Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Please point to the irreparable harm to the players (that cannot be compensated with money damages)

Money damages might work okay for players who are already under contract, and who don't have the possibility of reaching big incentive clauses. Especially if they are older veterans likely in their final contract.For free agents, it is hard to estimate what they'd make in a competitive market, so money damages are problematic. And for players who are trying to showcase their talent in order to win a big contract in 2012, that opportunity is lost without a 2011 season. Players' careers are very short, so delaying that kind of opportunity by a year may be irreparable.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT, are you of the mind that Nelson's refusal to grant at least a temporary stay would put the risk of an overturn in the 8th Circuit much higher? And, if not, why?

I don't really have any special insight about that.

 

[David Dodds]

I spoke with an attorney friend, who has experience in labor litigation at a high level, and he concurred that it's rare for a temporary stay NOT to be granted, because as Idiot Boxer alludes, the reality is that a week or two "pause" is hardly irreparable to either side when all parties know an appeal on the merits is pending. Doesn't mean Nelson will grant the stay, just that it would be unusual for her not to. She can, and probably would, put time constraints on the stay, but to not grant one at all would invite serious scrutiny by the 8th Circuit.

Makes sense to me. I think we got all excited hoping for a start to the league season this week...but there is a decent chance that we'll have to wait a week or two for the decision by the 8th circuit.

Probably how this will go. Hopefully Nelson's ruling is as air-tight as people are saying it is. I don't think there is any possibility that this goes to NLRB though. Who would represent the defunct union? And if the answer is D Smith, what if he resigned? With no union, there can be no vote to have a leader.

 

[cobalt_27]

Please point to the irreparable harm to the owners that can't be compensated with money damages.

The owners can't get money damages.The harm to the league would be being forced to open up free agency completely, thus destroying competitive balance. (Yes, it's a weak argument, IMO.)

With no salary cap (max/min)? No draft? Why do you feel this is a weak argument? Or, do you feel that the NFL can run on autodrive and that fan interest and financial investment in the game would remain the same, even if competitive balance were destroyed?

 

[shader]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/players-ask-judge-to-force-owners-to-start-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Please point to the irreparable harm to the owners that can't be compensated with money damages.

The owners can't get money damages.The harm to the league would be being forced to open up free agency completely, thus destroying competitive balance. (Yes, it's a weak argument, IMO.)

With no salary cap (max/min)? No draft? Why do you feel this is a weak argument? Or, do you feel that the NFL can run on autodrive and that fan interest and financial investment in the game would remain the same, even if competitive balance were destroyed?

There will still be a 2011 draft, which is the only one scheduled during the time of any contemplated stay. There was no salary cap last year; it'd be okay to go without one for another few weeks.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Please point to the irreparable harm to the players (that cannot be compensated with money damages)

Money damages might work okay for players who are already under contract, and who don't have the possibility of reaching big incentive clauses. Especially if they are older veterans likely in their final contract.For free agents, it is hard to estimate what they'd make in a competitive market, so money damages are problematic. And for players who are trying to showcase their talent in order to win a big contract in 2012, that opportunity is lost without a 2011 season. Players' careers are very short, so delaying that kind of opportunity by a year may be irreparable.

In this case, I was only speaking with regard to the stay until the appeal is heard.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I spoke with an attorney friend, who has experience in labor litigation at a high level, and he concurred that it's rare for a temporary stay NOT to be granted, because as Idiot Boxer alludes, the reality is that a week or two "pause" is hardly irreparable to either side when all parties know an appeal on the merits is pending.

Doesn't mean Nelson will grant the stay, just that it would be unusual for her not to. She can, and probably would, put time constraints on the stay, but to not grant one at all would invite serious scrutiny by the 8th Circuit.

Makes sense to me. I think we got all excited hoping for a start to the league season this week...but there is a decent chance that we'll have to wait a week or two for the decision by the 8th circuit.

Probably how this will go. Hopefully Nelson's ruling is as air-tight as people are saying it is. I don't think there is any possibility that this goes to NLRB though. Who would represent the defunct union? And if the answer is D Smith, what if he resigned? With no union, there can be no vote to have a leader.So you're the one writing the footballguys facebook status updates.

