Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[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.

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.

They don't want it tied up in court. They would like to use time (which is on their side) as leverage in negotiations if the union refuses to budge otherwise. They do want football and they do not want to go to court. But, they will fight in court however they need to and will lockout if they must. There is just too much emotional "they don't want football" nonsense in this thread.

 

[David Dodds]

It will be interesting if the appeals court grants the stay next week, but then expedites the appeal. Interesting that they would say that no harm is being done to the players, but we better expedite this case...LOL. A non-expedited appeal won't be heard until the middle of June. Add time for arguments and a few weeks to decide this and we are in July.

If the owners win on appeal, what exactly does that mean? The union has to reform and negotiate? Not sure how this could ever be enforceable. If I am De Smith, I resign. And without a union, no one can be elected.

If we don't have resolution until all of this is heard on appeal, we will be looking at this timeline in July:

Both sides would need to complete a CBA, establish league rules, open up free agency for veterans and undrafted rookies, hold OTAs, hold training camp, play preseason games? Good luck with accomplishing that in such a short window. If the league actually pulls it off, they will definitely end up putting the players at unbelievable risk by placing them on the field way before they are ready.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the owners win on appeal, what exactly does that mean? The union has to reform and negotiate?

The only thing being appealed right now is whether the lockout should be prohibited while the trial on its legality is pending.If the owners win on appeal, the lockout will be allowed to continue unless and until it is determined to be illegal.The union would remain decertified (unless and until a new CBA is agreed to as part of a settlement), and the trial regarding whether the lockout is illegal would proceed. In the meantime, there would be no football activities — no OTAs, no free-agent signings, etc.ETA: Ultimately, if the decertification is determined to be a sham — something that hasn't been ruled on yet (and won't be for a while) — it wouldn't force the union to re-certify. It would merely deprive the players of being able to antitrust claims in the face of the non-statutory labor exemption.

 

[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

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.

Yep, but that's the basis for why my buddy said it would be surprising for her not to grant the stay. Turns out he was right after all.

 

[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.

Yep, but that's the basis for why my buddy said it would be surprising for her not to grant the stay. Turns out he was right after all.

I don't know whether or not it was surprising for her not to grant the stay; but nothing that the 8th Circuit has done — so far! — sheds any light on that issue.The 8th Circuit has not yet disagreed with Judge Nelson about anything, including the issue of the stay.

The owners asked Judge Nelson to stay enforcement of the injunction pending appeal. She refused.

The owners then asked the 8th Circuit to stay enforcement of the injunction pending appeal. It has not yet ruled on that.

The stay granted by the 8th Circuit is not a stay pending appeal; it is a stay pending a ruling on a stay pending appeal. (Yes, that is confusing. )

So the stay that Judge Nelson refused to grant has not yet been granted by the 8th Circuit, and the stay that was granted by the 8th Circuit was never requested of Judge Nelson. The 8th Circuit and Judge Nelson, therefore, have not yet disagreed with each other about anything.

ETA: To dramatize the matter, it went like this.

Owners: "Hey Judge Nelson, can you stay the injunction for a month or two?"

Judge Nelson: "No."

Owners: "Hmm. Hey 8th Circuit, can you stay the injunction for a month or two?"

8th Circuit: "Maybe. We'll let you know next week."

Owners: "Well then, can we have a stay until next week?"

8th Circuit: "Okay."

Owners: "Word."

 

[fatness]

I don't know whether or not it was surprising for her not to grant the stay; but nothing that the 8th Circuit has done — so far! — sheds any light on that issue.

The 8th Circuit has not yet disagreed with Judge Nelson about anything, including the issue of the stay.

The owners asked Judge Nelson to stay enforcement of the injunction pending appeal. She refused.

The owners then asked the 8th Circuit to stay enforcement of the injunction pending appeal. It has not yet ruled on that.

The stay granted by the 8th Circuit is not a stay pending appeal; it is a stay pending a ruling on a stay pending appeal. (Yes, that is confusing. )

So the stay that Judge Nelson refused to grant has not yet been granted by the 8th Circuit, and the stay that was granted by the 8th Circuit was never requested of Judge Nelson. The 8th Circuit and Judge Nelson, therefore, have not yet disagreed with each other about anything.

ETA: To dramatize the matter, it went like this.

Owners: "Hey Judge Nelson, can you stay the injunction for a month or two?"

Judge Nelson: "No."

Owners: "Hmm. Hey 8th Circuit, can you stay the injunction for a month or two?"

8th Circuit: "Maybe. We'll let you know next week."

