Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

Did Meadowlands Stadium need to be built?

I'm sure if you ask the corporate sponsors who buy the luxury boxes, they'd probably say yes. However, this is the type of scrutiny the players might think they have the right to, but as players, not owners, I BELIEVE they should not.

The point is, if Meadowlands Stadium isn't a good investment, why build it? I think it's extremely unlikely that any $1B stadium project will provide more than $1B in value back to the NFL over its lifespan. And if the owners are saying, "we're making these bad investments with your money, and we're going to cut your pay because of it," the players absolutely have a right to scrutinize the investment.

 

[Hedgehog]

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

Did Meadowlands Stadium need to be built?

I can answer that one.....absolutely not. Old Meadowlands would have been fine for at least 10+ yerars - new MEadowlands is a complete and utter money grab that should be a symbol of the greed of NFL owners. I hope they miss all their payments with the lockout and have to pay the piper somehow!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

First, the judge isn't saying that it needs to be avoided in 2011. She's saying that if it's not avoided in 2011, the players will suffer harm. She's not saying (yet) that the harm would be illegal. Just that there would be harm — i.e., that players would make less as RFAs than they would as UFAs. That's pretty obvious, and Jackson is a good example. But she's not even ruling on legality at this point, much less reasonableness.

This is a little bit tricky to follow, so let me try to explain this a little bit.The players filed a lawsuit alleging several things, and asking for various remedies. Including:

1. Restrictions on free agency are illegal in 2011, so they should be prohibited.

2. The lockout is illegal, so it should be prohibited.

3. In fact, even though the legality or illegality of the lockout won't be determined for a while, it should be prohibited right now until the determination is made.

4. And "right now" means right now, not after the appellate court determines whether the prohibition should take effect right now.

Judge Nelson has so far ruled only on issues #3 and #4. Whether the 2010 RFA rules would be illegal in 2011 (which depends in part on their reasonableness) has not yet been addressed at all. (And whether the 2010 RFA rules would be reasonable in 2011 is separate from the question of whether offers made under them in 2010 were reasonable; the judge has no reason to ever consider that issue.)

The Jackson offer came up in the context of deciding issue #3. In deciding whether to grant an injunction against the lockout before determining whether the lockout is illegal, the judge will consider which type of error is worse: granting the injunction even though the lockout is legal, or failing to grant the injunction even though the lockout is illegal. In considering this issue, the judge will consider what kind of harm will result from each error. In this case, the harm of failing to grant the injunction includes the fact that, during a lockout, free agents will be unable to negotiate contracts for their market value.

As for whether the 2010 RFA rules would be reasonable or legal in 2011, the judge won't consider that issue until she is deciding issue #1. As for whether the 2010 RFA rules were reasonable or legal in 2010, she need not ever consider that issue. As for whether any particular offers made under the 2010 RFA rules were reasonable (given that those rules were in effect), she really really really need not ever consider that issue.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Yeah, the RFA system is kind of screwed up.

This is one area where I think MLB has a decent system. The arbitration system allows teams to keep players around longer, but players still get paid pretty nicely if they are performing. Maybe not total maker value, but you'd never have a a V-Jax situation happening.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The NFL lockout went back into effect Friday after the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis granted the owners’ side a “stay” of Judge Susan Nelson’s lockout injunction.

If you’re confused, just know you aren’t alone. Teams are now kicking players out of their facilities, and free agency and trades are unlikely to be allowed for at least a week, if not 6-8. The Eighth Circuit is known to be a Republican-heavy court notorious for conservative decisions, so no one should be surprised by its decision. Kevin Kolb won’t be traded during the draft, and free agent Nnamdi Asomugha isn’t signing anywhere anytime soon.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/4/29/2142795/nfl-lockout-news-players-nflpa

 

[T J]

..... The only part they should continue is getting damages from the hidden TV money. I think all fans are firmly behind them on that issue.

This fan isn't. But then I'd like to see the union broken completely. It won't happen of course, but it'd be nice.

 

[AcerFC]

The NFL lockout went back into effect Friday after the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis granted the owners’ side a “stay” of Judge Susan Nelson’s lockout injunction.If you’re confused, just know you aren’t alone. Teams are now kicking players out of their facilities, and free agency and trades are unlikely to be allowed for at least a week, if not 6-8. The Eighth Circuit is known to be a Republican-heavy court notorious for conservative decisions, so no one should be surprised by its decision. Kevin Kolb won’t be traded during the draft, and free agent Nnamdi Asomugha isn’t signing anywhere anytime soon.http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/4/29/2142795/nfl-lockout-news-players-nflpa

This doesnt ruin anythingETA: what a mess

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This fan isn't. But then I'd like to see the union broken completely. It won't happen of course, but it'd be nice.

