PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players


Status
Not open for further replies.
Just read a snyonpsis of the Judge's ruling and basically she says the the labor laws do not appy in this case, because their is no union and management, the union is disssovled and basically the owners can do what they want. The only problem for the owners is that they have an anti-trust lawsuit against them, so if they do nothing and don't sign any free agents, they are basically making the case that they are a monopoly, my bet is that they go back to last years rules and maybe stick the players with a few new twists.


The Final paragraph of her ruling....
“The nation’s labor laws have always applied only where an action involves or grows out of a labor dispute. Such a labor relationship exists only where a union exists to bargain on behalf of its members. Where those employees effectively renounce the union as their collective bargaining agent — and accept the consequences of doing so — and elect to proceed in negotiating contracts individually, any disputes between the employees and their employers are no longer governed by federal labor law. Likewise, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which applies only to preclude some injunctions in the context of ‘labor disputes,’ also no longer applies here to preclude injunctive relief. The NFL urges this Court to expand the law beyond these traditional dictates and argues that the protections of labor law should apply for some indefinite period beyond the collapse and termination of the collective bargaining relationship. In the absence of either persuasive policy or authority, this Court takes a more conservative approach, and declines to do so.

“This Court, having found that the Union’s unequivocal disclaimer is valid and effective, concludes there is no need to defer any issue to the NLRB. Because that disclaimer is valid and effective, the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s prohibition against injunctive relief does not preclude granting the Player’s motion for a preliminary
injunction against what the League characterizes as a ‘lockout.’

“Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:

“1. The Brady Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 2] is
GRANTED;

“2. The Eller Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 58] is
MOOT; and

“3. The ‘lockout’ is enjoined.”

@legal note, all court proceedings are "public domain" so no copyright laws apply!


In the immortal words of braodcasting legend "Mean" Gene, we could have pandamonimum breaking out in the ring!!! The players have no union, they at "at will" employees governed by only thier signed employement contracts. The league could make up any rules they want. I say lets break out the XFL rules, no fair catches, mortal combat verus a coin flip to start the game, I'm lovin it!

BTW, as of this moment, Peyton Manning is a free agent!
Remember this wasn't even a case it was a preliminary injunction.
The judge essentially ruled that the players would be harmed more by being locked out while the court case is being fought that the owners would by not being able to lock them out.
This is very, very far from a resolution, and could actually be a step backward as far as those who just want football and don't care which side 'wins'.
 
On the field, speed kills. Off the field......greed kills. That's what is happening here now. They are inevitably killing the very product that was created with the original CBA. A structured and highly-competitive league that ultimately became the true national past-time. Now that it is a huge money-maker, a few owners feel they have to extract more of "their" share at the expense of the league as a whole. I can't for the life of me figure out how these things get to this point. But then again I'm able to observe from afar and don't necessarily have a stake except from a fan's standpoint. If this continues and affects the season then I'm out.
 
The court's analysis of why the decertification was not a sham takes up about 20 pages, but she relies heavily on two things: (1) law from the 8th Circuit (the appellate court above her to which she must adhere) that the sham exception must be applied sparingly, and (2) the NLRB's decision in 1991 in response to the NFL's claim that the decertification back then was also a sham (the "Pittsburgh Steeler" case).

She goes through a lengthy analysis of the NLRB General Counsel's 1991 ruling. In determining whether or not decertification is effective, he relied heavily on structural factors -- whether there was a formal decertification, whether bylaws were amended, etc. He said that intent -- that is, desire to affect a better litigation stratetgy -- is irrelevant. It looks like the NFLPA adhered pretty strictly to that 1991 NLRB decision, and she followed it.

I think that's going to be a tough one for the NFL to get reversed, but we'll see. The better issue for the NFL is whether the Norris-Laguardia Act blocks injunctive relief here. Under that Act, courts cannot enter injunctions that arise out of labor disputes. She holds that this no longer is a labor dispute because the union decertified. I think that's a tough sell.

But, even so, the players don't need to show they will win to get the injunction, just that they have a substantial chance of winning. So, it might be upheld. As of right now, there is no lockout, and unless the 8th Circuit steps in, that will continue to be the case for many months while they are continuing the appeal.
 