Owners: "Well then, can we have a stay until next week?"

8th Circuit: "Okay."

Owners: "Word."

Thank you. Some people are missing one whole part of this in their understanding. And as complicated as it is, yours is probably the simplest accurate explanation of events possible.

 

[fatness]

"how long does this stay last?"

"until they decide on the stay"

"when do they decide that?"

"probably next week"

"if they grant the stay next week, how long does that last?"

"until the appeal of Judge Nelson's ruling"

"when's that appeal?"

"probably June 13"

 

[Orange Crush]

If the owners win on appeal, what exactly does that mean? The union has to reform and negotiate?

The only thing being appealed right now is whether the lockout should be prohibited while the trial on its legality is pending.If the owners win on appeal, the lockout will be allowed to continue unless and until it is determined to be illegal.The union would remain decertified (unless and until a new CBA is agreed to as part of a settlement), and the trial regarding whether the lockout is illegal would proceed. In the meantime, there would be no football activities — no OTAs, no free-agent signings, etc.ETA: Ultimately, if the decertification is determined to be a sham — something that hasn't been ruled on yet (and won't be for a while) — it wouldn't force the union to re-certify. It would merely deprive the players of asserting antitrust claims in the face of the non-statutory labor exemption.

I just want to make sure my understanding is correct, here — the owner's major argument is that the NLRB has jurisdiction in determining whether the NFLPA's decertification was or was not a sham, and that they have the right to lockout the players until the NLRB makes such a decision. Yes? Because I've also read that the NLRB is unlikely to make such a determination until 2012. So a decision by the 8th Circuit agreeing with the owners would be a de facto complete win for the owners as the players will capitulate long before the NLRB ever gets ready for issuing a decision.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

I've found a source that I'd consider to be trustworthy. Charles Alan Wright, in Federal Practice and Procedure, says that stay requests are more commonly denied than granted.Of course, what's more common in general tells us little about what's appropriate in this case. Here are the factors the judge is supposed to consider:

1. Whether the owners have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits.

2. Whether the owners will be irreparably injured absent a stay.

3. Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the players.

4. Where the public interest lies.

(The owners do not accept those criteria; on factor #1, they argue that they need only a decent chance to succeed, not a "strong showing" that they will. The Supreme Court seems to have rejected that standard, though.)

In this case, I don't think the owners have the best of it on factor #1, although that's debatable. (For the owners to succeed on the merits, they don't have to show that the lockout is legal; they just have to show that prohibiting the lockout before it's determined to be illegal is inappropriate.)

On factor #2, I'm always sympathetic to the claim that being forced to remain in business against one's will constitutes harm. If the owners would prefer not to not to start the league year for a few months (until the appeal is resolved), they are harmed by being forced to. On the other hand, when we try to actually measure the proposed harm, I think it may be negative. That is to say, I think the owners would lose more money by staying closed for business until after the appeal is heard than they would by remaining open for business. A lockout even until mid-June will likely negatively affect 2011 revenues, I would think. So I don't know how to treat this one. (On the other hand, if the owners want to remain closed throughout the 2011 season, it is silly for them to have to give out roster bonuses now. Can those be recovered if the lockout is ultimately determined to be legal? I don't know.)

On factor #3, I don't think the players would be all that harmed by having to wait until mid-June (after the appeal is resolved) to begin the league year. From the players' standpoint, it'd be nice for the players to get their roster bonuses, workout bonuses, etc., now rather than later; and it'd be nice for free agents to get signing bonuses now rather than later; but on the whole, I don't think a delay for a month or two is a huge deal.

On factor #4, I think the fans want the league year to start now.

So I'd give #1 and #4 to the players, #3 to the owners, and I'm not sure what to do with #2, but if I had to pick, I'd probably give it to the owners. In short, I don't think it's a slam dunk either way.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I just want to make sure my understanding is correct, here — the owner's major argument is that the NLRB has jurisdiction in determining whether the NFLPA's decertification was or was not a sham, and that they have the right to lockout the players until the NLRB makes such a decision. Yes? Because I've also read that the NLRB is unlikely to make such a determination until 2012. So a decision by the 8th Circuit agreeing with the owners would be a de facto complete win for the owners as the players will capitulate long before the NLRB ever gets ready for issuing a decision.

