"8th circuit grants NFL's motion for stay on appeal"

[TruthSeeker]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

The case itself will take years to fight if it goes to final verdict. The 8th Circuit decision will be huge because it is doubtful the Supreme Court will take this case no matter who wins. That means that if the owners win, the players are locked out until the situation is resolved. That means there might not be football until 2014, 2015, or 2016 if by the unlikely chance this case sees to the conclusion. On the other hand, if the players win, there could be football without a CBA for years until the suit is settle or a verdict is give like what happened in 1987 through 1993.

You are downplaying the verdict on the appeal. It is very likely that the players will cave before the actual case goes to trial if they lose because the case won't actually go to trial for years.

I guess in theory the players could be willing to sit out for a few years in hopes that they will get billions from the owners, but odds are that if they lose in early June that lower and mid tiered players will break from the ranks and press for a their leaders to get a deal done.

You write like someone who is oblivious that the legal strategy on both sides is 90+% about enhancing negotiation position. (Some would say 100%.)

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

You write like someone who is oblivious that the legal strategy on both sides is 90+% about enhancing negotiation position. (Some would say 100%.)

LOL! I understand it just fine. At some point, you gotta know when you cut your losses. I have a friend who is a family law lawyer who does this all the time. He has seen clients "win" their negotiating position through legal strategy while burning through tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills while using their children as bargaining chips in bitter custody battles that totally ruin their kid's psyche and self esteme. Yes, these clients may eventually win, but at what cost.

I own a small company where many of the manufacturers of products I sell are violating antitrust laws trying to stop me from undercutting the big box retailers on price since the big box retailers give them tens of millions in business a year compared to my hundreds of thousands. I have a slam dunk court case. I could easily spend $200-300K over the next ten year to sue these manufacturers and hopefully get my money back and a small damage claim. Of course this might put me out of business in the meantime, but at least I would win and gain the advantage in negotiations.

At some point the push to win to gain leverage is more damaging or costly than knowing when to call quits. In a league where the average player only plays 3-4 years, is losing a season worth the cost of winning an antitrust suit that might not affect the lower and mid tier players very much (you know the people who actually can't afford to sit out a year). Does pushing the antitrust suit to the brink and potentially creating a system where teams like the Bengals turn into the Pittsburgh Pirates where their entire payroll is less than Brady's salary and they are content to go 3-13 every year or lower end players like say Matthew Slater play for $50k a year worth it to win.

Legal strategy isn't about gaining leverage at all cost. Smart negotiators know when to cut bait rather than score a pyric victory where the victor loses more than he wins.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

Actually, I think the owners may be willing to operate under the pre-2006 agreement. Do you think the players will go along?

Not a chance would the players go for that type of deal. As bad as the 2006 CBA was for the owners, the prior CBA to that was worse to the players.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

Imo there is a very simple resolution to this, both sides agree to operate under the owner friendly rules of 2010 until a deal gets done.

Oh yeah, and both Pash and Smith get fired as part of the deal.

I don't think the 2010 rules are owner friendly. There are things that are good and bad for both sides. I think it is a system that is a decent short term compromise, but neither side really likes those rules.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

LOL! I understand it just fine. At some point, you gotta know when you cut your losses. I have a friend who is a family law lawyer who does this all the time. He has seen clients "win" their negotiating position through legal strategy while burning through tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills while using their children as bargaining chips in bitter custody battles that totally ruin their kid's psyche and self esteme. Yes, these clients may eventually win, but at what cost.

I have a friend who is a CEO and the company he runs has had more than its share of getting sued because of the nature of business that it does, and he has told me a few times that the only real winner in litigation are the lawyers. It is actually policy for them to offer a quick cash settlement in most circumstances, whether or not they're at fault.

 

[Joker]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

 

[dhamz]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

Legal strategy isn't about gaining leverage at all cost. Smart negotiators know when to cut bait rather than score a pyric victory where the victor loses more than he wins.

If the public comments of De Smith, Kevin Mawae and Drew Brees are any indication, the players union/trade association won't consider negotiation an option at least until they lose the June 3 hearing. A lot of people would say that they are in a better position today when the ruling is expected but unknown than they would be if they lose next month but they clearly feel differently. Either that or they are just having a difficult time giving up on their plan they spent 2 years crafting.

Brees just comes off as clueless. Making a national radio tour on Tuesday proclaiming the players will win June 3rd because they have won every ruling so far in the case makes him sound delusional. Or at very least he sounds like he doesn't have the internet or cable or at least he didn't on Monday when the players lost their 2nd consecutive ruling.