 

[zadok]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

 

[shader]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Please point to the irreparable harm to the players (that cannot be compensated with money damages)

Money damages might work okay for players who are already under contract, and who don't have the possibility of reaching big incentive clauses. Especially if they are older veterans likely in their final contract.For free agents, it is hard to estimate what they'd make in a competitive market, so money damages are problematic. And for players who are trying to showcase their talent in order to win a big contract in 2012, that opportunity is lost without a 2011 season. Players' careers are very short, so delaying that kind of opportunity by a year may be irreparable.

In this case, I was only speaking with regard to the stay until the appeal is heard.

Yes, my mistake.

 

[zadok]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

Sure looks like it doesn't it? "We need a few days to sort this out" = LMFAO.

Though I have to give them credit for having the stones to just flat ignore a federal judge's injunction .

 

[Godsbrother]

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

I don't believe this for an instant. The owners aren't stupid and I am sure they considered this possibility and have a plan in place. That doesn't mean this thing won't blow up in their face but it won't be because they weren't prepared.The real losers will be the small market teams and I can't help but think that maybe this is what the richer owners were hoping for.

 

[Ksquared]

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

I don't believe this for an instant. The owners aren't stupid and I am sure they considered this possibility and have a plan in place. That doesn't mean this thing won't blow up in their face but it won't be because they weren't prepared.The real losers will be the small market teams and I can't help but think that maybe this is what the richer owners were hoping for.

I have had a sneaking suspicion that all these different groups in the owners have been going down this path for different reasons. I could even see some of the small market owners looking at the wild wild west scenario and become the Royals/Pirates of the NFL and just not spend much money and be sure to make a profit every year from the TV revenue. While the big market owners are salivating at the possibility to throw money everywhere. What will happen, I am not sure but I can see the small market teams that try to compete losing tons of money and finally give up and join the group that does not spend much (this is not baseball where a couple of good pitchers can give you a decent record). I do know this, if I was the NFL the 18 game season would be announced tomorrow. The player's contract is for 20 games (4 preseason and 16 regular + playoffs) and the league has to be able to decide how many of them count. If they cannot do that due to anti-trust issues then the NFL cannot really exist.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Then care enough to do some research on labor laws. They clearly favor the players. This idea that Judge Nelson was in the tank for the players because of her political biases is a fantasy. If anything, the ruling for the players who voluntarily disbanded their union and challenged the league's free market restrictions is a conservative ruling.

they clearly did not disband, they were always acting as a union.

On the contrary, they clearly disbanded.What is the evidence of conduct by the players that is inconsistent with an unequivocal disclaimer? By disclaiming the union, they have given up the right to strike, the right to collectively bargain, and the right to have union representation in grievances or benefits determinations. Meanwhile, the union amended its bylaws to prohibit it from bargaining on behalf of the players; it filed a notice with the Department of Labor to terminate its status as a union; it filed an application with the IRS to no longer be tax-exempt as a union; and it notified the NFL that it would not longer represent players as a union.

If that's not sufficient to disband a union, what is?

When I enrolled in law school, I had lived in North Carolina for one year prior. I applied to be considered an 'in-state resident' for tuition purposes. I had bought a house in North Carolina, worked in North Carolina, my wife worked for the state of North Carolina and we paid taxes to the state of North Carolina. My petition for in-state residency was initially declined. One of the tests for in-state residency was an "intent to remain in the state." Eventually, I proved this as well, but you can see that merely filing all of the proper papers might not be enough to effectively establish something.

So it goes with the union decertification. It kinda depends on what it means to disband the union. Does it mean to do all of the things necessary to not be recognized as a union today? If so, they seem to have done that. Is it that they 'intend to no longer represent the players, now or in the future' then no, I don't think anyone believes that. The decertification was clearly a negotiating tactic. Does that make it a 'sham'? I don't know, but I certainly don't consider it a black/white issue.

There is explicitly no requirement that a decertification be intended as permanent. Judge Nelson cited case law on that.

Oops. I take that last part back. She didn't cite case law. She cited a statute. And while she is correct that the statute contains no requirement that the decertification be intended as permanent, that's because the statute is silent on the issue. So change my "explicitly" to "implicitly."

