Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[Deus Irae]

I leave the looking foolish to you, Deus. I have plenty right.

As Rob just pointed out, it may not matter if the NFL is a monopoly or not. Especially since it has entered into agreements with the UFL regarding player rights and such. So their status as a monopoly, is not as strong as it once was.

Rob's guessing. His position is extremely weak, partially because of the exact sorts of arguments that the "screw the players, let them play for the arena league" people have made regarding salaries and the like.

Now. To burst your bubble further, You ARE the one who brought up monopolies. Until you decided to start your replies, all I had said was that the NFL was not the only professional football employer and that the idea that they had somehow restricted the players was BS.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...n-rules-favor-players-page18.html#post2526643

]Clear, I said nothing about monopolies there. It was you.

You said:

"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. "

My response was that having more than one league didn't make the NFL a non-monopoly, which is clearly what you were implying in your post.

Now, the player's association sure seems to be acting like a Union. They want to negotiate like one. What's the saying about "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck"??

Oh.. yeah.. since when do "Trade Associations" form to equalize the bargaining power between employers and employees as regards wages, hours, and terms of employment.

Trade Associations, by definition, don't do bargaining.

It's the owners who refused to negotiate with the players in the suit post de-cert, and said that they wanted to talk to the union. Despite your misguided claim here, the parties involved in the suit had the right to do just that in settlement hearings.

You're getting pretty much everything wrong.

 

[lamafist]

Laugh all you want. I have on numerous occasions. Have you?

The on the field stands.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, a lawyer who has so much free time to be able to blather on aimlessly for hours on end on here but not have a law practice to deal with..



Keep up the great work, Deus.

I am capable of multitasking. I can actually use more than one computer at a time, as well.

Now, are you done with the personal attacks?

 

[DaBruinz]

Rob's guessing. His position is extremely weak, partially because of the exact sorts of arguments that the "screw the players, let them play for the arena league" people have made regarding salaries and the like.

That's your unfounded claim. I put more stock in Rob than you.

You said:

"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. "

My response was that having more than one league didn't make the NFL a non-monopoly, which is clearly what you were implying in your post.

I meant what I said. Not some fictitious BS implication that you fabricated in a pathetic attempt to make yourself look smart. The reality is that you claimed I was the one who brought up the monopolies. I did no such thing. I was pointing out 3 other Professional Football leagues in which players could ply their trade. I said nothing more and nothing less.

It's the owners who refused to negotiate with the players in the suit post de-cert, and said that they wanted to talk to the union. Despite your misguided claim here, the parties involved in the suit had the right to do just that in settlement hearings.

You're getting pretty much everything wrong.

Sorry, Deus. You thinking that I have everything wrong is just you deluding yourself again.

The players were the ones who walked away from the bargaining table and filed their BS lawsuits PRE- Decert. But, far be it from you to actually deal with reality.

The owners offered up a starting point that gave the players plenty, though was also lacking. That's how negotiations work. And, instead of continuing the negotiations from there, the players walked.

BTW, since you clearly don't get it. Trade Associations aren't bargaining entities. That's not their purpose. I quoted the LEGAL definiton of a LABOR UNION and it flew right over your head.

And you're a lawyer?

 

[Triumph]

See, I disagree. I see the enjoinment of the lockout as the fastest way to a new CBA. At present, the owners are the only ones who benefit from prolonging the labor dispute, as they are clearly in better position to endure a work stoppage than the players. Absent the ability to lock the players out, and forced to institute temporary terms that won't open them up to further antitrust violations, the owners lose all incentive to drag the negotiation process out.

Operating under provisional terms creates uncertainty and instability for both players and franchises alike, and works to the benefit of neither, therefore giving neither party any incentive to keep dragging things out.

If the owners lose, I fear they will seek to recoup lost revenue by charging the fans. PSLs for the Pats, higher ticket prices. I would not surprise to me to see NFL games pay per view.

Im concerned about the draft being abolished and total free agency without restrictions. I dont want the NFL to look like baseball.

 

[lamafist]

The NFL has an anti-trust exemption to act as a collective. So what they do is not monopolistic, anti-competive, or illegal in the eyes of the law. The anti-trust exemption they have for this is separate from any exemption they have given to them through a CBA. That is very different from not having competition by law that the players can play with.