You've gotten your wish. The union is gone.The owners are the ones who need the players' union — a lot more than the players do.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

In other words, if it was reasonable in 2010, why would it be something that absolutely needs to be avoided in 2011?

First, the judge isn't saying that it needs to be avoided in 2011. She's saying that if it's not avoided in 2011, the players will suffer harm. She's not saying (yet) that the harm would be illegal. Just that there would be harm — i.e., that players would make less as RFAs than they would as UFAs. That's pretty obvious, and Jackson is a good example. But she's not even ruling on legality at this point, much less reasonableness.The judge is likely to rule, eventually, that the 2010 RFA rules should be avoided in 2011. That's because while they were legal in 2010, they would be illegal in 2011. That's the answer to your question. (I wouldn't use legality as a proxy for reasonableness; but if you're intent on doing so, the only conclusion is that the 2010 offer was reasonable.)

Good grief. She's using the Jackson case as support for SOMETHING. If not legality, not reasonableness, not fairness, then what? Just that players will "lose" money? That's the "harm". OK, now why is the loss of that money "harmful". You say it was legal in 2010. I agree as far as I know - which isn't much about CBAs in general. But now the judge says the situation may or may not be legal in 2011, and you think she leans toward illegal. WHY? Why THIS deal, THIS scenario. Why do you think Jackson is among the guys suing the league (along with an incoming rookie who is as previously discussed, very similar to a RFA)? Do you think it's a cooincedence?You are very AJ-like in your inability to see the forest for the trees on this one. When the negotiation in question is at the very heart of an ostensibly successful multi-billion dollar lawsuit, it is mind-boggling to me that anyone would continue to assert that an offer like that was reasonable at the time. It was legal because of the CBA. It was within the rules because of the CBA. But with no union and no CBA, it becomes one of the most obvious cases of unfair business practices anyone can point to. Why does it seem so unfair under the new scenario? Shockingly, because it wasn't a "fair" offer under the OLD scenario, at least in terms of something a player could get behind and say, "OK, close enough" in a two party negotiation which should be geared toward both parties getting what they need at a fair price.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

This fan isn't. But then I'd like to see the union broken completely. It won't happen of course, but it'd be nice.

You've gotten your wish. The union is gone.The owners are the ones who need the players' union — a lot more than the players do.

:whoosh:

 

[coolnerd]

The NFL lockout went back into effect Friday after the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis granted the owners’ side a “stay” of Judge Susan Nelson’s lockout injunction.If you’re confused, just know you aren’t alone. Teams are now kicking players out of their facilities, and free agency and trades are unlikely to be allowed for at least a week, if not 6-8. The Eighth Circuit is known to be a Republican-heavy court notorious for conservative decisions, so no one should be surprised by its decision. Kevin Kolb won’t be traded during the draft, and free agent Nnamdi Asomugha isn’t signing anywhere anytime soon.http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/4/29/2142795/nfl-lockout-news-players-nflpa

This doesnt ruin anythingETA: what a mess

Well, probably, but not so fasthttp://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/4/29/2142857/nfl-lockout-reinstated-nflpa-players

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Certain people didn't like the RFA rules in 2010. Certain people don't like the antitrust laws now. But you can't blame the beneficiaries of those rules, in either case, from using them to their advantage. JMHO.

This is a great point Maurile - I didn't really understand (last year or now) how Jackson's situation was tied up in the CBA. Thanks for bringing the two together. Makes sense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

She's using the Jackson case as support for SOMETHING. If not legality, not reasonableness, not fairness, then what? Just that players will "lose" money? That's the "harm".

Yes.

OK, now why is the loss of that money "harmful".

The inability to earn an income in one's chosen profession is always harmful.Here is the opinion. The part about Jackson starts at the bottom of page 75. The judge is saying that if the lockout isn't lifted, free agents will be unable to sign contracts.

She is saying that if the lockout is lifted, Jackson would (going by last year's offers) be able to make maybe $8 million in 2011 if the league does away with restricted free agency, and at least $600K in 2011 if the league retains restricted free agency. (In fact, he'd be offered at least $3.3 million if the 2010 rules were preserved.) In either case, Jackson is harmed by not being able to sign a contract at all.

Nelson is not making the point that some think she is making. She's not saying that the $600K 2010 offer was unreasonable. She is saying that Jackson is harmed during the lockout because he won't even get a $600K offer.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Not so fast on `back to work’ euphoria

By Jerry McDonald - NFL Writer

Friday, April 29th, 2011 at 11:49 am in Oakland Raiders.

If the NFL was granted an “administrative stay” which would resume the lockout against the players, it was news to Raiders tight end Brandon Myers.

“I have not heard anything,” Myers said as he drove from the Raiders’ restricted access parking lot Friday less than an hour after he arrived.

