NFLPA vs NFL in a nutshell

[Triumph]

I did not realize that the players can appeal the Appeals court ruling if the vote in not unanimous.

There doesnt seem to be an end in sight regarding the courts.


The NFL and its players continue to wage a labor war on four legal fronts, with no end in sight. An update. - ESPN

 

[Rob0729]

Well, if they appeal, it first goes to the entire 8th Circuit who will rule the same way this three judge panel rules. Then it will go the Supreme Court who will likely not take the case.

 

[Tasco]

So basically reading between the lines they're saying a full 2011 season is doubtful, right?

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, if they appeal, it first goes to the entire 8th Circuit who will rule the same way this three judge panel rules. Then it will go the Supreme Court who will likely not take the case.

What is your basis for claiming the Supreme Court won't take the case?

 

[TruthSeeker]

What is your basis for claiming the Supreme Court won't take the case?

It's probably because the Supreme Court only hears like 1% or 2% of the cases that get appealed to it.

 

[Rob0729]

What is your basis for claiming the Supreme Court won't take the case?

1.) The political bent of the Court (it is still 5-4 conservative)
2.) By the time it gets that far, the Court will be in recess until October
3.) The shear number of cases that ask to have the Supreme COurt hear vs. the number the actually accept


There is a small chance that the Supreme Court hears it, but even then it will be likely to be heard after the 2011 season would be over or at the very earliest well into what would be the 2011 season. Even if they accepted it, made it their first case on the docket, and made a ruling, you are talking November before the lockout would be over.

 

[Deus Irae]

1.) The political bent of the Court (it is still 5-4 conservative)
2.) By the time it gets that far, the Court will be in recess until October
3.) The shear number of cases that ask to have the Supreme COurt hear vs. the number the actually accept


There is a small chance that the Supreme Court hears it, but even then it will be likely to be heard after the 2011 season would be over or at the very earliest well into what would be the 2011 season. Even if they accepted it, made it their first case on the docket, and made a ruling, you are talking November before the lockout would be over.

Thanks for answering, as I was curious about to your reasoning.

 

[AzPatsFan]

As the situation is there are several obstacles to an early resolution.

Should the players decide to come in from the impasse, they have no easy way of forcing that from the NFLPA association. There is not a Union to negotiate a CBA if the lawyers running the NFLPA association don't want to change.

It is not clear how that NFLPA association management can be dismissed. Nor is it clear how the Union can be reconstituted, or a new one organized, that is needed to negotiate and sign a new CBA.

Without a Union to give antitrust protection ,the Owners can't decide to re-open shop for Players attempting to cross the line. So they can't let anyone in, willing or not.

In short this is going to take a loooonnngg time.

 

[jczxohn1]

Isn't there another "Wild West" option; individual contracts, no draft, no free agency restrictions, open recruiting, etc? It would be disasterous, but isn't this what some agents and attys want?

 

[patfanken]

HERE is the dispute in a nutshell...really. There is X amount of revenue available. The Players think they should be getting 50% of regardless of expenses. The owners think the player should take less. THAT'S IT folks. It couldn't be simpler, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

The only question I have is....WHAT the F#CK are they doing in court in the first place They are misusing important labor and anti-trust law to settle a simple dispute of "how much" just because they can

It was the "union" who decided to play this card, so IMHO most of the blame should be laid at their feet. Not so much for their position, but because their decision is jeopardizing the game. ITS THE WRONG VENUE.

Its really starting to piss me off.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Looks like the union really screwed the pooch on this one. They screwed it up so bad even if the owners were willing to meet them half way, they can't. Well that's the bright side of a cancelled season, the greedy players can stew in their own greed. I hope they eat their hearts out. Then in the end the owners win and the players are forced to take a worse deal than the owners offered.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The only question I have is....WHAT the F#CK are they doing in court in the first place They are misusing important labor and anti-trust law to settle a simple dispute of "how much" just because they can

Exactly my sentiments. I said it before and I'll say it again, I would love to see the courts say "ain't interested in your dispute. Figure out the money split yourselves and at your own discretion". Unfortunately both sides were well prepared to initiate and/or proceed with a battle waged in the courts.