That is one of the owners' main arguments, yes.Judge Nelson cited authority stating that the NLRB does not have exclusive jurisdiction, however. Rather, the NLRB has primary jurisdiction, which gives the district court the discretion to stay an action in federal court and defer to the NLRB; but the court also has discretion to decide the issue itself. Judge Nelson cited the expected delay from the NLRB when she exercised her discretion not to defer to the NLRB.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't know whether or not it was surprising for her not to grant the stay; but nothing that the 8th Circuit has done — so far! — sheds any light on that issue.

The 8th Circuit has not yet disagreed with Judge Nelson about anything, including the issue of the stay.

The owners asked Judge Nelson to stay enforcement of the injunction pending appeal. She refused.

The owners then asked the 8th Circuit to stay enforcement of the injunction pending appeal. It has not yet ruled on that.

The stay granted by the 8th Circuit is not a stay pending appeal; it is a stay pending a ruling on a stay pending appeal. (Yes, that is confusing. )

So the stay that Judge Nelson refused to grant has not yet been granted by the 8th Circuit, and the stay that was granted by the 8th Circuit was never requested of Judge Nelson. The 8th Circuit and Judge Nelson, therefore, have not yet disagreed with each other about anything.

ETA: To dramatize the matter, it went like this.

Owners: "Hey Judge Nelson, can you stay the injunction for a month or two?"

Judge Nelson: "No."

Owners: "Hmm. Hey 8th Circuit, can you stay the injunction for a month or two?"

8th Circuit: "Maybe. We'll let you know next week."

Owners: "Well then, can we have a stay until next week?"

8th Circuit: "Okay."

Owners: "Word."

 

[Orange Crush]

I just want to make sure my understanding is correct, here — the owner's major argument is that the NLRB has jurisdiction in determining whether the NFLPA's decertification was or was not a sham, and that they have the right to lockout the players until the NLRB makes such a decision. Yes? Because I've also read that the NLRB is unlikely to make such a determination until 2012. So a decision by the 8th Circuit agreeing with the owners would be a de facto complete win for the owners as the players will capitulate long before the NLRB ever gets ready for issuing a decision.

That is one of the owners' main arguments, yes.Judge Nelson cited authority stating that the NLRB does not have exclusive jurisdiction, however. Rather, the NLRB has primary jurisdiction, which gives the district court the discretion to stay an action in federal court and defer to the NLRB; but the court also has discretion to decide the issue itself. Judge Nelson cited the expected delay from the NLRB when she exercised her discretion not to defer to the NLRB.

So the 8th Circuit will be primarily ruling on whether Judge Nelson appropriately used her discretion in weighing the irreparable injury suffered by the players before the NLRB makes a decision versus the normal inclination not to override the NLRB's primary jurisdiction? And the owners think that's a winning argument?!?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so no news here???

This article does not sounds good and for us fans we almsot have to root for no stay to be granted:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AsT73C0tNhOd5c3oYVYMTYVDubYF?slug=jc-cole_court_date_could_cause_NFL_to_miss_games_050311

On the flipside, the process could go even longer even after the Eighth Circuit rules. Both sides have the power to ask all 11 active judges in the Eighth Circuit to hear the case and rule on it. In addition, the case could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

In short, for all the fans who chanted “We want football!” during the first round of the NFL draft last Thursday, the wait figures to be awhile.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here is the order from last week granting the administrative stay.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And here is the 8th Circuit's webpage containing updates on the case. The ruling on the stay should be linked to from there whenever it's available.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Saw a report today that the 8th had granted the owners' request for an expedited appeal, scheduled for June 3rd.

Ruling on stay/no stay until after the June 3rd hearing is decided expected to come in the next day or two.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Saw a report today that the 8th had granted the owners' request for an expedited appeal, scheduled for June 3rd.

Yes, the owners' brief is due May 9; the players' response is due May 20; and the owners' reply is due May 26. Then oral argument will be June 3, and the ruling will be sometime — probably no more than a month, but who knows? — after that.

 

[CalBear]

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.

Rather amusing assertion, considering that I'm in management at Berkeley and am officially "the man" to the unions.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

Rather amusing assertion, considering that I'm in management at Berkeley and am officially "the man" to the unions.

Yet the unions are the ones that have given us the freedoms that we enjoy today, the unions invented the internet and killed Bin Laden.(obviously, I'm paraphrasing your earlier statement)

 

[Jason Wood]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

Not only that if the owners dont like what that court says, then they appeal again.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

OR...maybe CBA discussions.

 

[CalBear]

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.

Rather amusing assertion, considering that I'm in management at Berkeley and am officially "the man" to the unions.