A Yahoo Sports! story by Mike Silver reported players were preparing for a ruling which grant owners a temporary stay against U.S. District Court Judge Susan Nelson’s injunction against the lockout.

The NFL still has not announced transation guidelines as was expected, perhaps preferring to wait until the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on an appeal.

During his brief visit to the facility, Myers said he was optimistic.

“I think they said they had 30 guys coming in for sure right now, so that’s a good sign,” Myers said.

Myers said playbooks had not been issued and that they were expected Monday.

He said there have been some small, informal workouts but nothing that has been organized with several members of the team at the same time.

Perhaps reacting to an ESPN report that has since been retracted regarding the temporary stay, Raiders safety Michael Huff said in his Twitter account, “Lockout back on . . . let’s keep the vacation goin!”

Guard Daniel Loper was first to the facility but left without talking to the media.

Perhaps tellingly with regard to a temporary stay, a Raiders player believed to be Rolando McClain arrived at the security gate and then turned around without actually entering the parking lot after talking with a team employee.

 

[fatness]

I was just making the point that a new CBA doesn't require that the players drop their anti-trust suit(s). Barring relief from the appeals court, the owners have boxed themselves into a corner here and need a new CBA badly enough that they don't have a lot of leverage now. And based on their tactics up to this point I personally wouldn't be inclined to help them out - I'd extract everything I could that was in my long-term interest.

I agree that the owners have pushed themselves into a corner. They're in the incredibly awkward position of trying to get a federal appeals court to overrule another federal appeals court and to require players to unionize.

At the same time they're in the incredibly awkward position of being required to negotiate with the players under the supervision of a judge who reports to another judge who has already ruled against them strongly --- meaning any stalling in negotiating with a union they're trying to force the players to form will end up hurting them in court.

At the same time they're trying to avoid antitrust measures when dealing with a group of players who aren't unionized, when the reason for the lack of a union is that the league threw out the previous agreement with the union.

At the same time they're deprived of $4 billion they were counting on in TV money, some or all of which may be given by a court to the players whom they were trying to defeat in negotiations by stalling until the players needed money.

Each one of those things is a long shot, and collectively it's an unwinnable situation for the league.

The way out for the league is to reach a satisfactory CBA with the union and get some or all of those matters out of court. The league will have to give up more than they want to, or proceed down the court path to more dire situations.

If the league proposed the 2010 agreement as a new CBA, I don't think much would have to be changed of it to satisfy both sides. But right now the league will have to give in on more things than they would have had to give in on a month or 2 ago.

 

[GroveDiesel]

All I know is that I REALLY hope the Bills got out tons of playbook info and other info to their players this morning.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

She's using the Jackson case as support for SOMETHING. If not legality, not reasonableness, not fairness, then what? Just that players will "lose" money? That's the "harm".

Yes.

OK, now why is the loss of that money "harmful".

The inability to earn an income in one's chosen profession is always harmful.Here is the opinion. The part about Jackson starts at the bottom of page 75. The judge is saying that if the lockout isn't lifted, free agents will be unable to sign contracts.

She is saying that if the lockout is lifted, Jackson would (going by last year's offers) be able to make maybe $8 million in 2011 if the league does away with restricted free agency, and at least $600K in 2011 if the league retains restricted free agency. (In fact, he'd be offered at least $3.3 million if the 2010 rules were preserved.) In either case, Jackson is harmed by not being able to sign a contract at all.

Nelson is not making the point that some think she is making. She's not saying that the $600K 2010 offer was unreasonable. She is saying that Jackson is harmed during the lockout because he won't even get a $600K offer.

I just read it, and I came away with the completely opposite impression. She specifically states that the lockout would "Deprive them of new contracts that would be negotiated in a free market, whose precise terms will be impossible to recreate." The key is the free agency situation which should apply to him right now, not being unable to sign a contract at all. The harm would be that he gets hosed just like he got hosed last year, and if this year goes by, he's another year older and another year closer to NEVER getting the big UFA deal that player's his age have typically already gotten.If it was a simple matter of not being able to sign a contract at all, it would apply to every unsigned player, and there would be no reason to highlight how much Jackson could have made in 2010 or could make in 2011.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I was just making the point that a new CBA doesn't require that the players drop their anti-trust suit(s). Barring relief from the appeals court, the owners have boxed themselves into a corner here and need a new CBA badly enough that they don't have a lot of leverage now. And based on their tactics up to this point I personally wouldn't be inclined to help them out - I'd extract everything I could that was in my long-term interest.

I agree that the owners have pushed themselves into a corner. They're in the incredibly awkward position of trying to get a federal appeals court to overrule another federal appeals court and to require players to unionize.

At the same time they're in the incredibly awkward position of being required to negotiate with the players under the supervision of a judge who reports to another judge who has already ruled against them strongly --- meaning any stalling in negotiating with a union they're trying to force the players to form will end up hurting them in court.

