Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[BB4PRez]

The judge has operated in a deliberate manner and is giving the players a day to respond the the NFL request for stay on her order. According the PFT the NFL has indicated it will be irreperably harmed by the injunction becuase it is being forced to operate in a world of labor antitrust uncertainty.

The fact that the judge is giving the players a day to respond to this argument is in my opinion a big signal that the court is looking for a concesion from the players if they do not want the stay preventing the injunction to be granted. I would hope the plaintiffs offer the court conditions that they would agree to go with the issuing of the injunction that would minimize the harm to the owners under the injunction. In my opinion the players should state that they would agree to conditions going forward that are reasonable while the case is pending. For example using the 2010 rules until such time as the case is resolved would seem to be a reasonable compromise. If the players make an offer allong these lines I would think they will win in front of the 8th circuit as well. If the players go for broke I would guess that the injunction will be stayed either in front of Nelson or in front of the 8th circuit.






The NFLPA need to remember the adage hogs get fat pigs get slaughtered

 

[Triumph]

So you're arguing semantics? Even if it takes a day clarify a few items it doesn't change the underlying fact that the lockout is over.

Today, the NFL is NOT business as usual.

That is a fact.

 

[townes]

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.

Imo they had a fair deal Ken and the owners wanted more so they decided to lock the players out to go for more. By all accounts the players were and are willing to continue with the current structure of the league as long as the owners didn't try to put a ceiling on what they would receive if the NFL continues to grow as expected, and since revenue sharing means they share the risk if revenues drop then there is no reason they should be capped if they grow. And while the owners put up money they are essentially guaranteed profit whereas the players are almost certainly guaranteed a lifetime of physical impairment if they play more than a couple of years in thew league, and they can never get their health back. They definitely invest themselves in the success and growth of the game.

 

[townes]

As the NFL tries to figure out exactly what happens now after Monday’s legal setback, the league is telling its coaches not to go back to business as usual.

The league is in contempt wouldnt you say Deus Irae, Esquire?

NFL Managment Council told teams to let players into their buildings Tuesday according to Adam Schefter of ESPN, but also recommended keeping weight rooms closed.

Keeping the weight rooms locked up is not business as usual. The NFL is in contempt according to you. LOL

There may be a window for clarification but I would say that in all likelihood teams that don't allow players to use the facilities are in contempt, but it would ultimately depend upon how their individual contracts read. They are under their personal contracts now and players who are not signed have no right to be at facilities---i.e...Peyton Manning can't use the Colts facilities and his tag has no standing.

 

[townes]

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?

The fact that owners demand full price for exhibitions is just another example of greed on their part, season ticket holder should get them for free or at a nominal price, they pay enough already.


I love football Ken and i would love to say the more the better but 18 regular season games is just too much imo and would shorten careers and lead to a situation where the champ would be one of attrition imo.

2 preseason games would mean starters and primary reserves would have to play to get ready and the SB champ could end up playing 24 games on the whole, that is too much and I wouldn't want to see the long term damage it would wreak on players.

 

[townes]

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.

Shefter just said he had spoken with a number of legal experts and the consensus was that the decision was "appeal proof." It is hard to imagine all are simply siding with the players out of bias and I tend to believe that the judge wrote the opinion knowing it would be challenged immediately and so wrote it based upon precedents from the court it was being appealed to, which is the bets way to ensure it stands, as judges don't like reversing themselves.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There's plenty of information available at Forbes.com and published annually in the magazine that tells us that no, the GB financials are not representative of the average NFL franchise, that they are toward the bottom of the league in terms of profit, as is to be expected, given that the Packers are a non-profit organization and must reinvest or reimburse any profits over a certain precautionary margin.

I'm not sure how they could "reimburse" them; while much of Green Bay owns stock in the Packers, by the charter under which they are sold there can be no dividends on that stock.

 

[Rob0729]

Kessler wasn't even at the table last time.

Kessler is a major player in the court battle whether he is in court or not or at the bargaining table. He is the NFLPA outside council. He goal is to create a free market system. He wouldn't be at the mediations since his goal to achieve this in court, not in negotiations. The owners will never negotiate a system that Kessler wants of 32 separate companies with no draft, no cap, no revenue sharing, and every player an independent contractor.