In fact, they can point to the USFL as a case where a league was created competed successfully in stealing away players with better salaries than the NFL and got plenty of national attention. Just because the teams were severely mismanaged and went bankrupt, doesn't exclude the fact that the NFL has a long history of allowing other leagues to be formed and given a chance to thrive. Most of the leagues failed because of poor management and lack of fan interest (which is not the NFL's responsibility). For example, the XFL failed because the games and all the goofball rules and gimmicks were horrible, not because the NFL stopped them from being a league.

Yeah, I know. I referred to the NFL's antitrust exemption in my post.

It seems to me though like a number of separate legal issues surrounding monopolies and trusts as they apply to commerce and trade competition are being conflated with labor law.

The existence of the UFL or any other pro football league doesn't entitle the NFL's 32 franchises to act in concert regarding player employment opportunities, absent a collective bargaining agreement.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If the owners lose, I fear they will seek to recoup lost revenue by charging the fans. PSLs for the Pats, higher ticket prices. I would not surprise to me to see NFL games pay per view.

Im concerned about the draft being abolished and total free agency without restrictions. I dont want the NFL to look like baseball.

It's simple.
Should these things come to pass it's Adios Football!
NFW I buy a PSL. Tix are already 'pricey'. And if players hop team to team for the big spender owners like the atrocity that is MLB then my interest drops to zero, just like it did with MLB. Kraft will have sold the team if this happens.

But that's Goodell's worst case scare. I think that things will get worse and then they'll settle on something we recognize and support as today's NFL.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's your unfounded claim. I put more stock in Rob than you.

I really don't care. Rob's clearly guessing, and his word choice acknowledges it. There's nothing wrong with him making that guess, and he probably feels like it's a very well educated guess, but it's a guess nonetheless, and it's a weak position, IMO, partially because of what I pointed out. Weak positions sometimes win in court, though, which is why I didn't post in response to him.

I meant what I said. Not some fictitious BS implication that you fabricated in a pathetic attempt to make yourself look smart. The reality is that you claimed I was the one who brought up the monopolies. I did no such thing. I was pointing out 3 other Professional Football leagues in which players could ply their trade. I said nothing more and nothing less.

No, you clearly used it as evidence of a lack of a monopoly. That's fine, it's just not correct.

Sorry, Deus. You thinking that I have everything wrong is just you deluding yourself again.

The players were the ones who walked away from the bargaining table and filed their BS lawsuits PRE- Decert. But, far be it from you to actually deal with reality.

The owners offered up a starting point that gave the players plenty, though was also lacking. That's how negotiations work. And, instead of continuing the negotiations from there, the players walked.

BTW, since you clearly don't get it. Trade Associations aren't bargaining entities. That's not their purpose. I quoted the LEGAL definiton of a LABOR UNION and it flew right over your head.

And you're a lawyer?

Sorry, but the facts are against you. That's just the reality. Your attempt to drag in the legal definition changed nothing we were discussing, and I'm sure you know that.

 

[townes]

I hate to break it to you, but the one who is poorly informed is yourself. But, that's ok. You've already proven that you will just make things up as you go.

So poorly informed in fact that the ruling went the way i said it would and should.

seriously dude, your argument is that the judge didn't understand the case and that is as weak as it gets.

 

[DaBruinz]

I am capable of multitasking. I can actually use more than one computer at a time, as well.

Now, are you done with the personal attacks?

Are you done with yours? With making garbage up and pretending to know what people are thinking?

 

[townes]

I hope she gets overturned. The fastest way back to a new CBA is with a lockout. The players would cave for monetary reasons. Im all for a fair deal for both sides.

How does the player's folding for monetary reasons ensure a fair deal?

 

[Rob0729]

Yeah, I know. I referred to the NFL's antitrust exemption in my post.

It seems to me though like a number of separate legal issues surrounding monopolies and trusts as they apply to commerce and trade competition are being conflated with labor law.

The existence of the UFL or any other pro football league doesn't entitle the NFL's 32 franchises to act in concert regarding player employment opportunities, absent a collective bargaining agreement.

Well the league doesn't act in concert regarding the player's opportunities outside the NFL. Any player not under contract can work for anyone they want for as much as they want. If the UFL wanted to sign Peyton Manning for $40 million a year, the NFL couldn't stop him.

 

[Wolfpack]

I leave the looking foolish to you, Deus. I have plenty right.

That's almost as funny as this quote:

"Wrong.... Come March 3rd or whenever the new season is officially supposed to start, if the owners have locked out the players, then the owners won't be sending out season ticket invoices.." - DaBruinz, 6/19/10

BTW, I think I'm the first person in the forum who has discovered how to get DaBruinz to stop responding. All you need to do is throw his old statement back in his face!