 

[townes]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

This is news to me; I didn't know that the owners forced the players to form a union. Could it be that in this free country of ours the players actually chose to form a union because they determined it was in their best interests?

As far as forcing the players to stay in a union, the union committed in their labor negotiations in 2006 to not decertify until after their agreement expired. Then they decertified anyway (before the deadline). I haven't heard anyone claiming that the union couldn't decertify a few hours after they actually did (i.e. after their agreement expired). Perhaps you know something I don't.

No TS it was not of their free will, the owners required the players to form the union as a condition of maintaining the collective bargaining agreement they ended up opting out of. The players decertified the day the CBA was ending because they ahd a court deadline to meet and the game the owners are playing by claiming that somehow nullifies it is disgraceful enough that the players should now refuse to reform a union under any conditions, as it will always be used against them.

The owners are saying the players must be forced to remain in a union they forced them to enter into even after the CBA that was required for was opted out of by the owners, and if the owners had already opted out of the CBA then there was no CBA for the players to be operating under because the owners had ended it.

The purpose of forcing them to stay in a union is solely to deny them the right to work, whereas the owners had the option of continuing talks while operating under 2010 rules, and refusing to do so reveals their true intentions, which was to crush the players.

 

[townes]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

I don't think the 2010 rules are owner friendly. There are things that are good and bad for both sides. I think it is a system that is a decent short term compromise, but neither side really likes those rules.

Neither side really likes the rules which was the point of making them, however it was clear they gave owners a big upper hand because it limited free agency so severely. The players willingness to keep playing under them while negotiating a deal is absolutely an act of good faith and would have prevented this entire episode from going down the road it has.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

Neither side really likes the rules which was the point of making them, however it was clear they gave owners a big upper hand because it limited free agency so severely. The players willingness to keep playing under them while negotiating a deal is absolutely an act of good faith and would have prevented this entire episode from going down the road it has.

I think that by far the most important issue here is money, not free agency or some of these other items. I think that once the division of money is agreed upon during the current (non-)negotiations that the other discussion points will not be much of a hold-up.

I do think that this was a good offer from the players but I don't put too much stock in it despite that. Why? Because the owners essentially have in their back pocket the option to continue playing under the 2010 rules. Standard policy when negotiations fail is to allow both sides to continue operating under their current agreement. So while it is good of the players to offer this up front, this could likely happen even if it wasn't offered.

History has shown that it can be very hard to reach a settlement in labor negotiations until significant pressure is applied i.e. either management or employees losing lots of money. Continuing "negotiations" under circumstances that produced essentially nothing after 2 years of "negotiations" are (very?) unlikely to make much progress. I think that the owners have taken the tact they have taken because they want progress, not just the status quo. Unfortunately, progress will almost certainly mean pain for everyone involved.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

the owners required the players to form the union as a condition of maintaining the collective bargaining agreement they ended up opting out of. The players decertified the day the CBA was ending because they ahd a court deadline to meet and the game the owners are playing by claiming that somehow nullifies it is disgraceful enough that the players should now refuse to reform a union under any conditions, as it will always be used against them.

The owners never "forced" the players to form a union, as a matter of fact the NFLPA isn't even a union, it is an association. For a collective bargaining agreement to be official, an association/union has to be authorized to negotaite for an entire class of worker. It is a benefit to the players that they are in a union, it is a detriment to the owners that the union even exists. The NFL has a limited anti-trust exemption that allows them to have a draft and negotiate TV contracts, but they might have been able to get that without the NFLPA ever being established (lawyers an I correct in that assessment?).

The settlement was presented to and approved by the judge who had heard the McNeil antitrust case in 1993. Once the agreement was approved the NFLPA reconstituted itself as a labor union and entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with the league. The NFLPA and the league have extended their 1993 agreement five times, most recently in March 2006 when it was extended through the 2011 season after the NFL owners voted 30-2 to accept the NFLPA's final proposal. However, in May 2008 the owners decided to opt out of this agreement and play the 2010 without a bargaining agreement in place. This means the 2010 season was played without a salary cap (or floor), and there is the looming possibility of no play at all in 2011 if an agreement cannot be reached. A point of contention between the owners and the NFLPA is removing two pre-season games and making them regular-season games, bringing the total number of regular season games to eighteen. Another major topic is former-player insurance after any player has retired.
National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

The owners never "forced" the players to form a union, as a matter of fact the NFLPA isn't even a union, it is an association. For a collective bargaining agreement to be official, an association/union has to be authorized to negotaite for an entire class of worker. It is a benefit to the players that they are in a union, it is a detriment to the owners that the union even exists. The NFL has a limited anti-trust exemption that allows them to have a draft and negotiate TV contracts, but they might have been able to get that without the NFLPA ever being established (lawyers an I correct in that assessment?).

