Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

Don't agree. A stay gets them months, and maybe a year. Not even the NFL is arguing that the lockout can be indefinite. Their argument is that there needs to be a cooling off period before the law suit can said to no longer "arise out of" labor negotiations. They posited something like 6 months to a year in their briefs. Alternatively, they argued that the litigation should be stayed until the NLRB rules on their "sham" motion, which is not going to take years, but months.

What they want is what they have always wanted -- the season to start without football and players not to get checks. They know that every week that goes by creates dissention in the ranks, and they have more money than the players and gets them a more favorable deal.

A stay that puts the lockout back into effect would be incredibly valuable.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

No.

The players want damages for the reduced revenues they did not get in 2008 and 2009, which the NFL gave the networks in order to continue getting paid in 2010.

But it's still not really a major part of this. Doty will hold a hearing and award some kind of damages, but his initial ruling suggests it will be in the millions, not billions, and that leaves the owners with at least $3 billion plus rolling in this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

You're misunderstanding the situation. Without the ability to lockout the players, the owners essentially have 2 choices. They can shut down the league, or they can operate the league under a set of rules that would have to be 'fair' enough to survive a court challenge. Part of that 'fair' would involve looking at what had previously been in place. Also, the league's books would be subject to forcible opening in the judicial hearing, which is something the league obviously does not want.

I don't see any way the league would survive a challenge if the minimum salaries dropped to $70k. I doubt they'd get even one vote, on any judicial panel in the country, if they tried that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't agree. A stay gets them months, and maybe a year. Not even the NFL is arguing that the lockout can be indefinite. Their argument is that there needs to be a cooling off period before the law suit can said to no longer "arise out of" labor negotiations. They posited something like 6 months to a year in their briefs. Alternatively, they argued that the litigation should be stayed until the NLRB rules on their "sham" motion, which is not going to take years, but months.

What they want is what they have always wanted -- the season to start without football and players not to get checks. They know that every week that goes by creates dissention in the ranks, and they have more money than the players and gets them a more favorable deal.

A stay that puts the lockout back into effect would be incredibly valuable.

A stay will likely get the owners 1 month or less, maybe 2 on the outside if they are lucky. The players have won an injunction asserting irreparable harm based upon what's happening even in the offseason. There's no way the appeal of the injunction will be dragged out.

 

[Belichick's Midget Army]

Shouldn't we wait to the appeal to see if the lockout is off or not?

 

[Deus Irae]

Shouldn't we wait to the appeal to see if the lockout is off or not?

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.

 

[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.

No, its not per NFL Network.


Jason La Canfora of NFL Network reports all owners and the NFL's legal team had a 7:00 pm conference call and remain "united" according to a source.

NFL teams are still operating under "lockout rules" regarding player contact and transactions. That won't change overnight. NFL has not put in any new rules yet and that is not expected to occur until there is a court decision on whether or not to "stay" Judge Nelson's ruling.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, its not per NFL Network.


Jason La Canfora of NFL Network reports all owners and the NFL's legal team had a 7:00 pm conference call and remain "united" according to a source.

NFL teams are still operating under "lockout rules" regarding player contact and transactions. That won't change overnight. NFL has not put in any new rules yet and that is not expected to occur until there is a court decision on whether or not to "stay" Judge Nelson's ruling.

Read your own quote to figure it out. I'm not walking you through something this obvious.

 

[Urgent]

Sham, shlam.
Hmm, that doesn't sound so condescending like that.

Anyway, I hope the Patriots contact Matt Light and start to negotiate a deal.
And they should check in with Kiwanuka, Babin, and Lawson at OLB. Maybe Dahl at OG, Malcolm Floyd at WR. Quick strike before the draft.

 

[upstater1]

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.

Not a lawyer, but having been in litigation before, a contract is enforceable even when the status of the signatories change.

I was one in a case where a wacko claimed that her signature was forged on a contract to purchase the business. When the context surrounding the sale turned in the favor of the business owner (ie. a new bidder came inw anting to buy the biz for much more) the wacko claimed that even though she didn't sign it, the contract was enforceable against the original seller who claimed she did agree to buy the building. The judge agreed!

 

[upstater1]

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.

The debate isn't about who got the money. The debate was about whether the NFL was trying to circumvent the CBA.

 

[Triumph]

Read your own quote to figure it out. I'm not walking you through something this obvious.

LOL

You should call the NFL and tell them they are wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL

You should call the NFL and tell them they are wrong.

I'll try this one time.

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.

No, its not per NFL Network.


Jason La Canfora of NFL Network reports all owners and the NFL's legal team had a 7:00 pm conference call and remain "united" according to a source.

NFL teams are still operating under "lockout rules" regarding player contact and transactions. That won't change overnight. NFL has not put in any new rules yet and that is not expected to occur until there is a court decision on whether or not to "stay" Judge Nelson's ruling.

Now, if you can't figure it out from there, you're on your own. The league MUST end the lockout, absent a stay. It's done. Over. Finished. If the league refuses to end the lockout, it will be in contempt. By showing up for work and being refused access tomorrow, the players will be able to file a motion for contempt in front of the same Judge Nelson.