At the same time they're trying to avoid antitrust measures when dealing with a group of players who aren't unionized, when the reason for the lack of a union is that the league threw out the previous agreement with the union.

At the same time they're deprived of $4 billion they were counting on in TV money, some or all of which may be given by a court to the players whom they were trying to defeat in negotiations by stalling until the players needed money.

Each one of those things is a long shot, and collectively it's an unwinnable situation for the league.

The way out for the league is to reach a satisfactory CBA with the union and get some or all of those matters out of court. The league will have to give up more than they want to, or proceed down the court path to more dire situations.

If the league proposed the 2010 agreement as a new CBA, I don't think much would have to be changed of it to satisfy both sides. But right now the league will have to give in on more things than they would have had to give in on a month or 2 ago.

Very informative post. Thanks.

 

[fatness]

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

That's a reasonable offer since it's more than the owners got last year.

Last year$9 billion total$4.2 billion to owners ($1 billion plus 40% of the remaining $8 billion)$4.8 billion to players (60% of the $8 billion)

 

[fatness]

So a stay to rule on the stay?

This sounds more like dog training than like law.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

They're in the incredibly awkward position of trying to get a federal appeals court to overrule another federal appeals district court and to require players to unionize.   determine if the district court had jurisdiction and whether or not the decertification was a sham

 

[jbobbett]

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

Did Meadowlands Stadium need to be built?

I'm sure if you ask the corporate sponsors who buy the luxury boxes, they'd probably say yes. However, this is the type of scrutiny the players might think they have the right to, but as players, not owners, I BELIEVE they should not.

The point is, if Meadowlands Stadium isn't a good investment, why build it? I think it's extremely unlikely that any $1B stadium project will provide more than $1B in value back to the NFL over its lifespan. And if the owners are saying, "we're making these bad investments with your money, and we're going to cut your pay because of it," the players absolutely have a right to scrutinize the investment.

Of course it's a good investment, or at least their analysis predicted it would be. And "need" has nothing to do with it, the only reason to make an investment is that you think it will pay off in some way. That's basically the definition of investment. The fact that it got built without any taxpayer money shows that whoever provided the money thought it was a good investment on its own merits.

 

[fatness]

If the appeals court is just issuing a temporary stay until they can make a real determination on the real stay by Monday or Tuesday, I think that's acceptable. If this court does eventually grant a real stay and as told before they can't meet until June 13th then this really is going to lead to an ugly situation.

I really don't see anything wrong with a stay until Monday or Tuesday. But assuming Tuesday the actual decision is to lift the stay, I really don't want to hear any more "well it's going to take some more time for us to come up with a plan for how to proceed" BS from the league. That is what this brief stay until Mon or Tues gives them time to come up with.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

She's using the Jackson case as support for SOMETHING. If not legality, not reasonableness, not fairness, then what? Just that players will "lose" money? That's the "harm".

Yes.

OK, now why is the loss of that money "harmful".

The inability to earn an income in one's chosen profession is always harmful.Here is the opinion. The part about Jackson starts at the bottom of page 75. The judge is saying that if the lockout isn't lifted, free agents will be unable to sign contracts.

She is saying that if the lockout is lifted, Jackson would (going by last year's offers) be able to make maybe $8 million in 2011 if the league does away with restricted free agency, and at least $600K in 2011 if the league retains restricted free agency. (In fact, he'd be offered at least $3.3 million if the 2010 rules were preserved.) In either case, Jackson is harmed by not being able to sign a contract at all.

Nelson is not making the point that some think she is making. She's not saying that the $600K 2010 offer was unreasonable. She is saying that Jackson is harmed during the lockout because he won't even get a $600K offer.

I just read it, and I came away with the completely opposite impression.

For everybody's reference, here is the relevant part of the opinion:
Plaintiffs have also demonstrated the threat of more particularized irreparable harm related to their status as free agents, under-contract players, or rookies. Plaintiffs Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, Peyton Manning, Ben Leber and Mike Vrabel, are not under the terms of a current contract, and are ostensibly free agents. An unrestricted free agent is free to negotiate and sign with any team in the NFL–a status which typically entails more competition for a player’s services, and therefore, higher compensation. (See McElroy Decl. ¶ 7.) Under a lockout, however, these five free agent players are in a state of contractual limbo, unable to negotiate a contract with any team. The employment contracts for Jackson, Mankins, Manning, Leber and Vrabel expired on March 3, 2011. (See Schwartz Decl. ¶ 11; Bauer Decl. ¶ 6; Condon Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; McElroy Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7; Cornrich Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) However, just a few weeks prior to the expiration of three of these five players’ contracts, their respective teams sought to change the players’ status. Peyton Manning received a letter from his team, the Indianapolis Colts, in February 2011, purporting to designate him an “Exclusive Franchise Player” under the CBA, which would restrict him from signing a contract with any other NFL team for 2011 season. (Condon Decl. ¶ 4.) Players Jackson and Mankins received similar letters in February from their respective teams, purporting to designate them as “Franchise Players” under the CBA. (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 11; Bauer Decl. ¶ 6.)