 

[townes]

Players strike, the players suck. Owners lock the players out, the players suck. Billionaires good, players suck.

 

[Rob0729]

Players strike, the players suck. Owners lock the players out, the players suck. Billionaires good, players suck.

Actually, I was more on the players' side when they struck in the late 80s. The system was totally unfair to them back then with players basically unable to become free agents unless their team decided they didn't want to resign them.

I think I am slightly more on the owners' side just because at least they are making an effort to get back to the bargaining table. From day one, DeMaurice Smith was talking war rhetoric and not even making an effort to be conceliatory. He still looks at this as a war and at some point, you gotta stop looking at the other side as an enemy and negotiate, not litigate.

I personally don't think he is doing what is best for the players because there is a realistic chance that this season could be lost. In reality the two sides are not far enough apart that the players will benefit from losing a season's worth of pay to get a more favorable CBA in the long run. Even if the the owners fold, most player will not see that signficant of a pay difference than if the players fold or both sides come to a mutually agreeable compromise before the start of the season to justify a lost season.

I guess I am more anti-DeMaurice Smith and Jeffrey Kessler than a I am remotely anti-player. I think the players should fight for what they can, but I think they are being led down a wrong path. This is what you get when you put a litigator in charge than a negotiator.

 

[patfanken]

Players strike, the players suck. Owners lock the players out, the players suck. Billionaires good, players suck.

C'mon Townsie, why are you sounding like a whining 9 year old in this post. This was ALWAYS a negotiation over "how much". It was something that needs to be settled in a room with both parties hashing it out.

IT DOES NOT belong in a court room, making use of important anti-trust laws that only tangentially apply to this case. The players have now left 2 offers on the table without a single counter. It was the players who changed the venue from the negotiation room, to the court room. It is the players who by taking that tack, have materially jeopardized this season, and the very structure of the game.

Townsie, there are no philosophical issues here; There is no good guy and bad guy. It it only 2 parties who are arguing about who gets "how much" THAT'S ALL. The players are NOT being oppressed by the owners. They make exceptional income, and still will when this is over. They get super care, and working conditions. This is NOT something we should be wasting time and money in our already overburdened court system.

The only ones who are winning now are the lawyers. Shakespeare was right

 

[Triumph]

Players strike, the players suck. Owners lock the players out, the players suck. Billionaires good, players suck.

Players suck because they want to ruin the game.

No draft, CBA, Free Agency. Everything that makes the NFL great would be gone if the players have their way. They suck.

MLB = NFL = SUCK

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Actually, I was more on the players' side when they struck in the late 80s. The system was totally unfair to them back then with players basically unable to become free agents unless their team decided they didn't want to resign them.

I think I am slightly more on the owners' side just because at least they are making an effort to get back to the bargaining table. From day one, DeMaurice Smith was talking war rhetoric and not even making an effort to be conceliatory. He still looks at this as a war and at some point, you gotta stop looking at the other side as an enemy and negotiate, not litigate.

I personally don't think he is doing what is best for the players because there is a realistic chance that this season could be lost. In reality the two sides are not far enough apart that the players will benefit from losing a season's worth of pay to get a more favorable CBA in the long run. Even if the the owners fold, most player will not see that signficant of a pay difference than if the players fold or both sides come to a mutually agreeable compromise before the start of the season to justify a lost season.

I guess I am more anti-DeMaurice Smith and Jeffrey Kessler than a I am remotely anti-player. I think the players should fight for what they can, but I think they are being led down a wrong path. This is what you get when you put a litigator in charge than a negotiator.

Bingo. Agent Joe Linta spoke out last week voicing his concern that these players are being led off a cliff. He also made it clear that agents are being kept out of the loop even though they represent the most experienced dealmakers in the equation. He publicly requested De send him a copy of the owners latest offer so that he could discuss it with his players (45). I think it was Cornwell, the agent who stepped up and made a late bid to run against De, who opined months before decertification and the lockout that agents could end up being a key resource in brokering whatever deal the outcome entails. The more annoyed they get at being ignored by one side the more likely they are to start rallying their troops to start demanding their association* find a deal that gets them back to work.

