Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[KDPPatsfan85]

i found this comment on pro football talk...

Not sure if this is mentioned in another thread, but someone I know who has been digging through the verdict has found something that may kill the NFL’s chances at appeal.

Specifically, they found where the NFLPA recertified in 1993, at the insistence of the NFL over Gene Upshaw’s objections, and that an agreement was made between the league and the NFLPA that the NFL couldn’t claim the NFLPA had done a sham decertification at any point in the future.

“Since 1993, the Players and the League have operated under the SSA. Among the
negotiated terms of the SSA, the Players, who had de-certified their union in order to
bring antitrust claims, acceded to the NFL’s demand that they re-certify their union within
30 days. As an apparent form of quid pro quo for that accession, the NFL agreed to
waive any right in the future to assert the non-statutory labor exemption, after the
expiration of the CBA, on the ground that the Players’ disclaimer was a sham or
otherwise ineffective to end the labor exemption. (See Doc. No. 43-1 (Declaration of
Barbara P. Berens, Ex. A (Amended SSA)) Art. XVIII § 5(b).)

In fact, Eugene Upshaw,who had served as the Executive Director of the NFLPA since 1983, has stated that the “only reason” he “agreed to recommend that the NFLPA be converted from a trade 11CASE 0:11-cv-00639-SRN-JJG Document 99 Filed 04/25/11 Page 11 of 89
association back into a union” was “because the owners demanded that as a condition for
the Settlement Agreement,” but only in exchange for the owners’ agreement that they
would not challenge any subsequent election to again decertify the NFLPA as their
collective bargaining representative. (Doc. No. 7-1 (Declaration of Richard A.
Berthelsen), ¶ 8 (emphasis in original).)”

Punitive damages for the NFLPA from the NFL, here we come.

 

[JMarr]

This baby's pretty much put to bed. Thanks Judge Nelson. Now on to the draft. "Are you ready for some footbaaall?"

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I don't see any reason teams should have to provide off season training facilities for these players absent collective bargaining agreement. Heck, they used to have a hard time getting them into them when there was... That seems to be the tack the league is taking in the interim. The facility doors are open but there is no staff on hand or access to equipment...

The league seems poised to contend that it is being ordered to set itself up for irreperable harm as a result of this injunction by being forced into operating in the absence of a CBA to protect it from anti trust litigation and potential treble damage awards. The judge has now given the players until 9AM Wednesday to counter the NFL's brief filed last night for a temporary stay of the injunction pending appeal to the 8th Circuit. Greg Giello has twitted that teams need a few days to sort out what the league rules would even be if a stay is not granted. And he has noted that in it's last proposal to the union the leagues off season programs would not even be underway yet. And absent a CBA they can set a new league year date that would delay FA for some weeks yet. All of which may hint that if forced to open themselves up to anti trust litigation the league might as well do so on terms that they can live with in the interim. As Andrew Brandt opined today, this court case is never going to be heard to it's ultimate end - it will be settled at some future date in the form of a new CBA. Playing under rules both favorable to ownership and absent a union and arbitration protections for players in the interim (as opposed even to playing under 2010 rules of an expiring CBA that didn't work out as well as the NFLPA led players to assume it would) might well result in the non union workforce deciding to push to settle sooner than later just to get their protective union membership benefits back... Something judge Nelson failed to grasp in all this, because had she opted not to grant the injunction that too would have sped up the process of completing an eventual CBA. All she's accomplished this week is extending the rounds of briefing and posturing and rhetoric.

All I know is if someone was going to sue me either way, that's the route I'd follow in the interim. My revenue sharing rules, my cap rules, my FA rules, my rookie contract rules, my drug testing rules (I'd have informed them that they can't access the training equipment until they pass their HgH blood test...), my personal conduct policy rules, my recovery of signing bonus rules, etc. unless a CBA comes along and negotiates a different landscape where I am insulated from anti trust while still operating under terms I can live comfortably with for the forseeable future.