The facts as to Jackson and Mankins present a particularly compelling showing of the threat of irreparable harm. Both Jackson and Mankins, 2005 rookies, had hoped to become unrestricted free agents in 2010, but due to the NFL’s opting out of the CBA in 2008, the NFL’s unrestricted free agency period was increased to six years. In light of the NFL’s rule change, Jackson and Mankins ultimately became restricted free agents. (See Schwartz Decl. ¶ 6; Bauer Decl. ¶ 5.) Mankins’ agent contends that “the opt-out locked Mr. Mankins into a tender system of restricted free agency for the 2010 NFL season under which the Patriots [Mankins’ team] enjoyed the unilateral option to retain Mr. Mankins’ services under a one-year contract at cost substantially below market value.” (Bauer Decl. ¶ 5.)

Jackson, a 2010 restricted free agent, was similarly unable to negotiate with any teams other than the San Diego Chargers, for whom he had played since he was drafted in 2005. (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 7.) The Chargers tendered a one-year contract, reduced to the absolute minimum amount of $682,000 for the 2010 season. Ultimately, Jackson filed a grievance against the Chargers, which was resolved by a settlement permitting Jackson to seek offers from other teams, subject to the Chargers and the other team working out a trade. (Id. ¶ 8.) Jackson subsequently negotiated a two-year tentative agreement with the Minnesota Vikings in which he would receive $8 million, prorated for the number of games played in the 2010 season, and $10 million in the 2011 season. The Vikings would also have agreed to no further restrictions on Jackson at the end of that period. (Id. ¶ 9.) However, because the Chargers refused to trade Jackson, he signed the Charger’s minimum tender offer in order to ensure his status as a free agent at the end of the 2010 season. (Id. ¶ 10.) Jackson, who was the most valuable receiver for the Chargers for the remainder of the 2010 season, received $280,824 in base salary for the number of games played in the season. (Id.)

Even if Manning, Mankins and Jackson are limited to negotiating with their most recent respective teams, they, like Leber and Vrabel, have shown that, under a lockout, they are unable to negotiate and market their services in any respect. A lockout “deprives them of new contracts that would be negotiated in a free market, whose precise terms will be impossible to recreate.” (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 16; Bauer Decl. ¶ 13; Cornrich Decl. ¶ 9.) Therefore, there can be no real dispute that all of the free agent players–Jackson, Leber, Mankins, Manning and Vrabel–have demonstrated a sufficient threat of irreparable harm warranting the issuance of injunctive relief.

(My bolding.) In summarizing the facts, the judge is citing Schwartz's declaration. (Schwartz was VJ's agent.) As always, Schwartz is emphasizing how unfairly VJ was treated. But the question relevant to the issue the judge is considering is whether the players would suffer irreparable harm due to a lockout. If the lockout is lifted, it is unclear whether restricted free agency would prevail. (It wouldn't, IMO, but we're not to that stage yet in the litigation.) Whether or not restricted free agency would prevail, however, Vincent Jackson and the other named plaintiffs would not be restricted free agents. Jackson now has six years of service, so restricted free agency is irrelevant. The contract he would be able to negotiate in a free market is what's relevant (depending on what becomes of the franchise tags); and the fact that it's anybody's guess at this point is what helps make the harm irreparable. (I.e., monetary damages in lieu of a freely negotiated contract are problematic because nobody can know what Jackson would make in a free market unless he's allowed to try.)

She specifically states that the lockout would "Deprive them of new contracts that would be negotiated in a free market, whose precise terms will be impossible to recreate." The key is the free agency situation which should apply to him right now, not being unable to sign a contract at all.

The point is that he's unable to sign a contract at all. ("Even if Manning, Mankins and Jackson are limited to negotiating with their most recent respective teams, they, like Leber and Vrabel, have shown that, under a lockout, they are unable to negotiate and market their services in any respect.") The language about "negotiated in a free market" is apt because Jackson would not be a restricted free agent.

If it was a simple matter of not being able to sign a contract at all, it would apply to every unsigned player, and there would be no reason to highlight how much Jackson could have made in 2010 or could make in 2011.

