Well looks more and more like both sides want to litigate over negotiate

[Rob0729]

Yes, it really is.

1.) This is just a 3 judge panel, not the whole court. That means that an en banc appeal is still out there.

2.) The underlying case continues.

3.) The NLRB is no slam dunk for the owners, should the case end up there, as Boeing could tell you.

4.) The Supreme Court is certainly not a guarantee for either side

Metaphors is confusing leverage with neutering, and you are too. This case is far from over.

Having said that, it would be great if the sides could reach agreement outside of the courthouse.

1.) The June 3rd hearing will be in front of the same three judge panel, not the entire court. So odds are the same result come June.

2.) The underlying case could take years to get to trial. Until then, the players could be locked out the entire 2011 season.

3.) That could take years too.

4.) It is unlikely the Supreme Court will hear any appeal on an injunction of the lockout no matter who wins. Odds are unlikely that the Supreme Court would hear the appeal before Summer Recess even if they were willing to hear it. Which means the players would have to wait until September or beyond to have it heard.

 

[Deus Irae]

1.) The June 3rd hearing will be in front of the same three judge panel, not the entire court. So odds are the same result come June.

2.) The underlying case could take years to get to trial. Until then, the players could be locked out the entire 2011 season.

3.) That could take years too.

4.) It is unlikely the Supreme Court will hear any appeal on an injunction of the lockout no matter who wins. Odds are unlikely that the Supreme Court would hear the appeal before Summer Recess even if they were willing to hear it. Which means the players would have to wait until September or beyond to have it heard.

Metaphors made an overly broad (and erroneous on its face) claim and Mo agreed with him. I simply pointed out that they were in error. Metaphors came back and clarified his position, both by making concessions and by expanding his earlier post. He explained his position enough to make his points more effective and more plausible, regardless of whether or not I agree with all his takes. I'll leave it at that.

 

[AzPatsFan]

It would be beneficial to all Sport Leagues for the Supreme Court to adjudicate what is, and what is and is not, legal to do.

But there is an old very wise observation to the effect that Beware what you wish for. You just might get it.

So we will blunder along with the Players always threatening Armagedon, and the Owners bring counseled by their Attorneys to be flexible and accomodating, lest they discover how bad it might be if thre Courts defined the ground rules.

For us Fans, it means we walk this tripwire every few years waiitng for some Fool on either side, to push it to extremes.

 

[townes]

It would be beneficial to all Sport Leagues for the Supreme Court to adjudicate what is, and what is and is not, legal to do.

But there is an old very wise observation to the effect that Beware what you wish for. You just might get it.

So we will blunder along with the Players always threatening Armagedon, and the Owners bring counseled by their Attorneys to be flexible and accomodating, lest they discover how bad it might be if thre Courts defined the ground rules.

For us Fans, it means we walk this tripwire every few years waiitng for some Fool on either side, to push it to extremes.

We already know what is legal and what isn't, a deal that abridges worker rights is acceptable if agreed to by both parties in collective bargaining. Absent an agreement the owners have to abide by antitrust laws. The problem arises when ownership wants to abridge worker rights absent an agreement.

Unless what you are referring to is having The Supremes carve out exemptions for the sports leagues, which to date they haven't done explicitly.

 

[AzPatsFan]

We already know what is legal and what isn't, a deal that abridges worker rights is acceptable if agreed to by both parties in collective bargaining. Absent an agreement the owners have to abide by antitrust laws. The problem arises when ownership wants to abridge worker rights absent an agreement.

Unless what you are referring to is having The Supremes carve out exemptions for the sports leagues, which to date they haven't done explicitly.

Exactly.

There are aspects of all and any sports league's operations, that are patently illegal like the collegiate Draft. Then there are others that may or may not be illegal.

If the League were a single business entity like GE or GM, with multiple Divisions, these Conglomerates can decide where they will offer you a job, and even arrange to not compete with another Divsion of the company, legally.

Do you want to go to work for Cadillac as opposed to Chevy, or for GE Appliances versus GE Jet engines? Well the firm might try to accomodate, but there is no obligation or restraint of trade to do so.

What if the collegiate Draft were a multi-choice draft with more than one Team/Divison as a Draftor, that might pass legal review, or maybe not. I could even envision a multi-Draft for Free Agents as a controlled redistribution of Free Agents, as a potentially legal possibility.

I don't quite know what a legal schedule making alternative would be unless the Supremes said it was intrinsic to the business at hand, and not an obvious Restraint of Trade, and a Collusion for Market closure, as it appears to be.

 

[Metaphors]

Metaphors made an overly broad (and erroneous on its face) claim and Mo agreed with him. I simply pointed out that they were in error.

I used a metaphor (go figure) to illustrate the importance of having the lockout continue. Just because you didn't get the picture I was painting, it doesn't make it in error.

Metaphors came back and clarified his position, both by making concessions and by expanding his earlier post.

I removed the metaphor and explicitly explained my point. Didn't concede anything. I agreed with you that the litigation isn't over. That wasn't my point. Having the lockout in place is a killer for the players' strategy:

Step 1 - Eliminate lockout and resume football business
Step 2 - Kill the owners slowly in the courts while still taking their paychecks

Step 2 doesn't work without step 1 since the paychecks won't be there. Could the players still get rid of the lockout? Possible, but unlikely. The June 3rd hearing is in front of the same 3 judges. The players can petition for the whole court to hear their case, but they don't have to accept (and likely won't). Even if they did, the makeup of the 8th circuit is more aligned to the owners' position. Supreme Court? Doubt they touch it and there isn't a more pro-business group on the planet (5 of them at least) even if they do.

This means there is no football until there is a settlement. Swap "settlement" for "CBA" and that is the exact situation the players were in months ago. The lockout suit wasn't just a key part of their strategy...it was THE key part of their strategy. The players have 2 options now:

1) Settle the suit, which would form the basis for the next CBA

2) Stick to antitrust litigation (which they will win), flush 1 to 2 seasons down the toilet and gain very little of long-term value in the penalty phase. The players don't want the league to act as 32 separate, competing businesses. They could win monetary damages...but then they will be back to negotiating with the owners for contracts. I kinda think the owners would deduct the damages from their salary budgets.

The players gambled and it looks like they lost, barring a Hail Mary in the courts. Now they have to negotiate after getting slapped down by the courts and they have precious little time left before paydays start being missed. If you don't like "neutered", pick your favorite term to describe what the court's likely decision will do to the NFLPA's nether regions.