 

[Jason Wood]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

They may be arrogant, and may have been overly confident, but they sure as heck weren't unprepared. This is a collective of some of the wealthiest and influential groups of people in the world, collaborating together for four+ years on these matters, and backed up by some of the most successful litigation attorneys in the history of this country. They may lose on the merits, but they aren't unprepared.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Then care enough to do some research on labor laws. They clearly favor the players. This idea that Judge Nelson was in the tank for the players because of her political biases is a fantasy. If anything, the ruling for the players who voluntarily disbanded their union and challenged the league's free market restrictions is a conservative ruling.

they clearly did not disband, they were always acting as a union.

On the contrary, they clearly disbanded.What is the evidence of conduct by the players that is inconsistent with an unequivocal disclaimer? By disclaiming the union, they have given up the right to strike, the right to collectively bargain, and the right to have union representation in grievances or benefits determinations. Meanwhile, the union amended its bylaws to prohibit it from bargaining on behalf of the players; it filed a notice with the Department of Labor to terminate its status as a union; it filed an application with the IRS to no longer be tax-exempt as a union; and it notified the NFL that it would not longer represent players as a union.

If that's not sufficient to disband a union, what is?

When I enrolled in law school, I had lived in North Carolina for one year prior. I applied to be considered an 'in-state resident' for tuition purposes. I had bought a house in North Carolina, worked in North Carolina, my wife worked for the state of North Carolina and we paid taxes to the state of North Carolina. My petition for in-state residency was initially declined. One of the tests for in-state residency was an "intent to remain in the state." Eventually, I proved this as well, but you can see that merely filing all of the proper papers might not be enough to effectively establish something.

So it goes with the union decertification. It kinda depends on what it means to disband the union. Does it mean to do all of the things necessary to not be recognized as a union today? If so, they seem to have done that. Is it that they 'intend to no longer represent the players, now or in the future' then no, I don't think anyone believes that. The decertification was clearly a negotiating tactic. Does that make it a 'sham'? I don't know, but I certainly don't consider it a black/white issue.

There is explicitly no requirement that a decertification be intended as permanent. Judge Nelson cited case law on that.

Oops. I take that last part back. She didn't cite case law. She cited a statute. And while she is correct that the statute contains no requirement that the decertification be intended as permanent, that's because the statute is silent on the issue. So change my "explicitly" to "implicitly."

Wow. That's a big difference. And people insist a judge's background makes no difference in how they rule.

 

[zadok]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

They may be arrogant, and may have been overly confident, but they sure as heck weren't unprepared. This is a collective of some of the wealthiest and influential groups of people in the world, collaborating together for four+ years on these matters, and backed up by some of the most successful litigation attorneys in the history of this country. They may lose on the merits, but they aren't unprepared.

Their actions since 6pm yesterday seem to contradict that...

 

[Ksquared]

It would not surprise me that if the owners lost at this point, they assumed the judge would give them some direction as to conduct business until the appeal process is finalized (ie give them legal cover for anti-trust decisions made) like continue with the previous CBA agreements until this is settled in court.

 

[shader]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

They may be arrogant, and may have been overly confident, but they sure as heck weren't unprepared. This is a collective of some of the wealthiest and influential groups of people in the world, collaborating together for four+ years on these matters, and backed up by some of the most successful litigation attorneys in the history of this country. They may lose on the merits, but they aren't unprepared.

Well I would tend to agree. However, it doesn't appear that they look all that prepared. It looks like they were ultra-confident and that this judges ruling blind-sided them. She basically destroyed all their arguments. Of course, maybe there isn't really anything positive they can do.I like the hardball approach given above...if the players want the NFL to open the season, open the season and force a few things onto the players (like the 18 game season). Logistically, that might not be possible, but they have to do something to reverse tides, because the players are starting to roll over the owners at this point.

 

[cobalt_27]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

They may be arrogant, and may have been overly confident, but they sure as heck weren't unprepared. This is a collective of some of the wealthiest and influential groups of people in the world, collaborating together for four+ years on these matters, and backed up by some of the most successful litigation attorneys in the history of this country. They may lose on the merits, but they aren't unprepared.