What La Canfora posted doesn't change that one bit. What La Canfora is posting is that the league is currently planning to defy the court order until it gets a ruling on the stay.

edit: Breer is already backing off of La Canfora's position:

Both Albert Breer of NFL Network and Adam Schefter of ESPN have reported that players will be permitted to enter. Schefter reports that the league has recommended that teams keep their weight rooms closed.

We’ve reported that the league also has instructed coaches not to talk to players.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/25/league-will-allows-players-into-facilities-but-possibly-not-weight-rooms/

 

[townes]

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.

From the reports i have heard the Judge specifically based her opinion and rulings on each point on precedents established by the very Court of Appeals the case is heading to. In other words they will have to reverse precedents established by their prior rulings to reverse hers, and that's a very tough road to go down and hope to win. She isn't "making law" she is using their decisions to make her decision. Given that it's hard to see how this gets overturned, and if the owners lose in the the Court of Appeals they are screwed.

 

[DW Toys]

Sham, shlam.
Hmm, that doesn't sound so condescending like that.

Anyway, I hope the Patriots contact Matt Light and start to negotiate a deal.
And they should check in with Kiwanuka, Babin, and Lawson at OLB. Maybe Dahl at OG, Malcolm Floyd at WR. Quick strike before the draft.

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

 

[Frezo]

Players: ...sit in kitchen ...blow out burners ...turn on gas ...light victory cigars

 

[silenthuntr7]

As a student of Law, from what I can understand, to my best judgement, and IMHO (enough qualifiers? )

Deus Irae is correct. AS OF NOW there is no stay of execution, and by tomorrow morning, if the situation remains at present (no stay), the NFL MUST end the lockout. That, in my mind = NFL MUST let players into facilities.

Whether they do anything there...is up to the NFL. Pretty much, I'd equate this to saying that your bosses have to let you go to work...but they don't have to give you any work.

It'll be interesting to see how the NFL reacts to this. My bet is they tell the teams to do nothing...hence no team attempts to sign a player, no communication from coach to players, no attempted trades, etc. But...we'll see.

 

[patfanken]

The Appeals Court this will go to is decidedly more favorable to ownership but I'm really starting to wonder if the League's case is so weak it can't win in any Court. I think the owners need to realize their money grab failed and that they should sit down and come up with a fair CBA.

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.

I hate the idea of an 18 game season [/QUOTEl ]

So you like the 20 game one they have now, with the fans paying for 4 games that don't count?

but I would go along with the players agreeing to it in return for a steady share of revenues without a ceiling. I can even see the players agreeing to a lesser % of net profits as long as that ceiling isn't imposed.

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

The owners and players are partners in the league because the owners need the players consent to impose the restrictions they do to run the league the way they want, e.g...free agency, tags, a salary cap, and the draft.

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.

What pisses me off is that I was in 2 serious strikes in my lifetime. Work stoppages that I believed in at that time. This whole thing has been about 2 sides fighting about how much obscene amounts of money each side can squeeze from each other. The very fact that there are reports that after making AT LEAST $400,000 the last year, many players need money and feared that $60,000 wouldn't be enough to tide them over IS OBSCENE - MOST AMERICANS don't make in a YEAR, what these players don't think is enough to tide them over for a short term.

Well a pox on BOTH THEIR HOUSES Sorry Townsie, the more I think about it the more I get pissed at the mutual GREED.

I think the owners should realize they have pushed it as far as they should and go to the table because they are completely screwed if the players win in Appeals Court, at that point the owners would have no leverage at all in negotiations and would have to pray for The Supremes to bail them out.

That might be true, T, but right now I'm feel ornery and I'd like the owners to do what the judge ordered. Lift the lockout and impose a set of rules that is more favorable to them than the last offer. Why not. Its not like there is a "union" to negotiate with. Now its supply and demand.....and for MOST of the players THAT would mean LESS money not more.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The debate isn't about who got the money. The debate was about whether the NFL was trying to circumvent the CBA.

There's little debate the NFL violated the CBA. And? The relief is damages. And those damages won't come close to $4 billion. Doty originally awarded $7.9 million, but then changed his mind and decided to hold a hearing whether to put some of the money in escrow. Either way, the owners will get billions during a lockout.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

From the reports i have heard the Judge specifically based her opinion and rulings on each point on precedents established by the very Court of Appeals the case is heading to.

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.)

It is correct that the injunction is in place. How quick do the owners have to comply? She didn't say. It depends on her boiling point. She's not going to hold contempt hearings tomorrow night, especially if there is a stay application on file with the Eighth Circuit, which I would anticipate there will be by the end of the week.

As for the notion that the Eighth Circuit would decide the appeal in a month, no way. Even an expedited appeal takes a couple of months. It will, however, decide the stay application quickly. If that gets denied, and if the Supreme Court doesn't intervene, then it will effectively be game over for the NFL. I think the Eighth Circuit will issue a stay and order shortened, but not expedited briefing. The district court's opinion is really not very good.

And, for the record, I tend to side with the players.