Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I'm all for this lifting of the lockout, but what does it really mean? The owners have appealed and thats gonna take time. I'm assuming they will like that as it gives them time to figure out what their next move is gonna be. Are we really any closer to assuring the start of the season? Sorry I'm just not that educated on all the legal maneuvering that both parties are doing.

they have stayed the action pending a likely expedited appeal process. However that the lower court sided with the players is good news for those that want football next year. Essentially they have ruled that by acting in bad faith (the stockpiling 4billion, forcing a lockout, that violates either some agreement of 'collective bargaining' law rules (I really dont do labor and e'ent so ask someone else). Since the owners did act in bad faith, prolly wanna just tidy this up and go back to making billions.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

re stays: are like cousins of injunctions (which seek to stop someone from doing something etc vs self stopping your own ruling which is a stay: largely). When a case is likely to have a huge impact and a lot of money at stake, and the other party asks for one and files the necessary expedited appeal/motion they are usually granted, unless the odds of the appeal being successful was nil and they just felt it was dilatory. It is especially common to get them when there are a lareg # of potentially affected parties (class actions, this labor strike etc) whereas it is possible to get a stay in smaller matters (ie 2 party suits) but it's less likely to be deemed nessecary. IIRC there is a set of standards as to whether it is granted. Google it of u want more than that.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

LOL, how are the fans truly being harmed? Just the PSLs?

 

[fatness]

Roughly 30 minutes ago, a source with knowledge of the situation told us that a collection of NFL big shots had been on a conference call for 45 minutes and counting, aimed at figuring out the next steps.

Coupled with a general sense coming from our network of sources that the league is confused and rattled by the ruling lifting the lockout, it appears that the league truly believed that it would prevail before Judge Nelson on the question of whether the lockout would be lifted.

That’s one of the dangers of hiring one of the best lawyers in the country to handle the case. David Boies, who demonstrated at the April 6 hearing why he’s indeed among the finest ever practitioners of law, quite possibly mesmerized the owners at the league meetings in March into genuinely believing that they would prevail. And they remain confident they’ll win at the appellate level, even if that’s a longer shot than the league would admit.

That said, it’s more than a little surprising that the league didn’t have a predetermined plan in place for this specific eventuality.

PFT (which I enjoy reading also)

 

[cubd8]

So, I know the owners are appealing, but how does this impact the draft? Can teams trade players now or will the appeal (if granted) keep things as they are now until everything is sorted out?

Also, after the draft, I am assuming that free agency wouldn't take place until there are some rules in place?

 

[fatness]

Steeler players plan on reporting to work tomorrow.

This is going to be hugely interesting.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Roughly 30 minutes ago, a source with knowledge of the situation told us that a collection of NFL big shots had been on a conference call for 45 minutes and counting, aimed at figuring out the next steps.

Coupled with a general sense coming from our network of sources that the league is confused and rattled by the ruling lifting the lockout, it appears that the league truly believed that it would prevail before Judge Nelson on the question of whether the lockout would be lifted.

That’s one of the dangers of hiring one of the best lawyers in the country to handle the case. David Boies, who demonstrated at the April 6 hearing why he’s indeed among the finest ever practitioners of law, quite possibly mesmerized the owners at the league meetings in March into genuinely believing that they would prevail. And they remain confident they’ll win at the appellate level, even if that’s a longer shot than the league would admit.

That said, it’s more than a little surprising that the league didn’t have a predetermined plan in place for this specific eventuality.

PFT (which I enjoy reading also)

why do the owners think they will win an appeal, itsa over quit ####### around and lets play ball!!!

 

[cubd8]

Roughly 30 minutes ago, a source with knowledge of the situation told us that a collection of NFL big shots had been on a conference call for 45 minutes and counting, aimed at figuring out the next steps.

Coupled with a general sense coming from our network of sources that the league is confused and rattled by the ruling lifting the lockout, it appears that the league truly believed that it would prevail before Judge Nelson on the question of whether the lockout would be lifted.

