This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's nonsense. They don't make close to the same as baseball or basketball players, and don't even have the guaranteed contracts that those players enjoy. The owners tell everyone that they can't make a decent profit with the last CBA, and no one asks for proof, you just take their word for it?
Idiot Boxer linked to the other major news. The NFL players have until Wed morning to respond to the stay request.
You have much more faith in our front office than I do...
I've been reading just the opposite. So I guess we'll just wait and see.
Well they certainly might. But from what I have read, the Judge is going to rule in the morning at 9am regardless of what the players say.The tricky thing is if the stay is denied (as most expect it will be), what will the owners do. If they play hardball, they are opening themselves up to some severe penalties down the line. It would be smart on their end to open up the league season and continue negotiating. I think once players are signing contracts, getting traded and practicing again, everyone will be more amicable towards working together.
Do you mind sharing a link? I haven't read many opinions that seem to indicate that a stay will be granted, and I'd like to see the other side of the issue.
I think this is what is most in the NFL's favor. No judge wants to be overturned on appeal. Not issuing the stay is a VERY bold swipe and, I agree with Wood, increases the odds that she's overturned.
The NFL has a very limited antitrust exemption, given to it by Congress back in the early '70s, for the purpose of collectively negotiating television deals. So nothing the courts can do will change that, and thus all TV revenue will be shared equally between all member clubs.This is the one thing that will prevent a "no-rules" NFL from becoming similar to MLB. There's a pretty significant amount of minimum revenue all clubs get from those TV contracts.'BassNBrew said:
Just because they are able to act in concert in negotiating a TV deal, does that mean they are required to do so? I ask, because I don't know.Seems to me, once the wheels are off the bus, that there is no incentive for the big market teams to carry the small market teams such a manner.Anyways, I agree that the very nature of football (16 game season vs. 160) is a natural check and balance against complete MLB-ifcation of the NFL, but only a small one...
They can (and might) attempt to proceed with a salary cap, floor and other free agency restrictions they are accustomed to under prior CBAs, but all it will really take is one player to challenge a practice on anti-trust grounds to unravel it. That won't change things tomorrow or by the NFL draft, but it will/could in the long term for sure. And since litigation seems to be the favored route of the players, I see no reason why that wouldn't happen.
Yes, each team can individually negotiate with players, those contracts will have OTA requirements incorporated. Some players will not agree to prohibitive OTA requirements (and some teams may lower OTA requirements as a method of luring such players), other players may agree to them. All 32 teams could not agree to require all the same OTA requirements, presumably, as this would be anti-competitive. As for lengthing the season, I do think they could do this within reason.
Because they would be opening themselves up to violations of antitrust law (which the Brady vs. purports already).When I say she needs to grant a stay, I don't mean an indefinite one. I mean a temporary one, as the 8th circuit appeal is expedited. A week or two.Andrew Brandt gets into this a bit in his latest column:http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/A-day-like-no-other-in-NFL.html
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 no longer represent players as a union.'Football Critic said:
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?
But the owners are SURE they are winning in appeal. So where is the harm? And who is forcing the owners to implement rules that most lawyers say violate anti-trust laws. If they want to side with caution, just allow all free agents to be just that....free agents. The draft is not in play for 2011. They operated last year without a salary cap. We all know playing the 2011 NFL season isn't going to harm the owners. They played last year and made record profits.
This is the interesting part here, to me.Because whatever happens long term, they can't go back and re-do the draft weekend. It's a massive change to this weekend if players aren't available to be traded, or next year's picks are in question. A Kevin Kolb or a Steve Smith(CAR), how could they change their teams' fortunes this weekend? The way this timing has worked out, this has made for the most interesting draft ever, IMO.
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.
Not if she issues the stay.
Arguments in the alternative. No good lawyer will argue they're SURE they're going to prevail anywhere. If they do not prevail, there is the possibility of the wild, wild, west in the NFL landscape. That is the irreparable harm. Please point to the irreparable harm to the players (that cannot be compensated with money damages)
If this was true, I'd be very surprised. Shefter made an interesting statement just now on ESPN. He said they judge wrote the decision in a way that made it difficult to overturn.
I don't think they have a realistic chance on jurisdiction. Unless the statement of the law in Judge Nelson's opinion is wrong, the NLRB does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the question of whether decertification was valid. Rather, the trial judge has discretion on whether to stay the district court proceeding and defer the matter to the NLRB. In this case, a quicker resolution in court was preferable to a delayed resolution before the NLRB.It was appropriate for the NFL to spend a lot of energy arguing jurisdiction to Judge Nelson, because she's the one who has discretion on the matter.Spending a lot of energy arguing jurisdiction to the appellate court will probably be futile — because Judge Nelson is the one who had discretion on the matter, and establishing abuse of discretion here strikes me as exceedingly difficult. (On the other hand, it may be no more difficult than winning on the merits, so I guess it is worth arguing.)'Idiot Boxer said:
Good thing there's no union involved in this case then.'renesauz said:So are Unions
Are you under the impression that the owners don't have the power to destroy the NFL as it has existed?'renesauz said:
I don't understand. If she issues the stay, then those players are not available this weekend.
Right. Philly fans have to be sick over this. They are sooooo close to getting that 1st round pick, and it's close to certain they won't be able to do it because of the timing of this whole thing.