It does apply to every unsigned player. All of the free-agent plaintiffs are discussed. All are unable to sign contracts during the lockout. Highlighting the difference between VJ's 2010 offer from the Chargers and his 2010 offer from the Vikings might be because the judge is tipping her hand regarding what I called "issue #1" in a previous post. Or it might be because she was getting her facts about VJ's situation from Schwartz's declaration (she can't get facts from newspapers; she can get them only from declarations or similarly lodged evidence), and that's how Schwartz framed things. But for purposes of whether a 2011 lockout would cause players irreparable harm, the difference between RFA offers and UFA offers is irrelevant. For one thing, Jackson and the other named plaintiffs would not be RFAs; and for another thing, lifting the lockout — in itself — does not force the league to remove restrictions on free agency. (That issue is for later determination.)

 

[Holy Schneikes]

OK, excellent thorough reading of that. You definitely found points I simply glazed over. I'm convinced the "harm" in question is not exclusively or even primarily about the type of negotiation.

Still, I don't think the detailed description of Jackson's situation is in there for no reason. If the ability to negotiate a deal of any kind was the ONLY relevant "harm" there would simply be no need to include that information. It's just the most obvious issue. Your "guess" as to why the Jackson case is there (if I can use that word without sounding like a jerk - I don't mean it that way), honestly doesn't sound very compelling to me. She didn't HAVE to quote Shwartz on those details to support "The can't negotiate a contract and go to work", but there they are. The fact that there is an entire paragraph dedicated to the scenario tells us SOMETHING. I don't think a judge put it in there to express her feelings about it - she thought it was relevant. Having that paragraph followed by the "Even if" summary still tells me that she is concerned not only about "X" (RFA rules etc) but more obviously and maybe importantly about "Y" (no deals). She finds ALL of the unsigned players to be in jeopardy, but finds Logan and Jackson are PARTICULARLY compelling. It's the "PARTICULARLY compelling" part that YOU are glossing over, just like I glossed over the nobody can get a deal done part.

 

[CalBear]

\Of course it's a good investment, or at least their analysis predicted it would be. And "need" has nothing to do with it, the only reason to make an investment is that you think it will pay off in some way. That's basically the definition of investment. The fact that it got built without any taxpayer money shows that whoever provided the money thought it was a good investment on its own merits.

Using someone else's money, when you get the payoff, is usually a good idea. But that doesn't mean the project is a good investment if it had to be fully financed by the people who would benefit from it.That's why the players should get a say in how and if stadium projects are financed--if the owners are taking money away from the players to fund stadium projects, the players are in effect investors in the project.

 

[jbobbett]

\

Of course it's a good investment, or at least their analysis predicted it would be. And "need" has nothing to do with it, the only reason to make an investment is that you think it will pay off in some way. That's basically the definition of investment. The fact that it got built without any taxpayer money shows that whoever provided the money thought it was a good investment on its own merits.

Using someone else's money, when you get the payoff, is usually a good idea. But that doesn't mean the project is a good investment if it had to be fully financed by the people who would benefit from it.That's why the players should get a say in how and if stadium projects are financed--if the owners are taking money away from the players to fund stadium projects, the players are in effect investors in the project.

I haven't heard that the players are asking for a say in how money is spent, like reviewing projects and stuff like that. They are either objecting to the amount the owners are proposing to invest or they don't believe that the owners are going to invest it if the players give it to them. I can't find a clear statement of the players issues. Maybe they simply just want as much as possible. All I have heard from the players side is that they want the NFL to "open the books."

 

[Chadstroma]

Stay issued. Told you guys... it is chess, not checkers.

 

[az_prof]

You think that is a reasonable and good-faith offer? You think Meadowlands Stadium would have gotten built if the players got 50% of the revenue (not profit, revenue) and the owners paid for all of it? That would have to be one PHENOMENAL investment to pay off for the investors.

Did Meadowlands Stadium need to be built?

I'm sure if you ask the corporate sponsors who buy the luxury boxes, they'd probably say yes. However, this is the type of scrutiny the players might think they have the right to, but as players, not owners, I BELIEVE they should not.

The point is, if Meadowlands Stadium isn't a good investment, why build it? I think it's extremely unlikely that any $1B stadium project will provide more than $1B in value back to the NFL over its lifespan. And if the owners are saying, "we're making these bad investments with your money, and we're going to cut your pay because of it," the players absolutely have a right to scrutinize the investment.

The vast majority of money for stadium building is paid for by tax payers. It is even more than the media report because in most cases the "team's contribution" includes "naming rights" that the team sells, yet the stadium is built by the public???? Why doesn't the public get to sell the naming rights when they are the majority partner in the stadium deal? So, please don't tell me the owners make a huge investment. They don't. They have a no risk investment--it's truly can't lose because they get the public to put hundreds of million of dollars into these stadiums and voila, the team's "market value" is instantly increased by a tremendous amount. And the team paid nothing or very little in terms of real out of pocket dollars.

 

[fatness]

"The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal," the appeals court said.

The appeals court is expected to rule next week on the NFL's request for a more permanent stay that would last through its appeal of the injunction. That process is expected to take 6-8 weeks.