Yet the unions are the ones that have given us the freedoms that we enjoy today, the unions invented the internet and killed Bin Laden.(obviously, I'm paraphrasing your earlier statement)

Obviously, you're being antagonistic and asserting something you have no clue about.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

Rather amusing assertion, considering that I'm in management at Berkeley and am officially "the man" to the unions.

Yet the unions are the ones that have given us the freedoms that we enjoy today, the unions invented the internet and killed Bin Laden.(obviously, I'm paraphrasing your earlier statement)

Obviously, you're being antagonistic and asserting something you have no clue about.

Just parodying your over-the-top statement about unions made in this self-same thread.

 

[roarlions]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

OR...maybe CBA discussions.

Aren't the negotiations in Minn. supposed to resume around May 16th? Here's hoping that enough pressure builds on one or both sides between now and then to produce some meaningful progress and a resolution before June 3rd.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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.

Rather amusing assertion, considering that I'm in management at Berkeley and am officially "the man" to the unions.

Yet the unions are the ones that have given us the freedoms that we enjoy today, the unions invented the internet and killed Bin Laden.(obviously, I'm paraphrasing your earlier statement)

Obviously, you're being antagonistic and asserting something you have no clue about.

Just parodying your over-the-top statement about unions made in this self-same thread.

would you guys just stop???every time I come in this thread looking for news, I see a bunch of bickering. TIA

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

OR...maybe CBA discussions.

Aren't the negotiations in Minn. supposed to resume around May 16th? Here's hoping that enough pressure builds on one or both sides between now and then to produce some meaningful progress and a resolution before June 3rd.

There is no incentive for the owners to budge until the appeal is herd. This mediation will be a waste of time.

 

[Mello]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

OR...maybe CBA discussions.

You mean CBA ultimatums.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

OR...maybe CBA discussions.

You mean CBA ultimatums.

As opposed the the CBA ultimatums that the players might put out there if they win? With some even in here thinking they should demand a pound of flesh from the owners?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

You might want to read up on the history of trust and labor laws. The entire purpose of unions was to shut down businesses which tried to operate in collusive ways. They shut down plants, railroads and mines. They got into armed conflict with company men and workers who wanted to cross the picket line. Eventually the situation got so bad that the government realized that it needed to act to rein in the power of the monopolistic corporations. So, despite going up against the most powerful people in the country, the unions succeeded. The fact that you get to watch football on Sunday instead of go to work is directly due to the action of unions.

Sorry, Cal. It was in the other thread. I'd like to thank labor unions for giving me the power to watch football on Sundays instead of going to work. God Bless America.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

You might want to read up on the history of trust and labor laws. The entire purpose of unions was to shut down businesses which tried to operate in collusive ways. They shut down plants, railroads and mines. They got into armed conflict with company men and workers who wanted to cross the picket line. Eventually the situation got so bad that the government realized that it needed to act to rein in the power of the monopolistic corporations. So, despite going up against the most powerful people in the country, the unions succeeded. The fact that you get to watch football on Sunday instead of go to work is directly due to the action of unions.

Sorry, Cal. It was in the other thread. I'd like to thank labor unions for giving me the power to watch football on Sundays instead of going to work. God Bless America.

Oh boy, little did I know?

 

[Mello]

MT pretty much answered my question in his last post re: the ruling coming a month or so after the hearing. I know Schefter reported last night that a ruling typically comes 4-6 weeks after the hearing, which would put the decision in early to mid July. :( If that's remotely accurate, we REALLY REALLY REALLY want the owners request for a stay to be denied. If the stay is granted, we would most likely be looking at no football activity for the next two plus months.

OR...maybe CBA discussions.

You mean CBA ultimatums.

As opposed the the CBA ultimatums that the players might put out there if they win? With some even in here thinking they should demand a pound of flesh from the owners?

Yes.Owners win = They can lock out the players forever until they agree to owners' demands. There is very little reason for the owners to compromise.Players win = They can demand what they want for a CBA, but the owners don't have to agree to continue business. They can simply run the system under the law. This system would hurt many players and owners giving both sides motivation to compromise.This isn't an equal fight here.

 

[Dave Larkin]

Albert Breer is reporting on Twitter that his sources tell him that the stay will be granted and the lockout will remain on until the June 3 hearing.

What I want to know is this - when do the sides have to actually negotiate a new CBA? What will the decision on June 3 be?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Albert Breer is reporting on Twitter that his sources tell him that the stay will not be granted and the lockout will remain on until the June 3 hearing.What I want to know is this - when do the sides have to actually negotiate a new CBA? What will the decision on June 3 be?