The court's analysis of why the decertification was not a sham takes up about 20 pages, but she relies heavily on two things: (1) law from the 8th Circuit (the appellate court above her to which she must adhere) that the sham exception must be applied sparingly, and (2) the NLRB's decision in 1991 in response to the NFL's claim that the decertification back then was also a sham (the "Pittsburgh Steeler" case).

She goes through a lengthy analysis of the NLRB General Counsel's 1991 ruling. In determining whether or not decertification is effective, he relied heavily on structural factors -- whether there was a formal decertification, whether bylaws were amended, etc. He said that intent -- that is, desire to affect a better litigation stratetgy -- is irrelevant. It looks like the NFLPA adhered pretty strictly to that 1991 NLRB decision, and she followed it.

I think that's going to be a tough one for the NFL to get reversed, but we'll see. The better issue for the NFL is whether the Norris-Laguardia Act blocks injunctive relief here. Under that Act, courts cannot enter injunctions that arise out of labor disputes. She holds that this no longer is a labor dispute because the union decertified. I think that's a tough sell.

But, even so, the players don't need to show they will win to get the injunction, just that they have a substantial chance of winning. So, it might be upheld. As of right now, there is no lockout, and unless the 8th Circuit steps in, that will continue to be the case for many months while they are continuing the appeal.

The beginning of the end of the NFL. The player will turn the NFL into MLB and ruin what was the best sports product in America.

I am still amazed that the union can declare themselves out of business and have the courts agree, even when the court is skeptical. F'em, open the door and treat them as independent laborers. Refuse to negotiate, give up the draft. Let them work without protection for a while. No more taxi service, no more $50M signing bonuses. Without collective bargaining the NFL becomes just another franchise business. Sign the player of year by year contracts, everybody becomes a free agent at the end of every year. That would drive the salary structure through the floor. When you are delt lemons, time to make lemonaid.

Find your profits and sell you teams, bad things are going to happen to this league.
 
ESPN's legal analyst said Nelson "destroyed" the owners case on all 4 points and Mortenson said that Free agency could start on Draft Day if the owners aren't granted a stay. It sounds like she crafted a decision that makes it really hard for the Appellate Court to overturn as it is based upon their prior decisions.

I think football is much closer to being played because of this ruling than I would have had she granted a stay. The owners are really playing with fire now because if they don't get a stay and refuse to do league business then they will be in jeopardy of real damages awarded if they lose on appeal.

The owners are going to lose imo and they need to realize this and maker a serious deal with the players.


Hopefully we are much much closer to having this resolved.
 
Remember this wasn't even a case it was a preliminary injunction.
The judge essentially ruled that the players would be harmed more by being locked out while the court case is being fought that the owners would by not being able to lock them out.
This is very, very far from a resolution, and could actually be a step backward as far as those who just want football and don't care which side 'wins'.

One more thing, make sure that D Smith is not allowed in the negotiations. If he shows up, the NFL should leave.

I like the idea of XFL rules. Let the players work like a regular schmuck for a while. Let them have to pay for their meals at the stadium, get per diem for their hotel expenses, ride coach on scheduled flights. All rules have been declared forfiet by Judge Nelson, I hope the owners take her up on her offer.
 
One more thing, make sure that D Smith is not allowed in the negotiations. If he shows up, the NFL should leave.

I like the idea of XFL rules. Let the players work like a regular schmuck for a while. Let them have to pay for their meals at the stadium, get per diem for their hotel expenses, ride coach on scheduled flights. All rules have been declared forfiet by Judge Nelson, I hope the owners take her up on her offer.

If there are no rules, the Washington Redskins will soon have Peyton Manning under center, and will be winning titles by outspending every other team by $50 million or more.


After all, isn't that the argument that so many here are using to bash baseball?
 
The owners can wait on the Appeal but they are in big trouble if they lose it and would be smarter making a fair deal with the players. The owners were counting on the stay and didn't get it, now they are in real peril if they don't make a deal and lose again.


I really believe the players want a fair deal and would agree to one and it doesn't make sense for the owners to keep pushing it with all that is at stake.

Well, I guess the owners better contact the players asap and give them what they want - a 50/50 split. :rolleyes:
 
Well, I guess the owners better contact the players asap and give them what they want - a 50/50 split. :rolleyes:



the players weren't looking for anything more the owners were.
 