Not saying everyone on the players' side agree with him, but DeMaurice Smith is allowing him to push this agenda far more than Gene Upshaw did. This is the problem with lawyers being the heads of both sides. They rather litigate than negotiate. Last time Upshaw was a former player and Tagliabue, although a lawyer, was more of the Pete Rozzelle philosophy which was not as quick to litigate and more negotiations.

 

[furry]

Imo they had a fair deal Ken and the owners wanted more so they decided to lock the players out to go for more. By all accounts the players were and are willing to continue with the current structure of the league as long as the owners didn't try to put a ceiling on what they would receive if the NFL continues to grow as expected, and since revenue sharing means they share the risk if revenues drop then there is no reason they should be capped if they grow. And while the owners put up money they are essentially guaranteed profit whereas the players are almost certainly guaranteed a lifetime of physical impairment if they play more than a couple of years in thew league, and they can never get their health back. They definitely invest themselves in the success and growth of the game.

Strikes me there's a whole lot more people lining up to replace the Wilforks and Bradys of the world than there are the Krafts or Jones'.

I don't buy this players should be paid millions for putting their bodies on the line, I'd do it for half tomorrow and thousands of players did it for less for years before this lot.

You don't like what you're getting paid work harder and get a better contract. That's what the rest of the real world has to do.

 

[townes]

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 would have been wise to open their books fdrom the start as they were saying they needed relief in a new CBA but weren't willing to demonstrate it in any way.

I believe the players deserve a fair share of football related revenues but disagree completely with Vrabel that they deserve a share of ventures that while tangentially related to football are really investments the owners and their business partners make that play off the franchise but are not based on football. Patriot Place is an example of this, and while Vrabel can make an argument that it exists because of the football base in Foxboro it is really a private enterprise that exists independently of the team and represents a risk by those invested in it and not the players. As far as i know the players are not and have not asked for any expansion of their revenues and are content continuing with the current agreement, and I would be fine if all of this is settled by returning to the deal that wan in place that the owners voided. Tweak it with expanded benefits and healthcare for former players and possibly install a rookie cap with some free agency adjustments, but essentially keep the same deal in place.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'll admit that I'm just a layman (Professional Degree: MBA) trying to understand what is basically a legal issue. I have formed my own opinion but acknowledge that it is the opinion of an educated but (legally) untrained amateur.

Several folks in this thread are commenting on some of the finer aspects of the law.

I think it would help all of us as we form our opinions about what we are reading if the Lawyers who are commenting could identify themselves as such and indicate whether they practice Labor Law.

(You don't "have to be a Lawyer" to comment on this, but there are some nuanced aspects of the Law under consideration here, so it would be helpful to know if a commentator is grounded in them.)

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I, too, have read the decision. Nelson sinks her position in Garmon, Supreme court cases following Garmon, and 8th circuit cases following Garmon, as well as NLRB opinions, so I don't agree with your above claim.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about or whether you're responding to my post. I was talking about the NLA section, which I think is horrible and weak. It's pages 49 to 68. I'm not sure there's a single 8th Circuit case cited in there except Mackey at the very end, and clearly the Mackey court didn't do much of an NLA analysis.

 

[townes]

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 makes them partners ken is that the owners want to run the game in a very specific way that limits the rights and freedoms of the players and limits what they can make as a whole. The Draft, Free Agency, and tags are examples of this and the owners have to have the players agree to these restrictions and limitations as a whole to make them legal. Therefore the owners and players have to reach mutual agreement on what is a fair deal for the league to work in this way, and that is what makes them partners, as that represents a financial and personal investment by the players in what the owners believe are essential to the league operating successfully. The players trade freedoms they would have for the overall good of the league and as such are invested in its success.

The owners need the Union more than the players to make the system legal and that will become clear again when the owners demand a new Union as a condition of a collective bargaining agreement being implemented, which is the most likely outcome of this debacle.