That’s one of the dangers of hiring one of the best lawyers in the country to handle the case. David Boies, who demonstrated at the April 6 hearing why he’s indeed among the finest ever practitioners of law, quite possibly mesmerized the owners at the league meetings in March into genuinely believing that they would prevail. And they remain confident they’ll win at the appellate level, even if that’s a longer shot than the league would admit.

That said, it’s more than a little surprising that the league didn’t have a predetermined plan in place for this specific eventuality.

PFT (which I enjoy reading also)

why do the owners think they will win an appeal, itsa over quit ####### around and lets play ball!!!

One of the posts in the other thread says the appeal will be infront of more conservative judges. Not sure if that's accurate though.

 

[cubd8]

Steeler players plan on reporting to work tomorrow.

This is going to be hugely interesting.

I wonder if the door will be open or if the locks have changed.Anyone know how fast a hold on today's ruling will take?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Florio is generally good on this kind of stuff. Especially compared to the rest of the media.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Roughly 30 minutes ago, a source with knowledge of the situation told us that a collection of NFL big shots had been on a conference call for 45 minutes and counting, aimed at figuring out the next steps.

Coupled with a general sense coming from our network of sources that the league is confused and rattled by the ruling lifting the lockout, it appears that the league truly believed that it would prevail before Judge Nelson on the question of whether the lockout would be lifted.

That’s one of the dangers of hiring one of the best lawyers in the country to handle the case. David Boies, who demonstrated at the April 6 hearing why he’s indeed among the finest ever practitioners of law, quite possibly mesmerized the owners at the league meetings in March into genuinely believing that they would prevail. And they remain confident they’ll win at the appellate level, even if that’s a longer shot than the league would admit.

That said, it’s more than a little surprising that the league didn’t have a predetermined plan in place for this specific eventuality.

PFT (which I enjoy reading also)

why do the owners think they will win an appeal, itsa over quit ####### around and lets play ball!!!

One of the posts in the other thread says the appeal will be infront of more conservative judges. Not sure if that's accurate though.

does that matter, doesnt something have to be found wrong with the case for them to overturn on appeal?

 

[cubd8]

Roughly 30 minutes ago, a source with knowledge of the situation told us that a collection of NFL big shots had been on a conference call for 45 minutes and counting, aimed at figuring out the next steps.

Coupled with a general sense coming from our network of sources that the league is confused and rattled by the ruling lifting the lockout, it appears that the league truly believed that it would prevail before Judge Nelson on the question of whether the lockout would be lifted.

That’s one of the dangers of hiring one of the best lawyers in the country to handle the case. David Boies, who demonstrated at the April 6 hearing why he’s indeed among the finest ever practitioners of law, quite possibly mesmerized the owners at the league meetings in March into genuinely believing that they would prevail. And they remain confident they’ll win at the appellate level, even if that’s a longer shot than the league would admit.

That said, it’s more than a little surprising that the league didn’t have a predetermined plan in place for this specific eventuality.

PFT (which I enjoy reading also)

why do the owners think they will win an appeal, itsa over quit ####### around and lets play ball!!!

One of the posts in the other thread says the appeal will be infront of more conservative judges. Not sure if that's accurate though.

does that matter, doesnt something have to be found wrong with the case for them to overturn on appeal?

I'm the wrong person to have an educated answer, but my assumption is that the NFL probably believes a conservative appeals court will find the original ruling incorrect. On what basis, I have no idea, but just like Nelson was likely to rule pro-union (if that's what we're calling the NFLPA),the owners are forced to hope the opposite happens now for them. I don't know if that's realistic though.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Steeler players plan on reporting to work tomorrow.

This is going to be hugely interesting.

Also, several agents said they would not advise players to attempt to workout or enter NFL team headquarters Tuesday morning -- which would be conceivable in theory with Nelson not ruling on the stay until Tuesday. Additionally, an NFLPA official said he did not expect players to try to report to teams, given that no OTAs or minicamps are scheduled and there is no official business of that sort generally conducted at this point until after the draft. Though NFL clubs would generally be overseeing workouts by players at the facility in a more informal manner.