Their actions since 6pm yesterday seem to contradict that...

What actions, specifically contradict this?

 

[Ksquared]

Completely agree. The elephant in the room no one wanted to talk about is now in clear view. Basically all professional sports leagues (with a partial exception for baseball - more anti-trust exemptions than the other sports) are illegal unless there is a CBA. Which means the player's unions control all future negotiations because there is not much likely hood the ownership side will ever win any disagreement that gets to court and the union will just "decertify" and throw it all into the courts.

 

[zadok]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

They may be arrogant, and may have been overly confident, but they sure as heck weren't unprepared. This is a collective of some of the wealthiest and influential groups of people in the world, collaborating together for four+ years on these matters, and backed up by some of the most successful litigation attorneys in the history of this country. They may lose on the merits, but they aren't unprepared.

Their actions since 6pm yesterday seem to contradict that...

What actions, specifically contradict this?

45 minute+ conference call after the ruling to figure out what to doConflicting statements from Aiello regarding the doors being open to the players

Some weight rooms open, some weight rooms closed

Some players allowed in, others not

"We need a few days to sort this out"

Requesting "clarification" from Judge Nelson though they know she just enforced an injunction against the lockout

They don't know what the hell to do other than obstruct the inevitible.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

waters getting muddier:

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson in Minneapolis has given the league until 6 p.m. ET Wednesday to resubmit a request for a clarification on her ruling Monday that lifted the lockout. The league previously had filed expedited an motion for a stay. The stay would put Nelson's decision on hold pending further appeals.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It would not surprise me that if the owners lost at this point, they assumed the judge would give them some direction as to conduct business until the appeal process is finalized (ie give them legal cover for anti-trust decisions made) like continue with the previous CBA agreements until this is settled in court.

They definitely didn't assume that. It would be entirely inappropriate for a judge to do that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Basically all professional sports leagues (with a partial exception for baseball - more anti-trust exemptions than the other sports) are illegal unless there is a CBA.

That's true, but it's no more true now than it was a decade ago. (Some people will point to American Needle as being a new development, but it only confirmed what was already pretty obvious from the prior case law.) It hasn't stopped sports leagues like the NFL from prospering before . . .

 

[fatness]

Once it gets to appeal (stay or no stay) it seems the owner's best bet is to challenge jurisdiction. Not saying that Judge Nelson got it wrong, but that she didn't have jurisdiction over the parties to even make such a decision. If they were to prevail there (and I think it unlikely, but certainly not impossible), this whole thing gets kicked - likely to the jurisdiction of the NLRB.

That is probably the owners' best chance, you're right, but as you said it's unlikely to succeed. The basis for them saying the courts did not have jurisdiction is some 1930s law designed to protected labor unions, I believe. Using it to force players to stay locked out of work takes some pretty bizarre reasoning.

 

[fatness]

I do know this, if I was the NFL the 18 game season would be announced tomorrow. The player's contract is for 20 games (4 preseason and 16 regular + playoffs) and the league has to be able to decide how many of them count. If they cannot do that due to anti-trust issues then the NFL cannot really exist.

The league made record profits with a 16-game schedule last year. Of course they can exist without an 18-game schedule.

 

[cobalt_27]

Seems like they took my advice.

http://profootballta...rt-league-year/

Yep, the players responded immediately and want the judge to force the owners to "start the league year".It looks like tomorrow we'll get our answer.

I have no idea whether she has the power to do this or not, or if she will take this step. I would think that with an appeal coming up, she'd not take this step....but I am far from a lawyer.

In any event, if she does somehow force this on the owners, Thursday will be a day for the history books.

Ownership is in denial right now. They are just trying to delay delay delay until after the draft, IMO.

I think they are so arrogant that they didn't consider this outcome and truly aren't prepared. In my opinion the players have been far more prepared and ready for this "showdown" than the owners and it's showing.

They better bunker down and spend the next 24 hours making plans for what to do if this does go down tomorrow.

They may be arrogant, and may have been overly confident, but they sure as heck weren't unprepared. This is a collective of some of the wealthiest and influential groups of people in the world, collaborating together for four+ years on these matters, and backed up by some of the most successful litigation attorneys in the history of this country. They may lose on the merits, but they aren't unprepared.