It's really the antitrust laws that are driving this, not labor laws. In either case, though, laws apply to everybody who isn't specifically exempted. The NFL is exempt from antitrust laws with respect to negotiating TV contracts. It doesn't have an exemption beyond that. If it wants one, it needs to bribe members of Congress. Maybe it will.'ConstruxBoy said:
Ah... so the other issue is how to avoid anti-trust. 32 teams can not agree on the parameters of how they negotiate with players or else they open themselves up to lose in court against an anti-trust claim.
We all know that the union decertification was a sham. It is just a matter of whether it meets the legal definition of being part of a labor dispute. For any lawyer types who feel like reading 89 pages and getting back to us.... how did the judge address this in the ruling?
Please point to the irreparable harm to the owners that can't be compensated with money damages.As for the players, I would list these things (in no order):1. Knowing the playbook2. Practicing with team mates so to minimize harm on the field.3. Working with team trainers to ensure injuries are dealt with properly.4. Many players are free agents yet can't earn a living in the NFL.5. Other players are sure to be traded (Kolb), but hang in limbo.etc, etc, etcI also think there are many other people impacted by no football. Vendors, stadium people, assistants, and a host of other people. These people will not be made whole through monetary damages should there be no football. By forcing the owners to honor the contracts and play football (all against the owners own rules), their is essentially no impact. The owners can make any amount of profit they desire. Hell cut everyone and sign a bunch of $100K players if your goal is to maximize profits.The owners way will be to lockout until late August and then say, let's play football placing a lot of players in situations where injury is sufficiently higher. It will also make someone like Kolb not tradeable.
Good thing there's no union involved in this case then.'renesauz said:So are Unions
is right. It is exactly what the union does when it says it is not a union.
Exactly. But it doesn't have to do with what makes sense, or is too much to ask someone. It just has to do with timing. If this decision had occurred two weeks ago, the appeal might have already been heard and denied. Kolb etc. would all possibly have been in play. The Eagles get a massive difference in return on Kolb--potentially. If you can trade a player for a pick that is already set, and is for this year, that is much, better than the unknown of next year, and after trading a position that has the best chance of improving a team's record, thus lowering the value next year.Not really making an argument here, just remarking that this week is really, really interesting to me.
Of course not, but I don't have a problem with a business owner having the power to destroy his business. I DO have a problem with employees having that power.To be honest, I have found many of the player's arguments to be compelling. I'm not 100% in agreement with everything the owners want or have tried. My objections to the players are based primarily on philosophical grounds. My objections are based on the giant hammer they weild, and HOW they're weilding it (decertification).
I'm interpreting here, but I think she found the whole complaint irrelevant. That, even though he owners or anyone might suspect one thing or another about intentions, the bottom line is that the union went through all the necessary processes to decertify, which is their right, and precisely what they did. That, the comments of Vrabel and others that sort of implied that the union still existed doesn't overcome the fact that...the union simply does not exist, anymore.I side with the owners mostly on philosophical grounds. But, legally...I think the players have a pretty solid (if not airtight) case.
No, there is no union rep. (The lawyers in the antitrust case could negotiate a CBA, however.)The league can do what it wants as long as it can get individual players to agree to it, and as long as it doesn't violate antitrust laws. If a team offers players minimum wage for a 24-game season, it can't force the players to agree. But it can make the offer.
But I don't think there'd be a problem with teams agreeing about OTA requirements. The agreement would presumably be about maximum number of practices, not minimum. I don't see who's harmed (and thus who would file a complaint) about that.
Really? The owners don't have the ability to sign a new CBA in the future that allows them to play the league exactly like they want? The last I checked they had such a deal, but wanted to grab another $1B from the players with no documentation. The owners also don't have the ability to set up the rules the way the want? Yes if they implement rules that are deemed anti-trust, then they will pay for those mistakes. Just like if Exxon and BP are price fixing, the NFL will be held to the same standard. There is no harm created to the side that gets to make all the rules (that money can't fix).
Speaking strictly with regard to the stay, the owner's are damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't on the rules that they employ while the appeal is pending. Do they go to the least prohibitive (least collusive) set of rules (which, could possibly set up a number of inequities with regard to player contracts/salaries/etc. that would be hard to undo either if they prevail at the 8th circuit or enter into a new CBA) or they go to a more prohibitive set of rules which is further challengeable on anti-trust grounds opening up to further legal attack which could further unbind the fabric of what has held the NFL together. In my experience, stays are typically GRANTED pending appeals and such appeals are fast-tracked so that neither party is irreparably harmed. The five 'irreparable harms' you've listed don't seem to apply to a two-three week appeal process (except #5, which seems irrelevant because it seems unlikely that any clarity will come prior to the draft, so any trade for Kolb will likely happen post-draft...which means waiting on the appeal shouldn't increase the harm to him.)
There is explicitly no requirement that a decertification be intended as permanent. Judge Nelson cited case law on that.
Here is the opinion.Start at the bottom paragraph on page 34, and read through the top paragraph on page 42.
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.
Sounds great, but I'm not sure it's that simple. The injunction is preventing the "lockout", that's all. The absence of a lockout doesn't necessarily mean the league has carte blanche to do what it will with respect to dealings with the players. I think the general assumption is that the 2010 rules apply going forward for the most part. Otherwise, all players not currently under contract would be UFAs, and there wouldn't be much point to having a draft. Outside of SOME sort agreement with the players as a group, there is NO WAY the league could legally restrict their negotiations to just one team (by collusion) in a 32 team league.
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.)