 

[coolnerd]

Florio is generally good on this kind of stuff. Especially compared to the rest of the media.

I can see why people would not like that site for his snarkiness and such but having someone who has law expereince and can sort through a lot of langauge and practices really is great in situations like these

 

[fatness]

Agent Brad Blank told NFL Network that he advised New York Giants DE Chris Canty to report, mindful of his $250,000 workout bonus.

linkBut also from that article:

James Quinn, the class counsel for the players in their antitrust suit against the NFL, said the league needs time to work out logistics.

“By law, we have to give it a day or so to let the dust settle and see if a stay gets in place and then we’ll decide what happens next,” Quinn said.

Clear as mud.

 

[Hoosier16]

Steeler players plan on reporting to work tomorrow.

This is going to be hugely interesting.

which would be conceivable in theory with Nelson not ruling on the stay until Tuesday.

I thought she already immediately denied the stay. Was that a reported error?

 

[Football Critic]

We will know more tomorrow for sure.

 

[coolnerd]

LOL, how are the fans truly being harmed? Just the PSLs?

“[T]he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales,” Judge Nelson writes at page 87 of her 89-page written ruling. “And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football — who have a strong investment in the 2011 season — is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation.”

 

[David Dodds]

If the league states their rules on Tuesday and free agency opens on Wednesday, this is going to be awesome heading into the Draft.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If the league states their rules on Tuesday and free agency opens on Wednesday, this is going to be awesome heading into the Draft.

Definitely. If the appeals court were to either deny the stay, or provide an expedited refusal to take the case on appeal this would be the best weekend of off-season action in the history of the NFL.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Yeah sorry that just sounds like she's grand standing to me. "strong investment" and "intangible interest"? Come on. This is between the owners and the players. The fans have nothing, legally, to do with it unless they want to sue for PSL money or something.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Steeler players plan on reporting to work tomorrow.

This is going to be hugely interesting.

which would be conceivable in theory with Nelson not ruling on the stay until Tuesday.

I thought she already immediately denied the stay. Was that a reported error?

Probably reporter error. The NFL argued that the district court proceeding should be stayed pending the outcome of its petition before the NLRB. Judge Nelson refused to stay the district court proceeding; she went ahead and granted the injunction against the lockout.Now that she's granted the injunction, the owners seek to stay its enforcement pending the outcome of an appeal. That's a different stay, and one that I don't think has yet been formally requested or ruled on.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

LMAO I was about to edit my post above to say that the next time you want to know what an activist judge is, read this opinion. Well done Buster.

 

[Hoosier16]

Yeah sorry that just sounds like she's grand standing to me. "strong investment" and "intangible interest"? Come on. This is between the owners and the players. The fans have nothing, legally, to do with it unless they want to sue for PSL money or something.

I was thinking the same thing. These aren't teachers, health care workers, police, or firemen. There isn't anything necessary about playing football.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hell, I saved money by buying fewer draft guides this year because I was less interested. No NFL this year might just be the kick start the economy needs.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

LMAO I was about to edit my post above to say that the next time you want to know what an activist judge is, read this opinion. Well done Buster.

What in the opinion, specifically, do you think she got wrong?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Hooray for activist judges! An Obama appointee, no doubt.

Pretty sure Ronald Regan appointed her

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hooray for activist judges! An Obama appointee, no doubt.

Pretty sure Ronald Regan appointed her

Nominated by Obama.

 

[renesauz]

Yeah sorry that just sounds like she's grand standing to me. "strong investment" and "intangible interest"? Come on. This is between the owners and the players. The fans have nothing, legally, to do with it unless they want to sue for PSL money or something.

I was thinking the same thing. These aren't teachers, health care workers, police, or firemen. There isn't anything necessary about playing football.

