Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

You mean to tell me that Bigfoot is NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bigfoot IS REAL

Proof of that by a picture taken in the woods last summer....

 

[PATSNUTme]

I never really liked the guy anyway.

Oh wait, its Judge Nelson. Never mind.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Once again you don't know what you are talking about. The owners required the union and the owners are the ones who need the union, not the players. It was the owners who required the players to form the union and that is clear in the legal decisions that have been written on it. Upshaw testified that they would not have formed the union had the owners not required it to maintain the CBA.


Your posts are no different than someone saying they hope the players get damages that would kill the league and put it out of existence. You apparently feel people should be forced to stay in unions they don't want to be in and are foaming at the mouth because the judge didn't force them to do so.

Actually, I was give the Judge credit for having enough brains in her head to see what a scam it actually was. I wouldn't have minded if she had allowed a stay until the appeals process was done. I may be no lawyer, but I believe that the owners had the right to back out of the CBA, I believe that the decertification was filed 6 hours early, a violation of the previous CBA and I believe that 6 months ago it was obvious to anybody who was paying attention that D Smith was going to shut the league down.

The Judge ruled for the players because she is a liberal who decided that siding with labor was more important than enforcing the CBA. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the CBA said than decertification couldn't happen until after the CBA had expired. It was collectively bargained and ignored by Judge Nelson. I know that you want the players to win this battle, but I just want football to continue. Now that the Judge has ruled that the union is officially desolves, I believe that forfieting the draft would almost be worth tucking it to the rank and file membership.

An owner is an owner and a player is not a partner. What the Judge is doing will ruin the NFL. The owners should want the CBA to be history. All they really lose is the draft, but eventually the players would form another union, because without one the owners hold all of the leverage.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, I was give the Judge credit for having enough brains in her head to see what a scam it actually was. I wouldn't have minded if she had allowed a stay until the appeals process was done. I may be no lawyer, but I believe that the owners had the right to back out of the CBA,

It's not been asserted that they didn't, to the best of my recollection

I believe that the decertification was filed 6 hours early, a violation of the previous CBA

This is incorrect

and I believe that 6 months ago it was obvious to anybody who was paying attention that D Smith was going to shut the league down.

Smith has been trying to get the financials from the league, and trying to work on the deal, since about 2 weeks after he got the job. It's been the owners dragging their feet, as was clearly demonstrated during the 'mediation' that featured owners skipping meetings, making obviously dead offers and focusing on PR instead of negotiations.

The Judge ruled for the players because she is a liberal who decided that siding with labor was more important than enforcing the CBA.

Nelson isn't enforcing the CBA because it's not the CBA at issue. Other than the draft, the CBA is over with. Keeping the CBA active was the whole point of the extensions that were agreed upon during the mediation sessions.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the CBA said than decertification couldn't happen until after the CBA had expired. It was collectively bargained and ignored by Judge Nelson.

Again, this is incorrect.

I know that you want the players to win this battle, but I just want football to continue. Now that the Judge has ruled that the union is officially desolves, I believe that forfieting the draft would almost be worth tucking it to the rank and file membership.

The fastest way to end the impasse is for the owners to lose in court.

An owner is an owner and a player is not a partner. What the Judge is doing will ruin the NFL. The owners should want the CBA to be history. All they really lose is the draft, but eventually the players would form another union, because without one the owners hold all of the leverage.

1.) By making the player salaries a product of revenue sharing, the owners effectively made the players 'partners' in the league, at least to the extent of desiring to maximize revenue.

2.) The NFL was doing fine before the salary cap even came into play in 1994.

3.) We were told that free agency would kill sports, way back in the 70's. It didn't happen.

4.) Under the current state of the law, without a union, the owners cannot act in concert due to antitrust laws. It will become a free-for-all.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

To All:

1) I appoligize if I have offended anybody.
2) To Judge Nelson, you may have a face like a horse, but exposing your philly to ridicule is just wrong.
3) To PatsFanSince74, please do not take offense at what I am about to post.