A stay to give them a few days to decide on the stay-still-the-appeal-decision.link

Goodell will proudly announce this at the draft, right?

 

[fatness]

I'm sure if you ask the corporate sponsors who buy the luxury boxes, they'd probably say yes. However, this is the type of scrutiny the players might think they have the right to, but as players, not owners, I BELIEVE they should not.

That's at odds with the owners' position so far in bargaining with the players so far. The owners want a share of the players' money to go towards stadium costs. If the players don't contribute to the stadium costs then your opinion makes sense. But if the owners get their way, and the players have to give back money to fund stadiums, then the players absolutely deserve a say.

 

[Chadstroma]

"The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal," the appeals court said.

The appeals court is expected to rule next week on the NFL's request for a more permanent stay that would last through its appeal of the injunction. That process is expected to take 6-8 weeks.

A stay to give them a few days to decide on the stay-still-the-appeal-decision.link

Goodell will proudly announce this at the draft, right?

You have issues.

 

[fatness]

If it's the best thing for the league, the fans would cheer, right?

 

[Chadstroma]

If it's the best thing for the league, the fans would cheer, right?

It is not the best thing for thing for the league. The best thing is for both sides to make a deal.

 

[fatness]

I agree with you there.

 

[renesauz]

\Of course it's a good investment, or at least their analysis predicted it would be. And "need" has nothing to do with it, the only reason to make an investment is that you think it will pay off in some way. That's basically the definition of investment. The fact that it got built without any taxpayer money shows that whoever provided the money thought it was a good investment on its own merits.

Using someone else's money, when you get the payoff, is usually a good idea. But that doesn't mean the project is a good investment if it had to be fully financed by the people who would benefit from it.That's why the players should get a say in how and if stadium projects are financed--if the owners are taking money away from the players to fund stadium projects, the players are in effect investors in the project.

Sorry, but absolutely not. Stadiums last 20 years. Players would NEVER sign off on stadiums because they, personally, won't gain by them. The idea that players can or should be active partners, PARTICULARLY in decision making, is ludicrous because the player perspective is too narrow, and too short.

 

[renesauz]

The vast majority of money for stadium building is paid for by tax payers. It is even more than the media report because in most cases the "team's contribution" includes "naming rights" that the team sells, yet the stadium is built by the public???? Why doesn't the public get to sell the naming rights when they are the majority partner in the stadium deal? So, please don't tell me the owners make a huge investment. They don't. They have a no risk investment--it's truly can't lose because they get the public to put hundreds of million of dollars into these stadiums and voila, the team's "market value" is instantly increased by a tremendous amount. And the team paid nothing or very little in terms of real out of pocket dollars.

You're not very current here. The taxpayer investment in stadiums has steadily decreased over the past decade.

 

[CalBear]

Sorry, but absolutely not. Stadiums last 20 years. Players would NEVER sign off on stadiums because they, personally, won't gain by them. The idea that players can or should be active partners, PARTICULARLY in decision making, is ludicrous because the player perspective is too narrow, and too short.

Then you shouldn't be taking money from the players to build stadiums. Find another investment partner if the investment is good. More than likely, the investment sucks and the only way you can make it work is to take money from other people to build the monstrosity.

 

[BassNBrew]

Sorry, but absolutely not. Stadiums last 20 years. Players would NEVER sign off on stadiums because they, personally, won't gain by them. The idea that players can or should be active partners, PARTICULARLY in decision making, is ludicrous because the player perspective is too narrow, and too short.

Then you shouldn't be taking money from the players to build stadiums. Find another investment partner if the investment is good. More than likely, the investment sucks and the only way you can make it work is to take money from other people to build the monstrosity.

Stadiums always last longer than the career of every current players. They're never good investments for the players.Do employees get to nix capital expenditures at most companies?

 

[renesauz]

Sorry, but absolutely not. Stadiums last 20 years. Players would NEVER sign off on stadiums because they, personally, won't gain by them. The idea that players can or should be active partners, PARTICULARLY in decision making, is ludicrous because the player perspective is too narrow, and too short.

Then you shouldn't be taking money from the players to build stadiums. Find another investment partner if the investment is good. More than likely, the investment sucks and the only way you can make it work is to take money from other people to build the monstrosity.

Come on Dude.....the owners aren't "taking money from the players". the players are NOT partners, they're employees. Highly paid employees whose aggregate salary has traditionally been based off income or revenue, but still employees.Many franchise managers in other businesses are paid off profits too. But those managers rarely have any significant input on major business decisions, nor should they. There is an ENORMOUS and CRITICAL differance between short and long term perspectives.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I wonder which teams managed to get playbooks into player's hands? And how many got some extra ones out there for their veterans to get to rookies that hadn't even been drafted yet?

