who have read her decision say it is appeal proof, they always say that about poorly informed decisions.

 

[DaBruinz]

The players didn't even walk away from the negotiating table. That's a false characterization of what happened.

There was a deadline. The players and owners agreed to extend it once. The players offered to extend it a second time if the owners would open up their books. The owners refused, so there was no extension.

DaBruinz can try playing the "walked away" card all he wants. It's not accurate. It was, in fact, the owners who were skipping meetings and showing up late for others.

Don't even have your facts correct here.
First there was a 24 hr. extension. Then a 7 day extension. It was the 3rd extension that wasn't agreed to on March 16th.

He also said the league would have been willing to agree to a third extension to the collective bargaining agreement, which originally was due to expire at the end of March 3, before two delays. But another extension, he said, "wasn't really discussed in a serious way, because it was perfectly obvious they weren't interested."

NFL's lead negotiator: 3rd extension not seriously discussed; owners offered 10-year CBA - 3/14/2011 7:19:47 PM | Newser

Court date is set for NFL labor war - Boston.com


Oh, and yes, I know that DeMaurice Smith claims that they'd have agreed to a 3rd extension as well. The problem is that he put a caveat on it that the Players wanted 10 years of the Owners AUDITED financials. Something that just isn't their business. Just like it's not the owners business what the players do with their money once they go home.

NFL players' union decertifies as talks break down | wfaa.com | Home Page

NFL labor dispute headed to court | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment

At 4:45 p.m., Smith and the union's negotiators left the mediator's office. About 15 minutes later, the union decertified.

Deus would have you believe that it was all the owners. Which is BS. The Players, as is their want, think they are entitled to things and don't feel they have to give up anything or take any responsibility.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

BTW -- I really wasn't kidding about being interested in reading any dissenting legal critique of Nelson's ruling. Has anyone here read one?

Well, I did give mine above. To keep it as simple as possible, Nelson's opinion is overly formalistic and it reads the words "growing out of" out of Norris Laguardia. The labor statues say that courts need to stand down and Congress has barred them from entering injunctions in labor disputes. These statutes arise from the time when unions tried to bust strikes by getting sympathetic judges to enjoin the strikers and make them go back to work. The law now says that so long as there is a labor dispute, the courts can't enter injunctions. Instead, they have to let the bargaining and negotiation play out, before using the hammer of anti-trust law.

The players argue that the instant the union decertified, there no longer was a "labor dispute" within the meaning of the law. Nelson accepted that, ruling that the only issue one looks at for determining whether there is a "labor dispute" is whether the union took formal steps to disband. The NFL argues that the transition from labor dispute to litigation dispute doesn't happen overnight. It's a process, and the statutes recognize it as such -- barring not just labor disputes but also actions "growing out of" labor disputes.

I think the NFL is right on the language and the legislative intent of the statutes. Under any meaning of the words -- common sense or formal -- this is plainly still a labor dispute. The players don't really even try to say otherwise with a straight face. They just say, "we formally disbanded, that's that."

One of the interesting differences between this case and the 1991 case is that in their legal papers 20 years ago, the NFLPA after decertifying submitted affidavits that they would not reconvene after resolution. The NFL hammers them in their briefs for this -- arguing it's plainly still a labor dispute. The NFLPA doesn't even try to say the same thing again this time, but Nelson said it wasn't necessary.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't even have your facts correct here.
First there was a 24 hr. extension. Then a 7 day extension. It was the 3rd extension that wasn't agreed to on March 16th.

That's correct. I wasn't remembering the 24 hour extension. Everything else I posted was accurate, however.

NFL's lead negotiator: 3rd extension not seriously discussed; owners offered 10-year CBA - 3/14/2011 7:19:47 PM | Newser

Court date is set for NFL labor war - Boston.com


Oh, and yes, I know that DeMaurice Smith claims that they'd have agreed to a 3rd extension as well. The problem is that he put a caveat on it that the Players wanted 10 years of the Owners AUDITED financials. Something that just isn't their business. Just like it's not the owners business what the players do with their money once they go home.

NFL players' union decertifies as talks break down | wfaa.com | Home Page

NFL labor dispute headed to court | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment




Deus would have you believe that it was all the owners. Which is BS. The Players, as is their want, think they are entitled to things and don't feel they have to give up anything or take any responsibility.

Again, the facts are against you, and they are as I stated. The fact that you claim it's the players thinking they are entitled without having to give up anything when it's the owners that were demanding a billion dollars without even offering up legitimate proof as to why it is needed just shows how bankrupt your position is.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Again, the facts are against you, and they are as I stated. The fact that you claim it's the players thinking they are entitled without having to give up anything when it's the owners that were demanding a billion dollars without even offering up legitimate proof as to why it is needed just shows how bankrupt your position is.

I guess we're so used to the govt doing the same to us that we ignored it

 

[lamafist]

Well, I did give mine above. To keep it as simple as possible, Nelson's opinion is overly formalistic and it reads the words "growing out of" out of Norris Laguardia. The labor statues say that courts need to stand down and Congress has barred them from entering injunctions in labor disputes. These statutes arise from the time when unions tried to bust strikes by getting sympathetic judges to enjoin the strikers and make them go back to work. The law now says that so long as there is a labor dispute, the courts can't enter injunctions. Instead, they have to let the bargaining and negotiation play out, before using the hammer of anti-trust law.

The players argue that the instant the union decertified, there no longer was a "labor dispute" within the meaning of the law. Nelson accepted that, ruling that the only issue one looks at for determining whether there is a "labor dispute" is whether the union took formal steps to disband. The NFL argues that the transition from labor dispute to litigation dispute doesn't happen overnight. It's a process, and the statutes recognize it as such -- barring not just labor disputes but also actions "growing out of" labor disputes.