While one could certainly argue that the fans aren't "harmed", I do think the greater point is correct...that various other third parties are harmed by a lockout. I'm neither surprised nor dissapointed by the decision, but I do think that any decision to lift a lockout needed to be further clarified with directions for such lifting. IE: The NFL is in dangerous uncharted waters where business as usual is illegal, yet they're being told to conduct business as usual. The NFL had to try a lockout and force a judges decision to cover it's butt, but it would have been better had more specific direction on HOW to proceed been given, instead of a blanket order to proceed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The fact that it's in the fans' interests to have a 2011 football season should not be controversial.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hi MT, can't seem to quote correctly on my phone. The issue in my opinion is the inclusion of "fans" as a strengthening reason for her opinion. It's n

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Hooray for activist judges! An Obama appointee, no doubt.

Pretty sure Ronald Regan appointed her

Nominated by Obama.

maybe Doty was Reagan, too many judgeshttp://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=639&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While one could certainly argue that the fans aren't "harmed", I do think the greater point is correct...that various other third parties are harmed by a lockout. I'm neither surprised nor dissapointed by the decision, but I do think that any decision to lift a lockout needed to be further clarified with directions for such lifting. IE: The NFL is in dangerous uncharted waters where business as usual is illegal, yet they're being told to conduct business as usual. The NFL had to try a lockout and force a judges decision to cover it's butt, but it would have been better had more specific direction on HOW to proceed been given, instead of a blanket order to proceed.

Now that would be judicial activism. The judge is supposed to rule on the issues before her, and keep the rest of her opinions to herself. The issue before her was simply whether the lockout should be enjoined. It would be inappropriate for her to go spouting off about how the league should conduct itself beyond that.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hi MT, can't seem to quote correctly on my phone. The issue in my opinion is the inclusion of "fans" as a strengthening reason for her opinion. It's not only unnecessary but seems to be driven by pure populist desire, as in " I'll throw in how bad the fans feel so my argument sounds better". The question isn't whether the ruling is legally correct. It's whether her summary is grand standing. However I'm clearly not a lawyer. You are. Is there a legitimate legal concern for the fans in this suit?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The fact that it's in the fans' interests to have a 2011 football season should not be controversial.

But is there a legal reason, in this case, regarding the fans?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hi MT, can't seem to quote correctly on my phone. The issue in my opinion is the inclusion of "fans" as a strengthening reason for her opinion. It's n

It's not judicial activism for her to consider the public interest, i.e., the effect on the fans.According to precedent the judge was bound by, the test for whether to grant a preliminary injunction "depends upon a 'flexible' consideration of (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) balancing this harm with any injury an injunction would inflict on other interested parties; (3) the probability that the moving party would succeed on the merits; and (4) the effect on the public interest." (My emphasis.)

So she was required to take into account the fans' interests. And obviously, it's in the fans' interests to have a season.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Ok, fair enough although that doesn't seem right to me. Is that the standard for most owner-employee suits?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ok, fair enough although that doesn't seem right to me. Is that the standard for most owner-employee suits?

It's the standard for all cases involving a request for a preliminary injunction.

 

[Ksquared]

While one could certainly argue that the fans aren't "harmed", I do think the greater point is correct...that various other third parties are harmed by a lockout. I'm neither surprised nor dissapointed by the decision, but I do think that any decision to lift a lockout needed to be further clarified with directions for such lifting. IE: The NFL is in dangerous uncharted waters where business as usual is illegal, yet they're being told to conduct business as usual. The NFL had to try a lockout and force a judges decision to cover it's butt, but it would have been better had more specific direction on HOW to proceed been given, instead of a blanket order to proceed.

Now that would be judicial activism. The judge is supposed to rule on the issues before her, and keep the rest of her opinions to herself. The issue before her was simply whether the lockout should be enjoined. It would be inappropriate for her to go spouting off about how the league should conduct itself beyond that.