I am, for the first time, honestly scared that things will never be the same again. What I don't get at all is how the players think this is a "win" for them. We are on a slippery slop which will end up with 5% of the players making 95% of the money and the rest of the players clawing for the scraps. These guys are going to end up more like wrestlers than pro football players...playing hurt, uppers to get through the day and downers to get those precious few hours of sleep, "prescribed" pain killers from shady doctors.

Why are the players rejoicing? Soon most of them will be making the same amount of money Doug Gabriel is making on the Orlando Predators, but they'll be getting hit by bigger guys more often and getting injured at an alarming pace.
 
I am, for the first time, honestly scared that things will never be the same again. What I don't get at all is how the players think this is a "win" for them. We are on a slippery slop which will end up with 5% of the players making 95% of the money and the rest of the players clawing for the scraps. These guys are going to end up more like wrestlers than pro football players...playing hurt, uppers to get through the day and downers to get those precious few hours of sleep, "prescribed" pain killers from shady doctors.

Why are the players rejoicing? Soon most of them will be making the same amount of money Doug Gabriel is making on the Orlando Predators, but they'll be getting hit by bigger guys more often and getting injured at an alarming pace.

The players are rejoicing because the part I highlighted isn't going to happen and the lockout is ended unless the league wins its appeal.
 
Last edited:
ESPN's legal analyst said Nelson "destroyed" the owners case on all 4 points and Mortenson said that Free agency could start on Draft Day if the owners aren't granted a stay. It sounds like she crafted a decision that makes it really hard for the Appellate Court to overturn as it is based upon their prior decisions.

I don't really agree with this. Her reasoning on the Norris-Laguardia Act is pretty suspect.

It blocks injunctions of strikes or lockouts that "arise out of" labor negotiations. This lockout clearly arises out of labor negotiations, and the purposes of the Act seem to be met here -- specifically, that courts should inject themselves into what are, in essence, labor disputes. She takes a very formalistic view of "arise out of," which I think is subject to getting reversed on appeal.

The legal expert is not entirely correct -- she didn't rely on court of appeals decisions. She relied mostly on Doty opinions for the district court, which are not binding on the 8th Circuit.

If I had to bet, I would predict the court of appeals will issue a stay later this week or next week, while it considers the appeal.
 
The players are rejoicing because the part I highlighted isn't going to happen and the lockout is ended unless the league wins its appeal.

The league does not need to win its appeal for the lockout to continue. It needs to file an appeal and get the Eighth Circuit to issue a stay pending appeal, which courts of appeal grant all the time if they think there is a substantial ground for disagreement and the appeal may have merit.

Appellate courts grant stays all the time before they decide the merits of appeals.
 
The players are rejoicing because the part I highlighted isn't going to happen and the lockout is ended unless the league wins its appeal.

But Deus, if there is still no salary floor (or ceiling), isn't it pretty much an MLB situation? I'm not arguing, I am just asking.

The way I am understanding it, and I readily admit I could be WWWAAAAAAYYYYY off base; is that now the players and their agents are on their own. If Ralph Wilson offers 52 scrubs $70,000 each, there will be plenty of AFL level guys gladly lining up to to make what they see as a huge payday while the decent veterans are sniffing around for a contract they think they are worth. And sure, these Buffalo Bills might win a few, but they are going to get battered by a Dallas or Washington powerhouse on a semi regular basis.
 
Last edited:
I am, for the first time, honestly scared that things will never be the same again.

Don't worry.

There will be a new CBA and it's going to have a salary cap and all the other things you are used to.

All of this wrangling is just about who gets leverage in that negotiation. Deep breath. Today's events, if they stick in the 8th Circuit, mean that a resolution will happen sooner not later. Unfortunately, I doubt they will stick.

It's all negotiation and leverage.
 
What I want to know is, did Goodell hire his pals to advise the league on this? First we have them move money from the TV deals to the opt-out year (as though no one would notice) and now we have some very bad strategy from the NFL (given their refusal to show up the last week of negotiations until the final hours, coupled with an offer that was a huge step back from previous offers).