New England Patriots Women's Mystic Memory II Thong

Just tell me that Brady is not the new spokesperson for this and I'll be OK

I think

 

[E Belichick Unum]

It's not been asserted that they didn't, to the best of my recollection



This is incorrect



Smith has been trying to get the financials from the league, and trying to work on the deal, since about 2 weeks after he got the job. It's been the owners dragging their feet, as was clearly demonstrated during the 'mediation' that featured owners skipping meetings, making obviously dead offers and focusing on PR instead of negotiations.



Nelson isn't enforcing the CBA because it's not the CBA at issue. Other than the draft, the CBA is over with. Keeping the CBA active was the whole point of the extensions that were agreed upon during the mediation sessions.



Again, this is incorrect.



The fastest way to end the impasse is for the owners to lose in court.



1.) By making the player salaries a product of revenue sharing, the owners effectively made the players 'partners' in the league, at least to the extent of desiring to maximize revenue.

2.) The NFL was doing fine before the salary cap even came into play in 1994.

3.) We were told that free agency would kill sports, way back in the 70's. It didn't happen.

4.) Under the current state of the law, without a union, the owners cannot act in concert due to antitrust laws. It will become a free-for-all.

You are correct, I am wrong. However, here is the part I was trying unsuccessfully to reference?

League claims decertification came too early to avoid “sham” defense | ProFootballTalk

The problem for the players is that Article LVII, Section 3(a) of the CBA required them to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit if they failed to file it before the expiration of the labor deal. So they’ve opted, apparently, to file the lawsuit in accordance with the terms of the CBA and hope that they can cobble together an argument that will allow the waiver of the “sham” defense to still apply.

The league’s position is pretty simple. By failing to wait until the CBA expired to decertify, the plain terms of the agreement preserves the league’s ability to argue that the process of shutting down the union is a sham.

And it is a sham. Everyone knows it’s a sham. But if the league can’t argue in court that it’s a sham, it doesn’t matter. If the league can argue that it’s a sham, then the league will be in good position to avoid an injunction and maintain a lockout

 

[Deus Irae]

You are correct, I am wrong. However, here is the part I was trying unsuccessfully to reference?

Yes, the league can continue to attempt to argue that the 7 hours time issue regarding when decert occured and the midnight expiration allows them to contest the decert as a sham. If they convince the court that such is the case, they can then move forward with the sham claim. That's not the same as the players violating the CBA, though.

 

[patriot lifer]

Smith has been trying to get the financials from the league, and trying to work on the deal, since about 2 weeks after he got the job. It's been the owners dragging their feet, as was clearly demonstrated during the 'mediation' that featured owners skipping meetings, making obviously dead offers and focusing on PR instead of negotiations.

...

The fastest way to end the impasse is for the owners to lose in court.

I especially agree with these assessments.

Smith has always been working against the clock trying to progress negotiations as quickly as possible, because everyone knows that a population of the players would run low on money and urge a compromise. Smith knew this, the owners knew this, Smith knew the owners knew this, and the owners knew Smith knew this. Hence, the NFLPA has been the ones acting swiftly, while the owners knew that if they could drag their feet as much as possible that time would lend them leverage. It's always been in the owners interests to let things drag on (to the detriment of us fans) and for the NFLPA to keep things going forward. This all assumes, however, that the two sides are far apart from what is a "fair" deal. In any case, the only faster way to reaching a deal (for Smith and the NFLPA) would have been to make major concessions (which isn't why he was hired).

 

[lamafist]

First, who said the NFL was impeding player from working at any other NFL franchise? They can certainly impede players who are under contract. But I have yet to see the Pats try to stop Logan Mankins from signing elsewhere or any other tendered UFA or RFA.

Second, if this is your original point, it is ever farther away from Deus' argument than I thought. You aren't even talking out any outside entity of the NFL at all.