Their actions since 6pm yesterday seem to contradict that...

What actions, specifically contradict this?

45 minute+ conference call after the ruling to figure out what to doWhy is this unusual to hold a conference call to iron out the next steps and summarize the findings of a 90-page ruling?

Conflicting statements from Aiello regarding the doors being open to the players

This probably stems from wanting some clarity from Judge Nelson as to what would be appropriate/inappropriate for teams to do in light of her ruling, in light of their request for a stay, and in light of no clear direction given by her as to what is permissible.

Some weight rooms open, some weight rooms closed

Some players allowed in, others not

"We need a few days to sort this out"

Requesting "clarification" from Judge Nelson though they know she just enforced an injunction against the lockout

See above; particularly your last comment. Just because she enforced an injunction doesn't mean that's the end of the story, and we're all done. The owners have a right to appeal, and the way Judge Nelson made it sound...they'd be in business a few days, then be out of business, then back in...doesn't it seem appropriate that they be afforded their own rights on requesting a stay, appeal, etc. first before saying, "Alright, everybody...WE'RE BACK!" I think the more parsimonious explanation is that there are a lot of smart people in the room on both sides that are looking for some clarity here before moving forward. I understand it is the reflex of those on the players' side to paint the owners as a bunch of bumbling idiots and that they and their attorneys don't have the first clue what they're doing. I suppose that's possible. But, while I imagine they were surprised and disheartened by her ruling, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that they were bewildered. I think clarification is/was in order, particularly in light of the fact that the players have been very vocal about the threat of anti-trust violations.

They don't know what the hell to do other than obstruct the inevitible.

Perhaps that's what's going to happen. But, owners have the right to go through the legal process every bit as much as the players do.

 

[cobalt_27]

Even the players are asking for some clarification (excerpted from ESPN):

League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.

The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket.

 

[fatness]

Even the players are asking for some clarification (excerpted from ESPN):

League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.

The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket.

The players are doing that in the context of asking the judge to declare that, with the injunction in effect, the NFL year is started now. They did not ask it in the context of trying to give the owners more time. Quite the opposite.link

 

[fatness]

Requesting "clarification" from Judge Nelson though they know she just enforced an injunction against the lockout

See above; particularly your last comment. Just because she enforced an injunction doesn't mean that's the end of the story, and we're all done. The owners have a right to appeal.

The owners certainly do have the right to appeal. But if there's an injunction, and the injunction is not stayed, they don't have the right to lock out the players while they appeal.

 

[cobalt_27]

Even the players are asking for some clarification (excerpted from ESPN):

League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.

The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket.

The players are doing that in the context of asking the judge to declare that, with the injunction in effect, the NFL year is started now. They did not ask it in the context of trying to give the owners more time. Quite the opposite.link

I'm responding to the insinuation that the owners are bumbling idiots and don't have the first clue what to make of the ruling. It seems quite reasonable to me that both sides are asking what next steps are permissible and to provide some guidance on the practical implications over the next 24-48 hours are that stem from her ruling, particularly in the context of the NFL's request for a stay.

 

[Bushead]

I do know this, if I was the NFL the 18 game season would be announced tomorrow. The player's contract is for 20 games (4 preseason and 16 regular + playoffs) and the league has to be able to decide how many of them count. If they cannot do that due to anti-trust issues then the NFL cannot really exist.

The league made record profits with a 16-game schedule last year. Of course they can exist without an 18-game schedule.

Interesting however, what would stop the Owners from just declaring there will be 18 games this year?

 

[cobalt_27]

Requesting "clarification" from Judge Nelson though they know she just enforced an injunction against the lockout

See above; particularly your last comment. Just because she enforced an injunction doesn't mean that's the end of the story, and we're all done. The owners have a right to appeal.

The owners certainly do have the right to appeal. But if there's an injunction, and the injunction is not stayed, they don't have the right to lock out the players while they appeal.

If Nelson does not grant this, does the NFL have the right to go to the 8th circuit to request a stay from them? Basically saying, "Dad... mom won't let us delay this, but will you?" Serious question. I thought that was the procedure being followed here, but I could be mistaken.