Who are Goodell's lawyers? Did they overlook the provision in the CBA that insists the NFL maximize revenues for the players? Are they lazy? Can they read?

I'm just going to blame Goodell for this with absolutely no evidence that he's to blame.
 
Don't worry.

There will be a new CBA and it's going to have a salary cap and all the other things you are used to.

All of this wrangling is just about who gets leverage in that negotiation. Deep breath. Today's events, if they stick in the 8th Circuit, mean that a resolution will happen sooner not later. Unfortunately, I doubt they will stick.

It's all negotiation and leverage.

I have to tell you the truth, the only thing I see that benefits the owners out of a CBA is the draft. If they were willing to forego the draft and refuse to enter into talks, what could the player do? I suppose they could form a union again, but then why would the owners make the same mistakes they have already made?

If this were a game of chicken, I would take the owners to the edge. I am vindictive enough to want to make the players hurt before I agreed on CBA talks. Where is the downside>?
 
The league does not need to win its appeal for the lockout to continue. It needs to file an appeal and get the Eighth Circuit to issue a stay pending appeal, which courts of appeal grant all the time if they think there is a substantial ground for disagreement and the appeal may have merit.

Appellate courts grant stays all the time before they decide the merits of appeals.

You are playing a bit loose with what I typed. Without winning the appeal, the league will not be able to maintain the lockout. A stay is relatively unimportant to the big picture at this point, because it's just a delay unless the league wins the appeal.
 
Last edited:
What I want to know is, did Goodell hire his pals to advise the league on this? First we have them move money from the TV deals to the opt-out year (as though no one would notice) and now we have some very bad strategy from the NFL (given their refusal to show up the last week of negotiations until the final hours, coupled with an offer that was a huge step back from previous offers).

Who are Goodell's lawyers? Did they overlook the provision in the CBA that insists the NFL maximize revenues for the players? Are they lazy? Can they read?

I'm just going to blame Goodell for this with absolutely no evidence that he's to blame.

I'm really not seeing anywhere the league has messed up yet. The decision about tv revenues was a non-event, in my mind. It got lots of press, but really, who cares? The reality is that the league got the contracts. The debate is over who gets the money. But nothing that Doty ruled changes the fact that the networks, ESPN, and directv are going to be paying 4 billion dollars this year, even if there is no football. In my mind, that's pretty masterful from the NFL. Sure, the players may get some of that, but part of a pie is better than all of no pie.

In terms of today's decision, you can't judge how well negotiations are going or not going in terms of what they look like at any given time before they are done. When the final CBA gets done, there will be winners and losers, and that will be the time to judge. I think the NFL has always understood that it would be in trouble in front of the Minnesota District Court. But it's a brand new ballgame in the court of appeals. It's like the play offs. You can win 45-3 in the regular season, but the new game starts 0-0. In litigation, winning first is nice. Winning last is what pays the bills.
 
What I want to know is, did Goodell hire his pals to advise the league on this? First we have them move money from the TV deals to the opt-out year (as though no one would notice) and now we have some very bad strategy from the NFL (given their refusal to show up the last week of negotiations until the final hours, coupled with an offer that was a huge step back from previous offers).

Who are Goodell's lawyers? Did they overlook the provision in the CBA that insists the NFL maximize revenues for the players? Are they lazy? Can they read?

I'm just going to blame Goodell for this with absolutely no evidence that he's to blame.

For the lawyers out there a question:

Since the union has decertified and the Judge has made it official, does that make the TV contract thing moot? The union has decertified and there is no damage done. The players are, in effect, contractors and employees at will. What the league negotiated for a TV contract no longer has anything to do with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots Take Offensive Lineman Wallace with #68 Overall Pick
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots Receiver Ja’Lynn Polk’s Conference Call
Patriots Grab Their First WR of the 2024 Draft, Snag Washington’s Polk
2024 Patriots Draft Picks – FULL LIST
MORSE: Patriots QB Drake Maye Analysis and What to Expect in Round 2 and 3
Five Patriots/NFL Thoughts Following Night One of the 2024 NFL Draft
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/26: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots QB Drake Maye Conference Call
Patriots Now Have to Get to Work After Taking Maye
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf and Jerod Mayo After Patriots Take Drake Maye
Back
Top