Third, so far the only thing we know the NFL is doing post lockout in terms of employment is the draft and that was covered under the previous CBA. The players are not contesting at this point that the draft is in violation of antitrust laws. Until we see how the NFL approaches free agency post lockout enjoinment (assuming they don't get a stay), how can we argue the NFL is impeding the players' ability to get the most money.

Personally, I hope to God the players don't push for and win for a free market system. It will be the end of the NFL as we know it. It won't be horrible for Pats fans specifically because they have the opportunity to be the Red Sox or Yankees of the NFL, but it would be terrible for fans of teams in small markets like Jacksonville, Tampa, Cincy, etc. If the players are smart, they will allow the league to have a capped system and free agency (most likely following the 2010 rules) while this is being sorted out.

Absent a CBA, a player should be able to quit a team to which he's under contract and play for another team. He will be obligated to make some compensation for breaking a contract, but this would be an issue between the player and the team, and not involve compensation from one team to another. If teams collaterally refrain from dealing with players who are under contract with another team, that would be collusion. Any sort of waiver system would be an antitrust violation, as well as any system in which a player's ability to ply his trade is impeded by having suffered a workplace injury in the beginning of the season.

In other words, absent a CBA, as far as their player-hiring practices are concerned, they eventually will need to operate as 32 competing businesses hiring independently in the workplace.

I don't think anybody would disagree with you that this would be an unsustainable state of affairs for the NFL. But unless they settle the Brady suit and can convince the players to reconvene a union, this is the only legal way for them to operate. Fortunately, this eventuality should give both players and owners alike a strong incentive to settle the lawsuit.

 

[Rob0729]

I especially agree with these assessments.

Smith has always been working against the clock trying to progress negotiations as quickly as possible, because everyone knows that a population of the players would run low on money and urge a compromise. Smith knew this, the owners knew this, Smith knew the owners knew this, and the owners knew Smith knew this. Hence, the NFLPA has been the ones acting swiftly, while the owners knew that if they could drag their feet as much as possible that time would lend them leverage. It's always been in the owners interests to let things drag on (to the detriment of us fans) and for the NFLPA to keep things going forward. This all assumes, however, that the two sides are far apart from what is a "fair" deal. In any case, the only faster way to reaching a deal (for Smith and the NFLPA) would have been to make major concessions (which isn't why he was hired).

C'mon, it is obvious that both sides wanted to use the courts to gain the upper hand to force the other side to give in. There is a reason why the players went with DeMaurice Smith who is a litigator with no NFL experience or labor practice experience over the other candidates.

If Smith was really concerned about getting a deal done quickly in this process, he wouldn't have spent the last year trashing the owners and would have tried to be more consilatory to try to get the owners to the table to talk long before they did. All Smith has done for the past year is insult the owners which not the actions of a man trying to seriously negotiate and get a deal done quickly. He dared the league to lock them out.

Sorry, but I can see how people are against the owners on this, but to make the players into these helpless victims who bent over backwards to get a deal done quickly and were forced against their wishes to use the courts to get what they want is utter make believe. Both sides were looking to push this thing to the brink to force the other side to cave.

 

[lamafist]

Yes, the league can continue to attempt to argue that the 7 hours time issue regarding when decert occured and the midnight expiration allows them to contest the decert as a sham. If they convince the court that such is the case, they can then move forward with the sham claim. That's not the same as the players violating the CBA, though.

I really don't see how the "sham" decertification can be anything but a total non-starter. The right of an employee to form or join a union, or to not be represented by a union is absolute -- it cannot be waived or bargained away in any contract.

The only one of the NFL's objections regarding the union's decertification that seems plausible - though ultimately, unsupported - to me is the argument that the current lockout arises out of a previously existing labor dispute involving a union, and thus falls into the jurisdiction of the NLRB and not the courts. But even this only buys them a small amount of time -- ultimately, there is nothing the NFL can do to prevent the players from availing their rights as individuals seeking employment.