This whole decertification and lockout strategy is really just a high stakes game of courtroom chicken. It takes guts to win at chicken. At this point my money would be on 32 owners being able to remain united and firm in the face of the remote possibility of treble damage awards materializing in 2-3 years as opposed to 1900 players remaining united and firm in the face of life on non union terms for the next 2-3 seasons which for many of them could constitute their remaining NFL careers.

 

[townes]

I don't see any reason teams should have to provide off season training facilities for these players absent collective bargaining agreement. .

It would depend upon how their individual contracts are written as the Judge ruled the decertification valid and the union dissolved, so all players are working on individual service contracts. If the contracts give them access to facilities and coaches then the teams have to abide by the agreements they have made, and those without a contract, such as Manning, have no right to use the facilities or staff. the NFL would be wise to be as compliant as possible right now as to do otherwise will only make their situation worse.


Given the fact that the decision made clear the decertification is valid it is hard to see how the league gets a stay by claiming it is still a "labor dispute," as the Judge has already ruled otherwise. They can make an argument that things will be chaotic and the players and Judge could be generous and allow the owners as week or so to start the new league year but right now the owners are still trying to play offense while they are actually on defense.


I think the Judge should give the owners a week from thursday to start the new league year, that gives them plenty of time to reinstate systems they have been running for years and years.

It's not like the owners can claim they can't afford to fund operations as they have been taking payment from season ticket holders despite no guarantee of a season.

 

[Wolfpack]

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.

Except the rest of us in the real world have the freedom to work anywhere we want. Suppose you graduate with a degree in finance. No one tells you upon graduation "OK, you've been drafted by Chase Bank so you may work only for them, and you may not even so much as contact other financial institutions regarding potential employment."

 

[townes]

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'.

.

Kind of hard to replace something that isn't being replaced. As far as i know there are no franchises for sale and if there were the billionaires would be lining up to buy them.

 

[Rob0729]

Apparently the players want the football year to start before rules are in place:

Players ask judge to force owners to start league year | ProFootballTalk

Personally, I don't think it is fair to do that to the league. There needs to be rules in place. The fair thing would be for Judge Nelson to give the league several days or even a week or two to get rules in place before starting the league year. If the players aren't agreeable to that, we know this is more of a power play by the players and not that they care about the fans as DeMaurice Smith is saying. There is no harm in delaying the start of the football year by a week or two at this point.

 

[Clonamery]

Apparently the players want the football year to start before rules are in place:

Players ask judge to force owners to start league year | ProFootballTalk

Personally, I don't think it is fair to do that to the league. There needs to be rules in place. The fair thing would be for Judge Nelson to give the league several days or even a week or two to get rules in place before starting the league year. If the players aren't agreeable to that, we know this is more of a power play by the players and not that they care about the fans as DeMaurice Smith is saying. There is no harm in delaying the start of the football year by a week or two at this point.

No one cares about the fans until it's time to pay the bills.

 

[McCourty Island]

Apparently the players want the football year to start before rules are in place:

Players ask judge to force owners to start league year | ProFootballTalk

Personally, I don't think it is fair to do that to the league. There needs to be rules in place. The fair thing would be for Judge Nelson to give the league several days or even a week or two to get rules in place before starting the league year. If the players aren't agreeable to that, we know this is more of a power play by the players and not that they care about the fans as DeMaurice Smith is saying. There is no harm in delaying the start of the football year by a week or two at this point.

The owners should have come up with a plan during the 7 week lockout. They've restricted the employement of a number of players and they shouldn't be allowed a couple weeks to figure it out. They made their bed by locking out players who weren't in a union and now have to sleep in it.

The bolded is true of both sides unless you've missed the grandstanding that Goodell has been doing in the WSJ.

 

[Wolfpack]

Apparently the players want the football year to start before rules are in place:

Players ask judge to force owners to start league year | ProFootballTalk

Personally, I don't think it is fair to do that to the league. There needs to be rules in place. The fair thing would be for Judge Nelson to give the league several days or even a week or two to get rules in place before starting the league year. If the players aren't agreeable to that, we know this is more of a power play by the players and not that they care about the fans as DeMaurice Smith is saying. There is no harm in delaying the start of the football year by a week or two at this point.