 

[DaBruinz]

I really don't care. Rob's clearly guessing, and his word choice acknowledges it. There's nothing wrong with him making that guess, and he probably feels like it's a very well educated guess, but it's a guess nonetheless, and it's a weak position, IMO, partially because of what I pointed out. Weak positions sometimes win in court, though, which is why I didn't post in response to him.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother to have responded.

No, you clearly used it as evidence of a lack of a monopoly. That's fine, it's just not correct.

Clearly you don't know wtf you are talking about. I did no such thing. You made an assumption and got caught doing so. I told you what my intent was. If you don't like it, tough. And what I said is factually correct. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't change a damn thing. Do everyone a favor and stop your arrogant BS of pretending to know what people are thinking. You only show yourself to be foolish by pathetically attempting to attribute things that weren't said.

Sorry, but the facts are against you. That's just the reality. Your attempt to drag in the legal definition changed nothing we were discussing, and I'm sure you know that.

Sorry, but you are the one who opened your mouth with your BS replies and attempts to attribute things to me that I didn't say. My factually using the legal definition of LABOR UNION and you missing it changed plenty. A lawyer would realize that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you done with yours? With making garbage up and pretending to know what people are thinking?

I didn't make any personal attacks against you. The closest I came to it was to say that you thought you were on a roll.

You took an entire post and made it a uninformed personal attack.

 

[lamafist]

Sorry, Deus. You thinking that I have everything wrong is just you deluding yourself again.

Not just Deus. Judge Nelson, too. And every legal analyst I've read regarding this decision.

I'd actually be really interested in reading an independent dissenting opinion on Nelson's ruling, but I honestly can't find one.

The players were the ones who walked away from the bargaining table and filed their BS lawsuits PRE- Decert. But, far be it from you to actually deal with reality.

The owners offered up a starting point that gave the players plenty, though was also lacking. That's how negotiations work. And, instead of continuing the negotiations from there, the players walked.

The players walked away from a negotiating table they'd been left alone at for most of the 2 previous weeks. The longer the owners got the players to wait before decertifying and filing suit, the later into the season they felt they could drag their lockout out. So they waited until the 11th hour to present a counter-offer.

Honestly, I don't fault them for this tactic -- they had no intention of compromising on the issues the players were keying on, and nothing to lose by trying to stall. But it's just ridiculous to pretend that either side was earnestly hopeful of reaching a deal at that point.

 

[Wolfpack]

If the owners lose, I fear they will seek to recoup lost revenue by charging the fans. PSLs for the Pats, higher ticket prices. I would not surprise to me to see NFL games pay per view.

I think we're long past the time it would be for the Pats to implement PSL's.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother to have responded.

I responded because it was part of your post

Clearly you don't know wtf you are talking about. I did no such thing. You made an assumption and got caught doing so. I told you what my intent was. If you don't like it, tough. And what I said is factually correct. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't change a damn thing. Do everyone a favor and stop your arrogant BS of pretending to know what people are thinking. You only show yourself to be foolish by pathetically attempting to attribute things that weren't said.

No, I inferred the obvious, based upon your implication. Pretty standard.

Sorry, but you are the one who opened your mouth with your BS replies and attempts to attribute things to me that I didn't say. My factually using the legal definition of LABOR UNION and you missing it changed plenty. A lawyer would realize that.

You continue to get it wrong.

 

[DaBruinz]

So poorly informed in fact that the ruling went the way i said it would and should.

seriously dude, your argument is that the judge didn't understand the case and that is as weak as it gets.

My argument is that the judge overlooked and blatantly ignored facts of the case. Again, you make things up. And the ramifications are going to be serious. Football, as we knew it is done. It's too bad ignorant people like yourself can't understand that.

 

[Deus Irae]

The players walked away from a negotiating table they'd been left alone at for most of the 2 previous weeks. The longer the owners got the players to wait before decertifying and filing suit, the later into the season they felt they could drag their lockout out. So they waited until the 11th hour to present a counter-offer.

The players didn't even walk away from the negotiating table. That's a false characterization of what happened.

There was a deadline. The players and owners agreed to extend it once. The players offered to extend it a second time if the owners would open up their books. The owners refused, so there was no extension.

DaBruinz can try playing the "walked away" card all he wants. It's not accurate. It was, in fact, the owners who were skipping meetings and showing up late for others.