But without judicial guidance, you realize just about anything the NFL does will likely break the laws. There is no union, therefore no agreement to work from. Everything the NFL does has some collusion to it and I for one do not dismiss the leagues inability (legally speaking) to do anything. Everything could be challenged. And I do agree that some rookies are going to sue the NFL post draft, almost guaranteed. I don't care the draft was part of the previous CBA, without the Judge saying the previous CBA shall rule until determined otherwise there is no agreeing entity. I am not a lawyer, nor stayed a Holiday Inn recently - but I don't see how the previous CBA agreed to by an defunct union has any weight now. It would be classic if the Judge tomorrow declared such. I would not stop laughing. It would be just about what both sides deserve in this fiasco. Think of the millions of $$, planning, etc that would be thrown in disarray.

 

[Ksquared]

Since the players decided to use the "nuclear option" as was stated, I am ready to let the whole thing blow up. Let see how long the NFL keeps its popularity.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But without judicial guidance, you realize just about anything the NFL does will likely break the laws.

Anything illegal that the NFL does will break the law. It is still allowed to do stuff that is legal. If the NFL wants an opinion about what is legal and what is illegal, it needs to hire a lawyer, not a judge.

 

[renesauz]

While one could certainly argue that the fans aren't "harmed", I do think the greater point is correct...that various other third parties are harmed by a lockout. I'm neither surprised nor dissapointed by the decision, but I do think that any decision to lift a lockout needed to be further clarified with directions for such lifting. IE: The NFL is in dangerous uncharted waters where business as usual is illegal, yet they're being told to conduct business as usual. The NFL had to try a lockout and force a judges decision to cover it's butt, but it would have been better had more specific direction on HOW to proceed been given, instead of a blanket order to proceed.

Now that would be judicial activism. The judge is supposed to rule on the issues before her, and keep the rest of her opinions to herself. The issue before her was simply whether the lockout should be enjoined. It would be inappropriate for her to go spouting off about how the league should conduct itself beyond that.

I understand. I think a decision forcing the NFL to act might be important though. It shows a hesitancy on the NFL's part to run afoul of the law. If the "law" (a judge) is forcing their hand a bit, won't it provide at least some small measure of protection in the immediate future as long as the NFL doesn't do anything dramatically differant from normal past practices?IE: I think the NFL needed an order to help cover its a.

 

[renesauz]

But without judicial guidance, you realize just about anything the NFL does will likely break the laws.

Anything illegal that the NFL does will break the law. It is still allowed to do stuff that is legal. If the NFL wants an opinion about what is legal and what is illegal, it needs to hire a lawyer, not a judge.

But it has! Isn't it plainly obvious that many of the lawyers can't completely agree????????There are dozens of examples of things the NFL has done in the past which could be challenged in court. The "rule of reason" you talk about is too ambiguous to prevent the suits, even if it provides an rgument for defense.Roster limts can certainly be argued. Future drafts are out, salary caps are out. Restricted FA is out. Current draft can be argued,I believe (I'm not sure). Commissioners powers to levy fines and enforce discipline are argueable. Sure, the owners are likely to win suits over scheduling, ACTIVE rosters, and rules of actual game day competition, but lets not pretend the NFL could continue to operate even remotely close to the way it has in the past.

 

[David Dodds]

I think this is pretty easy for the owners to have a season:

- Have the draft because that was covered in the last CBA for this year. If you don't have a new CBA next year, then having a draft in 2012 will be ruled illegal.

- Eliminate the salary cap and minimums. Allow teams to spend as little or as much as they desire.

- The owners are likely going to be found guilty for anti-trust on past behavior (all sorts of non-bids on players last year made no sense), but that is the price of being found colluding. They would be smart not to do a lot more of that.

- Implement free agency as was expected based on the last CBA. Yes this will could likely be over-ruled too at some later point, but I think the owners still believe they can get a CBA worked out.

- Keep revenue sharing the current TV deals, but I suspect that will change too if a new CBA isn't in place before the next TV deals. Rich owners (with teams that are desired to be on TV) aren't going to be willing to share equally with no salary cap.