 

[townes]

LOL

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

He doesn't need to, the Courts do that pretty much every time the NFL is before them. it turns out that "because we say so" really isn't a compelling legal argument and the NFL keeps losing every time they invoke it.

 

[lamafist]

I'm not sure how they could "reimburse" them; while much of Green Bay owns stock in the Packers, by the charter under which they are sold there can be no dividends on that stock.

How? Well, crediting existing season ticket holders toward renewal would be one simple step. Don't know if it's ever come down to that, as it would only be necessary if the team ever 'accidentally' had profits over a certain margin.

 

[townes]

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.



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.

I don't like it either Ken and it has definitely had an impact on my interest in the draft as i cannot remember devoting so little attention to it in past years, however i find it impossible to pace blame on the players because they have simply been responding to the owners shutting the league down. I agree they are all making money hand over fist and believe the the owners made a huge mistake invoking a lockout but i can't blame the players for that.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Shefter just said he had spoken with a number of legal experts and the consensus was that the decision was "appeal proof." It is hard to imagine all are simply siding with the players out of bias and I tend to believe that the judge wrote the opinion knowing it would be challenged immediately and so wrote it based upon precedents from the court it was being appealed to, which is the bets way to ensure it stands, as judges don't like reversing themselves.

Most judges don't like to be reversed. Most try to come to the right decision and write their opinions so they are not reversed. Yet, courts of appeal reverse decisions daily in this country.

I agree that this judge went out of her way to try to insulate her opinion. For example, she writes headers like this: "Exercising Its Discretion, This Court Declines to Refer This Matter to the NLRB." She then goes on to conduct what is, in essence, a legal analysis, not a discretionary analysis.

This is what a bad or inexperienced judge does to try to convince the court of appeals "nothing to see here." (If a matter is truly decided as a matter of discretion, it is reviewed more deferentially on appeal. If it's a question of law, the court of appeals affords no discretion to the trial court.) And experienced trial court judge wouldn't do that. It's like a signal to the court of appeals that says, "I'm really trying to protect my opinion." They don't care.

This seems to be lighting up the "legal commentators." But it's basically a parlor trick. Nelson was a magistrate judge for years until last year. Magistrate judges are used to writing "reports and recommendations" to district court judges, which usually are rubber stamped. (The get assigned the scut work, like discovery disputes that the judges don't want to deal with.)

I'm not saying I believe the Eight Circuit is going to automatically grant a stay. I just hear these experts and laugh. There are a lot of problems with her opinion. She doesn't even address one of the central NFL arguments and her Norris Laguardia stuff is very weak. It will be interesting to see what happens.

The players have the advantage that they've had a very favorable forum in the district court and in the 8th Circuit for 20 years. Bad law has been made for the NFL. But nothing is "appeal proof," including this 89-page opus which is a partially steaming hunk of poop in many places.

 

[BB4PRez]

Strikes me there's a whole lot more people lining up to replace the Wilforks and Bradys of the world than there are the Krafts or Jones'.

I don't buy this players should be paid millions for putting their bodies on the line, I'd do it for half tomorrow and thousands of players did it for less for years before this lot.

You don't like what you're getting paid work harder and get a better contract. That's what the rest of the real world has to do.

The "rest of the world" doesn't have franchise tags that stop a worker from going work from one place or another. Also, in the rest of the world your boss can't sign a contract with you and then lock you out of the building and not pay on your contract because it doesn't want to make deals with your co-workers. If the Krafts and Jones' want to hire the wannabe Wilforks and Bradys for less they can do so. Although, I think they are smart enough to know that unless the workers perform they will not put people in the seats. In the rest of the world the owners' of businesses have to compete in ways Jones and Krafts' of the world do not - hence the anti trust partial exemption.

I don't feel sorry for either side. But I think the Owners were foolish to walk away from the last CBA

 

[townes]

Most judges don't like to be reversed. Most try to come to the right decision and write their opinions so they are not reversed. Yet, courts of appeal reverse decisions daily in this country.

I agree that this judge went out of her way to try to insulate her opinion. For example, she writes headers like this: "Exercising Its Discretion, This Court Declines to Refer This Matter to the NLRB." She then goes on to conduct what is, in essence, a legal analysis, not a discretionary analysis.