The rules are there are no rules.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

i found this comment on pro football talk...

The point you are missing and one apparently Judge Nelson chose to ignore is the sham defense was only waived in the event the union decertified AFTER the expiration of the CBA. They insead chose to decertify pre-emptively several hours before the CBA actually legally expired. They did that because otherwise any lawsuit by the players would have been precluded/delayed for 6 months per the terms of that CBA.

If Gene wasn't happy with the settlement terms back in 1993, he shouldn't have entered into one as part of the SSA. He knew then what they know now, absent a union and the protections against anti trust, there won't ever be another CBA. Kessler is just fine with that. The players, not so much... The majority of them would stand to lose as much as the majority of owners if the NFL model ceases to exist. Only the top tier players and their top tier agents would gain. Much like the Colts, 20% of the players and their agents if they could land one would be making 80% of the available contract money only there would be no minimums for veterans and no benefits except by individual negotiation and no union to plead your case when a team decides to kick you to the curb because you said or did something that annoyed them...

Decertification was intended to be means by which employees could rid themselves of a union that the majority of employees believed was not negotiating in their best interest. The NFLPA has been allowed to pervert that concept into a tactical weapon to be used as leverage against an employer not willing to negotiate a deal to their liking. That is what the Court of Appeals should also be concerned about in reviewing this decision. Or they will be reviewing a lot more of them going forward, and not just regarding pro sports leagues whose unions will all attempt to play this card over the next couple of off seasons.

 

[Rob0729]

The owners should have come up with a plan during the 7 week lockout. They've restricted the employement of a number of players and they shouldn't be allowed a couple weeks to figure it out. They made their bed by locking out players who weren't in a union and now have to sleep in it.

The bolded is true of both sides unless you've missed the grandstanding that Goodell has been doing in the WSJ.

Well, both sides only care about the fans in that they are the suckers who give them the money to pay the salaries and profits. If either side really cared about the fans, they would have had figured out a way to keep the football year running that was agreeable to both sides for a short term fix until they got a CBA done.

Sorry, but the owners didn't need to come up with a plan unless the judge ordered them to come up with one before hand. Without knowing the judge's decision in detail before hand, it makes it difficult since she might have ruled in a way that made the plan illegal based on the decision.

I think it is best for everyone including the players that there is a plan in place. What if one of them gets hurt with no plan in place. Since there are no rules in place, the owners may say that they won't pay or even cut them because they are not fulfilling their end of their contract. They are only protected if they have lanuage specifically in their contract stating that they can't be denied pay when they hurt and not rely on the CBA rules. And many of them are relying on workout bonuses, but with no rules the owners may not have to let them work out. Now with no rules are the owners required to let players work out (it would have to be written into their contracts for it to be so) and if they block them from working out, are they still required to pay the bonus if the player is available (again, all this would have to be written specifically into their contracts with no CBA).

 

[E Belichick Unum]

The owners should have come up with a plan during the 7 week lockout. They've restricted the employement of a number of players and they shouldn't be allowed a couple weeks to figure it out. They made their bed by locking out players who weren't in a union and now have to sleep in it.

The bolded is true of both sides unless you've missed the grandstanding that Goodell has been doing in the WSJ.

First, even the judge didn't believe that the union had actually decertified and secondly, the owners never restricted the players right to find employment, hell there were plenty of gas stations and furnature stores they could find a job at. What the owners have done is exercize their right under the pervious CBA to back out of the agreement. The idea that the union actually is out of business is absurd, as evidenced by D Smith mnaking statements for the players today.

I hope they are forced to play for minimum wage.

 

[McCourty Island]

First, even the judge didn't believe that the union had actually decertified and secondly, the owners never restricted the players right to find employment, hell there were plenty of gas stations and furnature stores they could find a job at. What the owners have done is exercize their right under the pervious CBA to back out of the agreement. The idea that the union actually is out of business is absurd, as evidenced by D Smith mnaking statements for the players today.