 

[fatness]

NFL Lockout: Players Want League Year To Start Immediately

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports that the players have asked Judge Susan Nelson to force the NFL to open for business immediately. That means allowing players into the facility and, at some point depending on the rules implemented, free agency.

The NFL has until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday to respond. Presumably the response is about setting league rules if the lockout remains lifted. Some expect the league to implement the set of rules used in 2010, which would mean no salary cap again.

 

[renesauz]

Completely agree. The elephant in the room no one wanted to talk about is now in clear view. Basically all professional sports leagues (with a partial exception for baseball - more anti-trust exemptions than the other sports) are illegal unless there is a CBA. Which means the player's unions control all future negotiations because there is not much likely hood the ownership side will ever win any disagreement that gets to court and the union will just "decertify" and throw it all into the courts.

Isn't this kinda what I've been saying? I side with the owners more for this reason than for any other.

 

[fatness]

If Nelson does not grant this, does the NFL have the right to go to the 8th circuit to request a stay from them? Basically saying, "Dad... mom won't let us delay this, but will you?" Serious question. I thought that was the procedure being followed here, but I could be mistaken.

Yes, the can do that and are expected to.

 

[zadok]

If Nelson does not grant this, does the NFL have the right to go to the 8th circuit to request a stay from them? Basically saying, "Dad... mom won't let us delay this, but will you?" Serious question. I thought that was the procedure being followed here, but I could be mistaken.

Yes, the can do that and are expected to.

Right but there will be no stay until they grant one. I think the impression cobalt is under is that you can have a stay just by asking for one.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

NFL Lockout: Players Want League Year To Start Immediately

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports that the players have asked Judge Susan Nelson to force the NFL to open for business immediately. That means allowing players into the facility and, at some point depending on the rules implemented , free agency.

The NFL has until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday to respond. Presumably the response is about setting league rules if the lockout remains lifted. Some expect the league to implement the set of rules used in 2010, which would mean no salary cap again.

This is the one that gets me. Love it. So bold.

 

[Ksquared]

I do know this, if I was the NFL the 18 game season would be announced tomorrow. The player's contract is for 20 games (4 preseason and 16 regular + playoffs) and the league has to be able to decide how many of them count. If they cannot do that due to anti-trust issues then the NFL cannot really exist.

The league made record profits with a 16-game schedule last year. Of course they can exist without an 18-game schedule.

Interesting however, what would stop the Owners from just declaring there will be 18 games this year?

Exactly my point. My understanding is the NFL never had to consult the NFLPA about expanding the regular season to 18 games, they wanted them to be on board. Which blew up in their face. I do see an 18 game season as a way the owners can make more money to recover from their expected losses due to the labor strife.

 

[fatness]

If Nelson does not grant this, does the NFL have the right to go to the 8th circuit to request a stay from them? Basically saying, "Dad... mom won't let us delay this, but will you?" Serious question. I thought that was the procedure being followed here, but I could be mistaken.

Yes, the can do that and are expected to.

Right but there will be no stay until they grant one. I think the impression cobalt is under is that you can have a stay just by asking for one.

Thanks for being more clear than I was.

 

[fatness]

James Quinn, the class counsel for the players' antitrust suit against the NFL, told NFL.com the lawyers are closely monitoring the league's response.

"They better act quickly, because as of right now there's no stay and, presumably, players could sign with teams," Quinn said.

"There are no guidelines as of right now, so they have to put something in place quickly."

Quinn told the New York Daily News he formally asked the league in a letter when they would open for normal operations.

NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said the league intends to follow the court's orders but would do so in an "orderly fashion."

First, the NFL wants to hear from Judge Nelson on whether she'll grant a stay. And even if she doesn't, the NFL could appeal that ruling as well.

At the same time, the players have sought further clarification from Nelson -- perhaps in a bid to nudge the league into starting the league year. The judge wants briefs on both requests by Wednesday, so no decisions should come before then.

link

 

[cobalt_27]

If Nelson does not grant this, does the NFL have the right to go to the 8th circuit to request a stay from them? Basically saying, "Dad... mom won't let us delay this, but will you?" Serious question. I thought that was the procedure being followed here, but I could be mistaken.