Towne keeps using the term forced because it suits his owners are pure evil agenda. They weren't forced to do anything. However, the owners made it a requirement of the lawsuit settlement agreement they were entering with the players that the union re-certify because otherwise there was no real point in entering a settlement agreement outside of which individual players would have still been free to file additional anti trust litigation at any time. A CBA precludes that. Gene later stated he never intended to re-form the union, owners made him do it... That was just rhetoric designed to undercut the sham accusation when next they played that card... If he didn't want to re-certify they could have just continued on with the legal process. At the time they negotiated as part of the settlement CBA language that precluded the owners from claiming any future decertification was a sham...with the exception that if the union decertified PRIOR to the expiration of the CBA (which they did by several hours to facilitate the players lawsuit which otherwise would have had to wait 6 months to be filed) the league could indeed persue the sham decertification allegation as they have.

 

[townes]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

Towne keeps using the term forced because it suits his owners are pure evil agenda. They weren't forced to do anything. However, the owners made it a requirement of the lawsuit settlement agreement they were entering with the players that the union re-certify because otherwise there was no real point in entering a settlement agreement outside of which individual players would have still been free to file additional anti trust litigation at any time. A CBA precludes that. Gene later stated he never intended to re-form the union, owners made him do it.

Distinguish between "requirement" and "forced."

There is no distinction, the players were required to reform the union for the CBA to stay in force. The owners have now opted out of that CBA, leaving the players alone in it, so there was no reason to maintain the union as they were no longer in an agreement with the owners, who had opted out of it. Folks like you feel the players should be forced to stay in a union they were forced to form despite the fact the owners have opted out of the agreement requiring the union, i.e.. you blindly support ownership despite the fact that you can't even demonstrate why they had to opt out of the agreement to beging with. If the owners want it they should get it.


Since you can't defend the owners you attack the players. Let me know when you can make a factual case for the owners opting out, so far you are batting zero in that reqard.

 

[townes]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

Towne keeps using the term forced because it suits his owners are pure evil agenda.

Mo keeps demonizing the players because he can't defend the owners with any facts whatsoever. If the players go on strike then the players suck, if the owners lock them out then the players suck. Blind allegiance to ownership.

 

[townes]

Re: Breaking News: 8th circut court...

I think that by far the most important issue here is money, not free agency or some of these other items. I think that once the division of money is agreed upon during the current (non-)negotiations that the other discussion points will not be much of a hold-up.

I do think that this was a good offer from the players but I don't put too much stock in it despite that. Why? Because the owners essentially have in their back pocket the option to continue playing under the 2010 rules. Standard policy when negotiations fail is to allow both sides to continue operating under their current agreement. So while it is good of the players to offer this up front, this could likely happen even if it wasn't offered.

History has shown that it can be very hard to reach a settlement in labor negotiations until significant pressure is applied i.e. either management or employees losing lots of money. Continuing "negotiations" under circumstances that produced essentially nothing after 2 years of "negotiations" are (very?) unlikely to make much progress. I think that the owners have taken the tact they have taken because they want progress, not just the status quo. Unfortunately, progress will almost certainly mean pain for everyone involved.

I don't really disagree but what you call "progress" I call "more profits," and in a revenue sharing agreement the owners need to show cause to gain givebacks, and so far they refuse to do so. Simply saying we get more because we want more and we aren't going to show why doesn't fly, and i think by the statement you posted here it is clear the owners are the ones taking the hard line and thus responsible for the situation at hand.


I believe the players would agree to negotiate while playing under pre-2006 rules but owners would refuse, as a lockout is and always has been their goal. I would love to see them agree to do this, fire both D. Smith and J. Pash, well as Kessler, and negotiate around the clock with Kraft, Rooney, Mara, and Jones representing the owners and the players representing the players.


Bottom line for me TS is that i want football and don't really care how they split it up as long as the basic structure of the game remains intact. However i simply cannot blame the players for a situation the owners forced upon them, and that's what i feel many here are doing.

 

[Haley]

Towne keeps using the term forced because blah blah blah pure evil blah

Mo keeps demonizing the players because blah blah blah blind allegiance blah

If this lockout doesn't end soon, will I be looking forward to reading 3 more months worth of this?

No offense guys, but I'm not sure I can take it.

 

[shirtsleeve]

If this lockout doesn't end soon, will I be looking forward to reading 3 more months worth of this?

No offense guys, but I'm not sure I can take it.

Yup.

Me neither.