 

[lamafist]

C'mon, it is obvious that both sides wanted to use the courts to gain the upper hand to force the other side to give in. There is a reason why the players went with DeMaurice Smith who is a litigator with no NFL experience or labor practice experience over the other candidates.

If Smith was really concerned about getting a deal done quickly in this process, he wouldn't have spent the last year trashing the owners and would have tried to be more consilatory to try to get the owners to the table to talk long before they did. All Smith has done for the past year is insult the owners which not the actions of a man trying to seriously negotiate and get a deal done quickly. He dared the league to lock them out.

Sorry, but I can see how people are against the owners on this, but to make the players into these helpless victims who bent over backwards to get a deal done quickly and were forced against their wishes to use the courts to get what they want is utter make believe. Both sides were looking to push this thing to the brink to force the other side to cave.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Patriot Lifer was saying that Smith was concerned with "getting a deal" done quickly, so much as having mediated negotiations progress quickly to whatever end is determined by the two side's positions.

In other words, if the NFLPA felt that they were not going to get the concessions their constituents required from the owners in the mediated negotiations, it was in the players' best interests to decertify and let the CBA expire sooner rather than let it drag on, for the reasons Patriot Lifer laid out.

 

[patriot lifer]

C'mon, it is obvious that both sides wanted to use the courts to gain the upper hand to force the other side to give in. There is a reason why the players went with DeMaurice Smith who is a litigator with no NFL experience or labor practice experience over the other candidates.

If Smith was really concerned about getting a deal done quickly in this process, he wouldn't have spent the last year trashing the owners and would have tried to be more consilatory to try to get the owners to the table to talk long before they did. All Smith has done for the past year is insult the owners which not the actions of a man trying to seriously negotiate and get a deal done quickly. He dared the league to lock them out.

Sorry, but I can see how people are against the owners on this, but to make the players into these helpless victims who bent over backwards to get a deal done quickly and were forced against their wishes to use the courts to get what they want is utter make believe. Both sides were looking to push this thing to the brink to force the other side to cave.

I agree that both sides want to use the courts to their advantage and also that Smith has seemingly been premature in his doubts of getting a deal done (expressing his frustrations before the season even ended). I also agree that both are at fault and are simply fighting for themselves as strict consequentalists. However, I think it's fair to point out that the interests of the players' side is to get something done sooner than the owners. In regards to Smith chirping early on before the season ended, let's not forget that it was no secret that this process was going to be a long sunova*****. Journalists and former GM's were saying waaay in advance that this would unfold, so it's no secret that Smith realized from the get-go (like other observers) that they were going to be faced with this long, painful process (especially when the owners had the guaranteed TV revenue). So I understand him expressing frustrations even before the season ended. To suggest that he should have been more conciliatory would only be useful if they were at least in the same ballpark as one another.

That all being said, the players may have ironically turned the tables so much on the owners that the owners may turn into the victims. With so much leverage, I hope the NFLPA uses it reach a reasonable deal, and not an outlandish one that hurts the economics of the businesses.

 

[Rob0729]

Absent a CBA, a player should be able to quit a team to which he's under contract and play for another team. He will be obligated to make some compensation for breaking a contract, but this would be an issue between the player and the team, and not involve compensation from one team to another. If teams collaterally refrain from dealing with players who are under contract with another team, that would be collusion. Any sort of waiver system would be an antitrust violation, as well as any system in which a player's ability to ply his trade is impeded by having suffered a workplace injury in the beginning of the season.

In other words, absent a CBA, as far as their player-hiring practices are concerned, they eventually will need to operate as 32 competing businesses hiring independently in the workplace.

I don't think anybody would disagree with you that this would be an unsustainable state of affairs for the NFL. But unless they settle the Brady suit and can convince the players to reconvene a union, this is the only legal way for them to operate. Fortunately, this eventuality should give both players and owners alike a strong incentive to settle the lawsuit.

