Brady & Mankins agree to be plaintiffs/update: lawsuit filed

[MoLewisrocks]

Current judge assignment is not final and it is still highly probable Doty gets the case based on its relation to the previous cases he has heard.

We appear to be on to Judge #3, still not named Doty...

Judge Susan Nelson has now scheduled a hearing on the players motion for injunctive relief for April 6th... Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal says his contacts in the Minnesota system tell him this action indicates that Doty is history. This judge also has prior experience handling NFL related cases, which would be the reason the union would have argued to have the case remanded to Doty...experience...

 

[townes]

I guess everyone was assuming that was to make way for Doty...

Any Scalia protege will rule for the billionaires, say adios to football.

 

[Deus Irae]

The date for the injunction hearing has been set.


April 6


Preliminary injunction hearing on NFL lockout set for April 6 | ProFootballTalk

 

[DaBruinz]

Any Scalia protege will rule for the billionaires, say adios to football.

OH.. Boo hoo.. The players might actually have to compromise for a change instead of always sticking their hands out wanting more????

Adrian Peterson's comments today just lend MORE credibility that too many of the players are clueless and need to come back to reality.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Brady & Mankins agreed to be plaintiffs

I hope you don't have any kids. Having parents that tell their kids that they will never be able to be anything better than a second class citizen and will never be able to succeed because the boogie man is too rich is criminal. As a matter of fact, that alone is reason to crush the union.

I repeat, having a judge tell a business owner that he has to bow to extortion from a group of thugs because a century ago businesses allegedly abused their workers is wrong. With any luck, Walmart will be hiring during the lockout, or maybe Stop and Shop, because there will be a lot more minimum wage workers on the market.

Allegedly.

ROFL!

 

[E Belichick Unum]

OH.. Boo hoo.. The players might actually have to compromise for a change instead of always sticking their hands out wanting more????

Adrian Peterson's comments today just lend MORE credibility that too many of the players are clueless and need to come back to reality.

Forgetting what side is supported, this is the problem with the players side. You have young men, like Adrian Peterson, who do not have a clue what to say. You have 1500 people who have been insulated from the press thier whole careers suddenly thrust into a position where they will be asked questions by reporters and will be expected to answer. You are already seeing it with the draft, some players are supporting the union and saying that the draftees should attend the NFLPA event and others are saying that they should go the draft because it is the culmination of thier life's goal. There are only 32 owners and most of them are media savy or aware that they aren't, they won't make nearly as many gaffs, they won't piss the fans off by telling everybody that the $10M I am getting paid is slave wages.

It has only been a week, I am looking forward to the next month, if just for entertainment.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I was only citing to (b) because that was what Florio was citing regarding the timing aspect of the decertification. And I never said it's a guarantee of victory, but if the courts adhere to the language of the CBA that was collectively bargained for and and agreed to 18 years ago (under Doty's auspices) it should mean that at this time they don't have a leg to stand on in securing an injunction against the lockout or in filing suit for anti trust. They want to wait until September and take a whack at it...different story. Thing is I don't think even the NFLPA believes the players will remain united that long...

I don't agree with your analysis. I think you're reading (b) correctly, but not (a).

The provisions in 3(a) are about timing -- that is, how long a player has to wait until it may bring an antitrust suit. The provisions in 3(b) are about whether the NFL can avail itself of the so-called non-statutory labor exemption to attempt to defeat an antitrust claim. These are two different things. In addition, the language in each is very different. 3(a) talks about what happens if the union "is in existence." 3(b) talks about what happens if a majority of the players "indicate they wish to end the collecting bargaining status." These are not the same.

Under 3(a), so long as the union decertifies prior to the expiration of the agreement, the requirement to wait 6 months (or until impasse) does not take effect. Here, the union did decertify prior to expiration of the CBA/SSA, so the six-month bar won't be in effect.

Under 3(b), the NFL waived the right to argue "sham" if the players indicate they no longer wish to collectively bargain after expiration of the CBA. I agree with you that this presents a timing problem for the union, since they decertified before the the expiration of the CBA.

But that's certainly not "game over" for the players under the terms of the CBA. Perhaps the court will say "you can't have it both ways." If you decertified prior to the expiration of the CBA, you don't have to wait to six months, but the NFL does get to try to show that decertification was a sham. But the other posters are right -- all that means is that the sham exception to the non-statutory labor exemption would have to be litigated as part of the preliminary injunction proceedings.

I think the union will actually argue that it gets to have it both ways, and I'm not sure that argument is wrong: First, we did decertify an hour before the expiration of the CBA, and thus the the NFLPA was not "in existence as a union" when the CBA expired. Therefore 3(a) does not apply and the six month requirement does not apply. Second, under 3(b), the only thing that needs to happen to eliminate the NFL's right to argue "sham" is that a majority of the players must "indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining statuts of any Player's Union." While it's true they did so prior to the expiration of the CBA, they also did again after midnight. There's nothing in the CBA or elsewhere that says they can't do it twice. They have. There's also nothing in the CBA that says if they do it before the expiration that that owners may argue sham.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think the union will actually argue that it gets to have it both ways, and I'm not sure that argument is wrong: First, we did decertify an hour before the expiration of the CBA, and thus the the NFLPA was not "in existence as a union" when the CBA expired. Therefore 3(a) does not apply and the six month requirement does not apply. Second, under 3(b), the only thing that needs to happen to eliminate the NFL's right to argue "sham" is that a majority of the players must "indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining statuts of any Player's Union." While it's true they did so prior to the expiration of the CBA, they also did again after midnight. There's nothing in the CBA or elsewhere that says they can't do it twice. They have. There's also nothing in the CBA that says if they do it before the expiration that that owners may argue sham.

I believe that Article LVII, section 3 (a) and (b) should be looked at as follows. (a) prevents the Union from filing an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL (or any team) while the CBA is in affect or while there is a UNION. (b) prevents the Owners from claiming that the NFLPA de-certifying after the end of the CBA was done as a sham after the CBA has expired.

The NFLPA decertified PRIOR to the end of the CBA. That makes (a) void and allows players to file their anti-trust lawsuit. But, it also voids (b) because they de-certified prior to the end of the CBA when it clearly states it needs to be done AFTER the end of the CBA.

Now, I can explain the reason for filing the de-certification twice. If the first one "IS" ruled a sham, then they will have the 2nd one which should stand. However, if the first one is ruled a sham, their anti-trust lawsuits get tossed from court as well and they lose most of their leverage, imho.

Not sure where the having to wait 6 months to de-certify comes from, but it's not in the CBA under that section.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The NFLPA decertified PRIOR to the end of the CBA. That makes (a) void and allows players to file their anti-trust lawsuit. But, it also voids (b) because they de-certified prior to the end of the CBA when it clearly states it needs to be done AFTER the end of the CBA.

You and I mostly agree. Our only difference is over (b) -- I don't agree the requirement to de-certify after the end of the CBA necessarily implies that also doing so prior to the end of the CBA disqualifies you from doing so twice. It's a strong argument, but whether or not it's a winner will require a court to get into the parties' intent at the time they negotiated the SSA. (The players actually do a pretty good job of explaining the intent of these provisions in their motion for preliminary injunction.)

Also, again, I note that (b) doesn't talk about de-certifying (unlike (a), which talks about the existence of the union). Instead, (b) talks about the players "indicating" they no longer wish to collectively bargain, which is a much less formal act than decertification and can be done repeatedly (and, I'd argue, on a continuing basis).