This is what a bad or inexperienced judge does to try to convince the court of appeals "nothing to see here." (If a matter is truly decided as a matter of discretion, it is reviewed more deferentially on appeal. If it's a question of law, the court of appeals affords no discretion to the trial court.) And experienced trial court judge wouldn't do that. It's like a signal to the court of appeals that says, "I'm really trying to protect my opinion." They don't care.

This seems to be lighting up the "legal commentators." But it's basically a parlor trick. Nelson was a magistrate judge for years until last year. Magistrate judges are used to writing "reports and recommendations" to district court judges, which usually are rubber stamped. (The get assigned the scut work, like discovery disputes that the judges don't want to deal with.)

I'm not saying I believe the Eight Circuit is going to automatically grant a stay. I just hear these experts and laugh. There are a lot of problems with her opinion. She doesn't even address one of the central NFL arguments and her Norris Laguardia stuff is very weak. It will be interesting to see what happens.

The players have the advantage that they've had a very favorable forum in the district court and in the 8th Circuit for 20 years. Bad law has been made for the NFL. But nothing is "appeal proof," including this 89-page opus which is a partially steaming hunk of poop in many places.

I'm not a lawyer AZ but imo the NFL is acting unfairly not being treated unfairly, and they have lost in pretty much every court they have appeared in, not just those overseeing this case. Overall i agree with the ruling but at this point it is heading into legal technicalities that go beyond my understanding of the law.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I'm not a lawyer AZ but imo the NFL is acting unfairly not being treated unfairly, and they have lost in pretty much every court they have appeared in, not just those overseeing this case. Overall i agree with the ruling but at this point it is heading into legal technicalities that go beyond my understanding of the law.

I think for a layman, all you really need to understand is the procedure.

She granted an injunction. An injunction is considered to be "extraordinary relief" in the law. That means, you get an immediate appeal. (Usually, you have to wait until a case is over to get an appeal.) Once an appeal is filed, you are entitled to seek a stay of the injunction -- in other words, you argue why the status quo should be maintained (ie the lock out) until you get a ruling on the merits. You can ask the district court (Nelson) for a stay. If it gets denied, you can immediately ask the court of appeals for one. The court will conduct a brief review of the decision below. If it thinks it presents a substantial issue on the merits, it can grant a stay.

In a nutshell, this is the legal issue: There are many cases and statutes that say that courts should not inject themselves into labor disputes. In other words, when two sides are negotiating over labor issues, Congress has said we want them to resolve their own differences. We don't want to bring injunctions and courts into the mix. Most of these statutes and cases arise from a time when labor used strikes to get stuff -- and the idea was, we don't want to interfere. Union busters tried to get sympathetic courts to stop the strikes. But the statutes are not written in a way that they only keep courts out of strikes -- the rationale also applies to lockouts or other tools management can use. (Nelson clearly doesn't like that fact, but she grudgingly accepts it in her opinion.)

This concept was also written in to the last CBA, where the NFL attempted to get an either/or option -- either decertify and wait 6 months or stay a union. (Nelson doesn't really address this contractual argument.)

Anyway, Nelson's opinion basically holds, in a variety of ways, that this is no longer a labor dispute, because the NFLPA took formal steps to decertify. The NFL (rightly in my opinion) is arguing that puts form way over substance -- this was all a contiunuum. It's all done in the service of continued negotiation. There needs to be a "cooling off" period after negotiation before it stops becoming a labor dispute. The metaphor they use in their briefing is that the transition from when something goes from labor dispute to litigation is not a "light switch" that can simply be turned off. She rejected this argument, and this is the argument the court of appeals will consider. (The NFL also makes some other arguments about deferring to the NLRB, but these -- although they take up like 40 pages of Nelson's opinion -- are mostly insubstantial.)

I too side with the players, by the way. But I hate results-oriented decisions, and this is clearly one. I hope it gets smacked down. We'll see. I also hate the cynicism of it all. The players don't want unfettered dealing with individual clubs. It's all just a tactic, which the court recognized.

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