I hope they are forced to play for minimum wage.

Actually they did restrict their right to work in the NFL, which is why the lockout was ended by the courts. Thanks for playing though.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It would depend upon how their individual contracts are written as the Judge ruled the decertification valid and the union dissolved, so all players are working on individual service contracts. If the contracts give them access to facilities and coaches then the teams have to abide by the agreements they have made, and those without a contract, such as Manning, have no right to use the facilities or staff. the NFL would be wise to be as compliant as possible right now as to do otherwise will only make their situation worse.


Given the fact that the decision made clear the decertification is valid it is hard to see how the league gets a stay by claiming it is still a "labor dispute," as the Judge has already ruled otherwise. They can make an argument that things will be chaotic and the players and Judge could be generous and allow the owners as week or so to start the new league year but right now the owners are still trying to play offense while they are actually on defense.


I think the Judge should give the owners a week from thursday to start the new league year, that gives them plenty of time to reinstate systems they have been running for years and years.

It's not like the owners can claim they can't afford to fund operations as they have been taking payment from season ticket holders despite no guarantee of a season.

One superior court judge in Minnesota has ruled the decertification is valid. There are appeals courts for a reason, as AZ has tried to point out to you repeatedly to no avail.

As for off season conditioning programs, the CBA doesn't require teams to hold them nor did it allow teams to make them anything more than voluntary...and it required teams to pay a stipend only to players who chose to attend them based on participation. In fact players and the union have been calling for additional limits on off season workouts and OTA's and training camps. Perhaps under the new terms the league decides to operate under for the interim they will get what they've been asking for and teams will do away with much them altogether, just like they did with lots of the benefits contributions they were previously contractually required to make but then discontinued under an expiring CBA... Perhaps they will choose to only make the facilities available in the off season to players who have an off season training bonus written into their existing contract, or perhaps they will simply tell them they will accept outside trainers affidvits in lieu of on site attendance or perhaps they will simply pay them not to attend... Glancing at Miguel's notes it looks as if the Patriots would be out about $2.5M if they just cut them all off season training checks...

Of course individual players may then decide to sue for the right to work more in the off season... Which just underscores the problem which is that Judge Nelson has simply exacerbated as opposed to settled the situation at hand.

 

[Triumph]

First, even the judge didn't believe that the union had actually decertified and secondly, the owners never restricted the players right to find employment, hell there were plenty of gas stations and furnature stores they could find a job at. What the owners have done is exercize their right under the pervious CBA to back out of the agreement. The idea that the union actually is out of business is absurd, as evidenced by D Smith mnaking statements for the players today.

I hope they are forced to play for minimum wage.

The NFLPA is now a trade association in lieu of being a union.

Smith has done nothing wrong.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Matt Light's reaction to the decision...

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet» Blog Archive » Video of the day: Patriots advocate Matt Light reacts to the lockout being lifted

 

[E Belichick Unum]

The NFLPA is now a trade association in lieu of being a union.

Yeah, and my wife can fly. If you believe that then I have a big white house to sell you. It's address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC.

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually they did restrict their right to work in the NFL, which is why the lockout was ended by the courts. Thanks for playing though.

This is what you fail to understand and the judge idiotically ignored. There is no RIGHT to work ANYWHERE. Not in the NFL. Not at McDonald's. And there ARE at least 3 other PROFESSIONAL football leagues that players can and HAVE gone to. The CFL, AFL and UFL. So this idea that the NFL Owners have somehow restricted the players is absolute and utter BS.

OH, and yes, the Judge clearly is making up her own laws and not truly enforcing the laws on the books. Because the laws on the books contradict her ruling.

 

[Triumph]

Yeah, and my wife can fly. If you believe that then I have a big white house to sell you. It's address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC.

Thats the way it is. Schefter has mentioned the NFLPA operating as a trade association a few times.

We all know that the NFLPA will go right back to being a union when its finally over.