And with the uncertainty of who will even be a free agent, how they made the decisions on who to give them to.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I wonder which teams managed to get playbooks into player's hands? And how many got some extra ones out there for their veterans to get to rookies that hadn't even been drafted yet? And with the uncertainty of who will even be a free agent, how they made the decisions on who to give them to.

I immediatley thought the same thing and I am hoping the NE braintrust who supposedly think of everything actually had the forethoght to do so in this case.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

Looks like the owners aren't as off their rockers as a lot of folks around here were thinking. All along it was understood the 8th Circuit would likely be much more sympathetic to the owners arguments, and the fact Nelson didn't grant a stay creates more (albeit how much more we don't know) chance for a reversal on appeal under the premise she abused her discretion.We shall see

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

Looks like the owners aren't as off their rockers as a lot of folks around here were thinking. All along it was understood the 8th Circuit would likely be much more sympathetic to the owners arguments, and the fact Nelson didn't grant a stay creates more (albeit how much more we don't know) chance for a reversal on appeal under the premise she abused her discretion.We shall see

I thought not issuing the stay was weird on nelsons part.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

Looks like the owners aren't as off their rockers as a lot of folks around here were thinking. All along it was understood the 8th Circuit would likely be much more sympathetic to the owners arguments, and the fact Nelson didn't grant a stay creates more (albeit how much more we don't know) chance for a reversal on appeal under the premise she abused her discretion.We shall see

The 8th Circuit hasn't considered the owners' arguments yet, so there's no way to know whether it's sympathetic to them. The current stay is an administrative stay; it is not based on the merits. The court will grant or refuse the stay after considering arguments from each side next week.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

Looks like the owners aren't as off their rockers as a lot of folks around here were thinking. All along it was understood the 8th Circuit would likely be much more sympathetic to the owners arguments, and the fact Nelson didn't grant a stay creates more (albeit how much more we don't know) chance for a reversal on appeal under the premise she abused her discretion.We shall see

I thought not issuing the stay was weird on nelsons part.

I've read opposing opinions on that, but I've never seen anyone provide a real reason either way. Just "stays pending appeal are usually granted" or "stays pending appeal are rarely granted." I don't know which is correct.

 

[Chadstroma]

Sorry, but absolutely not. Stadiums last 20 years. Players would NEVER sign off on stadiums because they, personally, won't gain by them. The idea that players can or should be active partners, PARTICULARLY in decision making, is ludicrous because the player perspective is too narrow, and too short.

Then you shouldn't be taking money from the players to build stadiums. Find another investment partner if the investment is good. More than likely, the investment sucks and the only way you can make it work is to take money from other people to build the monstrosity.

Come on Dude.....the owners aren't "taking money from the players". the players are NOT partners, they're employees. Highly paid employees whose aggregate salary has traditionally been based off income or revenue, but still employees.Many franchise managers in other businesses are paid off profits too. But those managers rarely have any significant input on major business decisions, nor should they. There is an ENORMOUS and CRITICAL differance between short and long term perspectives.

CalBear would side with any union at any time for any reason. You have to take anything he says with a whole lot of salt.

 

[Chadstroma]

I wonder which teams managed to get playbooks into player's hands? And how many got some extra ones out there for their veterans to get to rookies that hadn't even been drafted yet? And with the uncertainty of who will even be a free agent, how they made the decisions on who to give them to.

Which teams did not is likely a better question. I have to imagine all teams were doing something along these lines.

 

[Chadstroma]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

Looks like the owners aren't as off their rockers as a lot of folks around here were thinking. All along it was understood the 8th Circuit would likely be much more sympathetic to the owners arguments, and the fact Nelson didn't grant a stay creates more (albeit how much more we don't know) chance for a reversal on appeal under the premise she abused her discretion.We shall see

I don't know about having any expectations that the 8th will rule in favor of the league but I just found it laughable how many posts seemed to think that this was a done deal. The league lost. The lockout was lifted. We would have football. Well, not so much. For me, I saw the Nelson ruling as being the worse case scenario on elongating this labor dispute.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

Looks like the owners aren't as off their rockers as a lot of folks around here were thinking. All along it was understood the 8th Circuit would likely be much more sympathetic to the owners arguments, and the fact Nelson didn't grant a stay creates more (albeit how much more we don't know) chance for a reversal on appeal under the premise she abused her discretion.We shall see

I don't know about having any expectations that the 8th will rule in favor of the league but I just found it laughable how many posts seemed to think that this was a done deal. The league lost. The lockout was lifted. We would have football. Well, not so much. For me, I saw the Nelson ruling as being the worse case scenario on elongating this labor dispute.

the owners want it tied up in court until a verdict is reached which would harm them. They want to place pressure on the players. But eventually they will lose in court.