I can guarantee you that every player's contract has a non-compete clause that says that if they break their contract they cannot play for another professional football team whether it is a NFL team, USFL, or CFL for a period of time (most likely one to three years or more). That is common in virtually all employment contracts. It would be common in NFL contracts because eventhough the CBA prevented players from breaking the contract to go to other teams, they could still go to other leagues. I am sure that the lanuage probably requires the player to pay back the entire contract plus some kind of penalty.

I'm sorry, but even without a CBA and every team acting as a separate entity that players can just easily buy their way out of contracts go to whatever team they want. Non-compete clauses are perfectly legal and have nothing to do with anti-trust laws.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree that both sides want to use the courts to their advantage and also that Smith has seemingly been premature in his doubts of getting a deal done (expressing his frustrations before the season even ended). I also agree that both are at fault and are simply fighting for themselves as strict consequentalists. However, I think it's fair to point out that the interests of the players' side is to get something done sooner than the owners. In regards to Smith chirping early on before the season ended, let's not forget that it was no secret that this process was going to be a long sunova*****. Journalists and former GM's were saying waaay in advance that this would unfold, so it's no secret that Smith realized from the get-go (like other observers) that they were going to be faced with this long, painful process (especially when the owners had the guaranteed TV revenue). So I understand him expressing frustrations even before the season ended. To suggest that he should have been more conciliatory would only be useful if they were at least in the same ballpark as one another.

That all being said, the players may have ironically turned the tables so much on the owners that the owners may turn into the victims. With so much leverage, I hope the NFLPA uses it reach a reasonable deal, and not an outlandish one that hurts the economics of the businesses.

It may have been in the best interest for the players to get a deal done sooner, but it doesn't mean that Smith felt that way or was trying to get a deal done. For the longest time, neither side were willing to meet until very late in 2010 (like December). Smith showed no sign of a sense of urgency to get a deal done. In fact, he seemed to be content to let the CBA run out.

Personally, I don't think either side want to budge much from their original position.

 

[Deus Irae]

I really don't see how the "sham" decertification can be anything but a total non-starter. The right of an employee to form or join a union, or to not be represented by a union is absolute -- it cannot be waived or bargained away in any contract.

The only one of the NFL's objections regarding the union's decertification that seems plausible - though ultimately, unsupported - to me is the argument that the current lockout arises out of a previously existing labor dispute involving a union, and thus falls into the jurisdiction of the NLRB and not the courts. But even this only buys them a small amount of time -- ultimately, there is nothing the NFL can do to prevent the players from availing their rights as individuals seeking employment.

The sham argument will be a difficult one for the league to prove. However, if there's one thing that's certain, it's that judicial rulings are never certain. We've got Constitutionally protected, legalized abortion based upon something that doesn't exist in the Constitution (see: penumbra), yet we've got Congressional laws on things that the Constitution clearly states Congress cannot pass laws about.

 

[lamafist]

I can guarantee you that every player's contract has a non-compete clause that says that if they break their contract they cannot play for another professional football team whether it is a NFL team, USFL, or CFL for a period of time (most likely one to three years or more). That is common in virtually all employment contracts. It would be common in NFL contracts because eventhough the CBA prevented players from breaking the contract to go to other teams, they could still go to other leagues. I am sure that the lanuage probably requires the player to pay back the entire contract plus some kind of penalty.

I'm sorry, but even without a CBA and every team acting as a separate entity that players can just easily buy their way out of contracts go to whatever team they want. Non-compete clauses are perfectly legal and have nothing to do with anti-trust laws.

Covenant not to compete agreements are far more tightly proscribed and regulated than you seem to think. They are enforceable only so much as they protect an employer's business interests -- as in, preventing a former employee from giving his new employer a customer list or poaching clients or suppliers, or revealing trade secrets, etc.

I highly doubt they would be at all applicable to an NFL player.