Yes, the can do that and are expected to.

Right but there will be no stay until they grant one. I think the impression cobalt is under is that you can have a stay just by asking for one.

No. I never said that, nor have I ever implied it. They may be granted a stay from the 8th circuit, if judge nelson does not grant it. The point isn't whether they will get one or not. They may very well fail here, as well. The point is that this will take some time to sort out. It's not like they are ready to open for business right now. This will take a few days, and for some football teams and fans...that's going to suck, as it most likely won't get resolved prior to Thursday 7pm ET.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Because simple common sense is sometimes wrong. That's why they try and make the laws to be exacting and deliberate.In your day-to-day life common sense is grand, but when it comes to the law... it has to be refined and finite.Just as a person may not understand that Trade Associations are common, and they are also not a Union.Even though Trade Association may hire many of the same reps that a Union would also hire.But understand this, none of the players are locked into what another players-rep bargains/agrees to with the owners.

Refined and finite also means law is fallible. It means that legal does NOT always = right or moral. These laws were never meant to cover Billionares squabling with millionares.

Sure its is, but its exacting. Which means you can make changes and corrections.Unlike some general common sense application which are malleable and easily manipulated.You want it as much of a "known" as possible. People then know exactly where they stand.

 

[plastik]

From Rotoworld:

NFLPA attorney Mark Levin sent out a memo to all players Tuesday informing them that free agents may begin negotiating with teams immediately.The memo states: "Judge Nelson's order is in effect as of 6 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2011, and unless and until that order is stayed, the clubs are NOT allowed to refuse to negotiate with you." The owners have obviously interpreted Judge Nelson's order differently, citing a "considerable degree of uncertainty." The bottom line is that nobody will have a good read on the start of free agency -- and it's 2011 rules -- until Judge Nelson rules on the owners' request for a stay Wednesday.

 

[cobalt_27]

From Rotoworld:

NFLPA attorney Mark Levin sent out a memo to all players Tuesday informing them that free agents may begin negotiating with teams immediately.The memo states: "Judge Nelson's order is in effect as of 6 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2011, and unless and until that order is stayed, the clubs are NOT allowed to refuse to negotiate with you." The owners have obviously interpreted Judge Nelson's order differently, citing a "considerable degree of uncertainty." The bottom line is that nobody will have a good read on the start of free agency -- and it's 2011 rules -- until Judge Nelson rules on the owners' request for a stay Wednesday.

I know the NFLPA or whatever they're calling themselves today is really excited to get things going and wouldn't mind stirring up a little trouble while they're at it. But, it's not like this is a big problem for the owners. I imagine most conversations might go like this...Player: "Uh, hi...I'm a free agent and am really interested in playing for you guys this year. Ready to negotiate a deal?"Owner/GM: "Yeah, hi. Great to hear from you. We're interested. We'll call you back."[click]Done. And, when they're ready to negotiate, they will.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

LOL, the owners don't HAVE to sign any FAs right now. Do the pro-union people here think that?

 

[fatness]

We’ve obtained a copy of the 15-page document filed last night by the NFL in response to Judge Nelson’s order lifting the lockout, in which the league seeks a stay of the order pending appeal.

PFT

The league argues that it will suffer irreparable harm, if it’s forced to proceed with business as usual while the appeal proceeds. “t will not be possible to unscramble the eggs,” the NFL writes regarding the prospect of a stop-and-start to the league year, with the 2011 league year beginning absent a stay and ending after a successful appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling.

The fact that Judge Nelson, who is considering the request for a stay, already has found that the players are suffering irreparable harm during the lockout and that the NFL will suffer significantly less harm if the lockout is lifted puts the league at an obvious disadvantage. The possibility that the league will have to begin the 2011 league year and then end it arguably creates discomfort and/or inconvenience, but it’s hard to regard the outcome as “irreparable harm.”

The possibility that the lockout will continue makes it hard to conclude that the harm to the league will be “irreparable” if the league is required to transact football business unless and until an appeals court scuttles Judge Nelson’s ruling.

 

[roadkill1292]

LOL, the owners don't HAVE to sign any FAs right now. Do the pro-union people here think that?

No. Obviously it takes two to tango.