I think the NFL is right on the language and the legislative intent of the statutes. Under any meaning of the words -- common sense or formal -- this is plainly still a labor dispute. The players don't really even try to say otherwise with a straight face. They just say, "we formally disbanded, that's that."

One of the interesting differences between this case and the 1991 case is that in their legal papers 20 years ago, the NFLPA after decertifying submitted affidavits that they would not reconvene after resolution. The NFL hammers them in their briefs for this -- arguing it's plainly still a labor dispute. The NFLPA doesn't even try to say the same thing again this time, but Nelson said it wasn't necessary.

In fairness, the NFLPA was encouraged to reconvene in the settlement of White vs. the NFL, no?

Anyway, I read your prior post earlier this afternoon, as well as this one. As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't hesitate to dominate threads with clearly reasoned arguments delivered dispassionately.

I see why the NFL could argue that Norris Laguardia applies, but I find Nelson's reasoning in her decision that it doesn't more compelling. At the point of the termination of the CBA, there was no legal dispute. The players had declaimed their union, and all of the terms of any agreement it had negotiated on their behalf had expired. The simple absence of a new bargaining agreement does not comprise a 'labor dispute'. It wasn't until the league instituted a lockout and the players filed suit that the present labor dispute came about. Among the numerous cases Nelson cites to support this reasoning, the most compelling ones are Jackson vs. the NFL and White vs. the NFL, both arising from the same circumstances as at present, and in both cases, it was ruled that Norris Laguardia doesn't apply and injunctive relief was appropriate.

Contrary to the NFL's argument, and in line with legal precedent, Nelson does not consider the players' declaiming of their union to be a simple matter of formality, especially considering what the players give up in the process.

 

[BSR]

That's correct. I wasn't remembering the 24 hour extension. Everything else I posted was accurate, however.

Deus gets owned by DeBruinz.

 

[BSR]

BTW -- I really wasn't kidding about being interested in reading any dissenting legal critique of Nelson's ruling. Has anyone here read one?

For a buck you can get a lawyer to say whatever you want them to say. Non binding legal opinions are like news report on Lindsey Lohan. Who the F cares?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Contrary to the NFL's argument, and in line with legal precedent, Nelson does not consider the players' declaiming of their union to be a simple matter of formality, especially considering what the players give up in the process.

This a real good point. She does a nice job on this point in the opinion, and I should have mentioned it. She actually made the point far better than the players' counsel made the arguments in their briefs.

But that's right -- she would defend her opinion as not overly formalistic, because the decertification had real consequences.

 

[Patspsycho]

I worry I'm dominating this thread, so I'll step back now.

On the contrary- I disagree. Your input and commentaries have been quite constructive in that it is inclined towards clarification, and I'd like to see more of it rather than the mudslinging that inevitably arises when there's a hot topic in this forum. Perhaps that's why Ian added those heart icons- trying to promote a little brotherly love in here, I suppose.

 

[Triumph]

How does the player's folding for monetary reasons ensure a fair deal?

How does the players winning suit vs the owners ensure a fair deal?

Players "If you dont like the deal we are offering you, we will sue you again for anti trust."

I believe that some owners are in debt up to their eyeballs and do need a bigger share of the pie - costs are rising everyday. I believe that more revenue is needed to grow the game and that salaries are out of control. Nobody forecast the cap rising as it has.

I sense there will be some sort of backlash if the owners are forced to swallow a deal that they do not want.

 

[Deus Irae]

How does the players winning suit vs the owners ensure a fair deal?

Players "If you dont like the deal we are offering you, we will sue you again for anti trust."

I believe that some owners are in debt up to their eyeballs and do need a bigger share of the pie - costs are rising everyday. I believe that more revenue is needed to grow the game and that salaries are out of control. Nobody forecast the cap rising as it has.

I sense there will be some sort of backlash if the owners are forced to swallow a deal that they do not want.

Despite publicly admitting no club was losing money, that TV ratings, sponsorship money, etc. were at an all time high, the NFL continued to insist on an 18-percent rollback in the players’ share of revenues and continue to deny the NFLPA’s request for justification.

NFLLockout.com » Blog Archive » Issues Preventing A New NFL CBA From Being Reached

 

[Rob0729]

Rob's guessing. His position is extremely weak, partially because of the exact sorts of arguments that the "screw the players, let them play for the arena league" people have made regarding salaries and the like.

First of all, I am not guessing. I actually understand antitrust law better than the average person although no expert. I did take business law in my MBA which covered antitrust. With or without the exemption, the NFL is clearly not a monopoly in a legal sense. To be a monopoly in a legal sense and violate the antitrust laws, there needs to be an overt act to squash competion. Again, that is why Microsoft has never lost an antitrust case based solely on their domination of the operating system market.

It is clear that the NFL doesn't squash competion. They allow other leagues to cut deals with the same networks they broadcast on. They have cut deals with the UFL to compensate them for players they might sign from their league.

If the NFL were acting as monopolies in this way, don't you think some of the billionaires who have owned or still own teams that rivaled the NFL might have sued the NFL by now. Off the top of my head, I can think of three billionaires associated with leagues that competed or still are competing with the NFL - Ted Turner (USFL), Vince MacMahon (XFL), and Mark Cuban (UFL). None have sued or look to plan to sue.

Sorry, but just dominating the market and having you next largest competitor be a fraction of what you are does not make you a monopoly in the legal sense. The NFL cannot be penalized for being first and the best at it.

As it relates to the player's compensation, as long as they don't block players not under contract from signing with the UFL or the CFL or another league, they are doing nothing wrong even if these leagues can't pay the guys for an entire season what they make by the end of the first quarter of a game in the NFL. The NFL isn't required to make sure the players have other options that compensate them as much as the NFL.