 

[DW Toys]

C'mon, it is obvious that both sides wanted to use the courts to gain the upper hand to force the other side to give in. There is a reason why the players went with DeMaurice Smith who is a litigator with no NFL experience or labor practice experience over the other candidates.

If Smith was really concerned about getting a deal done quickly in this process, he wouldn't have spent the last year trashing the owners and would have tried to be more consilatory to try to get the owners to the table to talk long before they did. All Smith has done for the past year is insult the owners which not the actions of a man trying to seriously negotiate and get a deal done quickly. He dared the league to lock them out.

Sorry, but I can see how people are against the owners on this, but to make the players into these helpless victims who bent over backwards to get a deal done quickly and were forced against their wishes to use the courts to get what they want is utter make believe. Both sides were looking to push this thing to the brink to force the other side to cave.

It pretty much follows party political lines even on this forum. If you are a liberal, the players needed to win. A conservative the other way. Liberal Judge=Liberal win! I would have made book on that.
Now that she ruled she has absolutely no clue on to what to do....It's hilarious. Chaos was predicted and Chaos we have. I wonder if she bought her judge position at Sears. Maybe she can go back and fix her stupidity under the warranty.
This is too much fun girly!
This is a riot.
O.K. Now the owners need to go nuclear. The bimbo Judge wants rules, give them to her.
1_The players now pay their own insurance plus that of their families.
2_The players pay their own transportation and lodging
3_FA cannot be signed and brought in until after the Team has a season BYE.
4_The CAP reverts to 25% less than 2010.
5_The players must be checked for Drugs at least once per week
6_There will be no Draft (I have been adamant that it would be stupid to Trade choices into 2012. Not this clinches it)
7_College players must have prove of attending and the only accepted document is a diploma.

Some tid-bits as an example. No union to fight any above.
DW Toys

 

[Rob0729]

I may be wrong, but I don't think Patriot Lifer was saying that Smith was concerned with "getting a deal" done quickly, so much as having mediated negotiations progress quickly to whatever end is determined by the two side's positions.

In other words, if the NFLPA felt that they were not going to get the concessions their constituents required from the owners in the mediated negotiations, it was in the players' best interests to decertify and let the CBA expire sooner rather than let it drag on, for the reasons Patriot Lifer laid out.

Personally, I don't agree with that. They should have extended for another 24-72 hours tried to counter the owner's offer to see if the owners were really willing to move or just doing it for PR. By starting the whole litigation process, it has guaranteed that a deal won't even be seriously discussed until both sides exhaust their appeals.

 

[patriot lifer]

It may have been in the best interest for the players to get a deal done sooner, but it doesn't mean that Smith felt that way or was trying to get a deal done. For the longest time, neither side were willing to meet until very late in 2010 (like December). Smith showed no sign of a sense of urgency to get a deal done. In fact, he seemed to be content to let the CBA run out.

Personally, I don't think either side want to budge much from their original position.

As is seemingly the case judging by the way events have transpired over the months and weeks. Although, it should be in his interest to get things wrapped up in a somewhat timely fashion because a population of who he represents is paying him for it.

As for the not being willing to meet until late 2010 as you noted, I don't think that's from a lack of urgency and willingness. Both sides were far apart and likely were resigned to the fact that the courts would be involved. When Goodell and the NFL was chirping about how quickly the NFLPA appealed to the US court system, I interpretted that as the NFLPA wanting to keep the process moving (and that they felt the courts were inevitable (which I think was a thought shared by both parties)).

So in the end I think:
a) Both Smith and Goodell knew the courts would get involved for how far a part they were and
b) that it was in the NFLPA's interests to hit up the courts sooner rather than losing more and more leverage as players complained about having no money.

It may appear as though Smith wasn't acting with urgency, but if we consider and accept the notion that they were too far apart to continue negotiations the way they were, then his quick trigger-finger with the courts is reasonable and helps expedite the inevitable. Unfortunately the courts are the closest thing we have to arbitration--and mediation didn't work.