 

[townes]

Actually, I was more on the players' side when they struck in the late 80s. The system was totally unfair to them back then with players basically unable to become free agents unless their team decided they didn't want to resign them.

I think I am slightly more on the owners' side just because at least they are making an effort to get back to the bargaining table. From day one, DeMaurice Smith was talking war rhetoric and not even making an effort to be conceliatory. He still looks at this as a war and at some point, you gotta stop looking at the other side as an enemy and negotiate, not litigate.

I personally don't think he is doing what is best for the players because there is a realistic chance that this season could be lost. In reality the two sides are not far enough apart that the players will benefit from losing a season's worth of pay to get a more favorable CBA in the long run. Even if the the owners fold, most player will not see that signficant of a pay difference than if the players fold or both sides come to a mutually agreeable compromise before the start of the season to justify a lost season.

I guess I am more anti-DeMaurice Smith and Jeffrey Kessler than a I am remotely anti-player. I think the players should fight for what they can, but I think they are being led down a wrong path. This is what you get when you put a litigator in charge than a negotiator.

Actually robo there isn't much disagreement here and I have said so repeatedly, i think D. Smith is representing the agents interests not the players and the players have to reign in their representation and maintain the structure of the game. What I am pointing at however is the ignorant knee jerk hatred of the players that many here spew. The fact is that the owners could have agreed to play under 2010 rules and continue negotiating but decided they had to have a lockout to crush the players, forcing the players to sue after the owners opted out of the CBA.


Listening to Goodell recently i am really starting to wonder if the owners wanted the players to sue because all of his rhetoric seems to be about ending the lawsuits and I think what he is really talking about isn't this particular action but the overall long term supervision of the league by the courts and that the owners will require that as a condition of any agreement, which, if i am right, is really going to hold up any agreement and the players would be crazy to go along with.

 

[townes]

C'mon Townsie, why are you sounding like a whining 9 year old in this post. This was ALWAYS a negotiation over "how much". It was something that needs to be settled in a room with both parties hashing it out.

IT DOES NOT belong in a court room, making use of important anti-trust laws that only tangentially apply to this case. The players have now left 2 offers on the table without a single counter. It was the players who changed the venue from the negotiation room, to the court room. It is the players who by taking that tack, have materially jeopardized this season, and the very structure of the game.

Townsie, there are no philosophical issues here; There is no good guy and bad guy. It it only 2 parties who are arguing about who gets "how much" THAT'S ALL. The players are NOT being oppressed by the owners. They make exceptional income, and still will when this is over. They get super care, and working conditions. This is NOT something we should be wasting time and money in our already overburdened court system.

The only ones who are winning now are the lawyers. Shakespeare was right

If the owners wanted to stay out of court they could have agreed to play under 2010 rules while negotiating a deal, they didn't want that and wanted instead to crush the players and dictate deal, and I am sick and tired seeing people lie about who caused this situation and what is going on. If the players strike they are blamed and if the owners lock them out they are blamed, in the eyes of many they are to blame no matter what the situation and it's a bunch of BS.

As far as the lawyers go they should all be fired, not just D. Smith and Kessler. Pash is a scumbag and has led the league down this path and I simply don't get why he skates while Smith and Kessler are rightly vilified.

I have no problem with people looking at this and assigning blame where it belongs, unfortunately many are too poorly informed or too stupid to be able to do that, and when i say that I am specifically referring to the idiots who say they want the players crushed and no football so the owners can wipe the floor with them. I would like nothing better than for those demonizing the players to show up at camp next summer and repeat what they have said here to the faces of the players, but it will never happen because at that point they will be back to worshipping them.

 

[Haley]

Billionaires good, millionaires suck.

Hmm ... fixed that for you. A little.

You can't really use the argument here that this is somehow rich vs poor. It is more like rich vs richer. I think that is why the fight is pretty tedious for everyone observing while we all work our regular jobs for more average pay.