Bottom Line: Owners need to get a new CBA soon before the courts blow up the current salary structure. History of other sports shows that less restrictive free agency and removal of a salary cap will increase salaries by a lot. All it takes is a few owners to spend like mad hoarding quality players to better their chances to win championships.

 

[az_prof]

The players winning this law suit clearly indicates that the whole system borders on illegal, which we all knew if you thought about it all. What other industry "drafts" employees, and forbids them from finding work on the open market? The whole system is the antithesis of free market economics.

In any case, now the Owners need to realize that they have the worst case and should concede. They need to quit asking the players to make concessions, and just roll over the past CBA with some changes to rookie contracts and to give more money to veterans. If they try to force this all the way to the Supreme Court it will take much longer, cost a lot more in legal fees and negative publicity, and if they lose there the whole game is up--there will be no way back. So, in short, the stakes are too high to keep playing games. The owners need to man up and accept the terms that the players offer.

 

[az_prof]

Dodds. I couldn't have said it any better. You nailed it. I suspect most of the owners are smart enough to realize this and will scurry to cut a deal ASAP. Season is on IMO.

I think this is pretty easy for the owners to have a season:- Have the draft because that was covered in the last CBA for this year. If you don't have a new CBA next year, then having a draft in 2012 will be ruled illegal.- Eliminate the salary cap and minimums. Allow teams to spend as little or as much as they desire.- The owners are likely going to be found guilty for anti-trust on past behavior (all sorts of non-bids on players last year made no sense), but that is the price of being found colluding. They would be smart not to do a lot more of that.- Implement free agency as was expected based on the last CBA. Yes this will could likely be over-ruled too at some later point, but I think the owners still believe they can get a CBA worked out. - Keep revenue sharing the current TV deals, but I suspect that will change too if a new CBA isn't in place before the next TV deals. Rich owners (with teams that are desired to be on TV) aren't going to be willing to share equally with no salary cap.Bottom Line: Owners need to get a new CBA soon before the courts blow up the current salary structure. History of other sports shows that less restrictive free agency and removal of a salary cap will increase salaries by a lot. All it takes is a few owners to spend like mad hoarding quality players to better their chances to win championships.

 

[Donnybrook]

Are the Panthers now allowed to enter into contract negotiations with their #1 pick?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

schefter tweet

NFL Managment Council told teams to let players into their buildings Tuesday, but also recommended keeping weight rooms closed.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think this is pretty easy for the owners to have a season:- Have the draft because that was covered in the last CBA for this year. If you don't have a new CBA next year, then having a draft in 2012 will be ruled illegal.- Eliminate the salary cap and minimums. Allow teams to spend as little or as much as they desire.- The owners are likely going to be found guilty for anti-trust on past behavior (all sorts of non-bids on players last year made no sense), but that is the price of being found colluding. They would be smart not to do a lot more of that.- Implement free agency as was expected based on the last CBA. Yes this will could likely be over-ruled too at some later point, but I think the owners still believe they can get a CBA worked out. - Keep revenue sharing the current TV deals, but I suspect that will change too if a new CBA isn't in place before the next TV deals. Rich owners (with teams that are desired to be on TV) aren't going to be willing to share equally with no salary cap.Bottom Line: Owners need to get a new CBA soon before the courts blow up the current salary structure. History of other sports shows that less restrictive free agency and removal of a salary cap will increase salaries by a lot. All it takes is a few owners to spend like mad hoarding quality players to better their chances to win championships.

I don't think it's quite that easy. When half of the players in the league are making less money, they are going to want to form a union to protect their interests. I suspect with no CBA the owners could easy go to a 20+ game season with year round full contact practices. The owners may take it in the shorts on some issues, but as long as there are people willing to play football, they really could treat the players like slaves and force them to unionize.

 

[BassNBrew]

Are the Panthers now allowed to enter into contract negotiations with their #1 pick?

Sure, but they have no basis to build a deal around at this time.