You mean the Stay will be granted. Bad news for us fans. They dont ever have to negotiate a new CBA (technically) June 3rd is just when they will hear the case, not the decision. The decision will come about a month later.

 

[Jason Wood]

Albert Breer is reporting on Twitter that his sources tell him that the stay will not be granted and the lockout will remain on until the June 3 hearing.

What I want to know is this - when do the sides have to actually negotiate a new CBA? What will the decision on June 3 be?

I think something got lost in translation.

Either the stay WILL be granted and the lockout will remain on until June's hearing OR

The stay will be overturned and the lockout will end

 

[fatness]

With the temporary stay nearly five days old and the briefing and hearing schedule in place for the appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s order lifting the lockout, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is expected to decide within the next two days whether to stay Judge Nelson’s ruling until the appeal is resolved.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that a ruling on the motion for a stay is expected to be issued on Wednesday or Thursday.

link

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Albert Breer is reporting on Twitter that his sources tell him that the stay will not be granted and the lockout will remain on until the June 3 hearing.

That's self-contradictory. If the stay is not granted, the lockout will end. If the stay is granted, the lockout will remain in effect.

What I want to know is this - when do the sides have to actually negotiate a new CBA?

They don't ever have to.

What will the decision on June 3 be?

The decision won't be on June 3. It will probably be sometime within the next month after that. (Maybe a week or two, maybe four weeks, possibly longer.)It will either uphold the preliminary injunction against the lockout — in which case the lockout will end unless and until it is determined to be legal (probably sometime in 2012). Or it will overturn the preliminary injunction against the lockout — in which case the lockout will remain in effect unless and until it is determined to be illegal (probably sometime in 2012), or until the owners voluntarily decide to end it (perhaps by agreeing to a new CBA), whichever comes first.

 

[Hedgehog]

from jets board...not looking good...

From Albert Breer:

Quote:

Sources: NFLPA is bracing for the NFL to be granted a full stay of the injunction to lift NFL lockout until the appeal is heard.

Quote:

Have heard the rumblings all morning. What full stay would mean: The lockout is on until 8th circuit hears case on June 3, rules thereafter.

Quote:

Full stay would, in essence, eliminate offseason programs for '11. Generally those wrap in mid-June, which is earliest we could get ruling.

Quote:

@ECpackers We have to wait for official ruling 1st. 8th circuit could pull a shocker. Barring that: OTAs/minicamps gone; FA/trades delayed.

Plus, for what it's worth, from Ochocinco:

Quote:

#OCNN Unfortunately a union source expects that the stay will be granted today n that the lockout will now continue 4 at least several weeks

Quote:

#OCNN Our awesome owners will take the short term pain of an extended lockout,for the long term they'll gain a favorable CBA. #Beinghonest

Quote:

I've maintained n optimistic outlook throughout the lockout,based on today's expected developments we will be out at least another month

 

[renesauz]

This isn't an equal fight here.

This is about the only statement we could agree on. The players have the owners by the nuts, not the other way around.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This isn't an equal fight here.

This is about the only statement we could agree on. The players have the owners by the nuts, not the other way around.

If the players have the owners by the nuts, the owners shouldn't have opted out of the last CBA early.

 

[renesauz]

While lifting the lockout would gaurentee football this year, I honestly believe a new CBA will come quicker with a lockout in place. The players have been emboldened by their legal success, and have shown little interest in negotiating a new deal (IMO). The players still hold more than enough legal firepower to ensure the owners give them a fair deal because long term, the owners lose without a CBA. A lockout ensures the players lose short-term, and balances the negotiating power.

 

[renesauz]

This isn't an equal fight here.

This is about the only statement we could agree on. The players have the owners by the nuts, not the other way around.

If the players have the owners by the nuts, the owners shouldn't have opted out of the last CBA early.

One could reasonably make that argument, but the owners were counting on the short-term negotiating power of the TV deal and a lockout. Losing both puts far too much power in the player's side, IMO. (They didn't have the owners by the nuts 6 months ago) This fight would have happened either way (now or in 2013), so I don't see how it really matters in the end.

 

[D.J.]

Maybe, just maybe, the 8th circuits tend (assuming the grant the stay) to favor the owners will encourage the players to start negotiating in mediation May 16th? If the players lose the June hearing they will have lost all leverage to negotiate without missing any checks

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This isn't an equal fight here.

This is about the only statement we could agree on. The players have the owners by the nuts, not the other way around.

If the players have the owners by the nuts, the owners shouldn't have opted out of the last CBA early.

C'mon Maurile. You know the nut-holders/holdees is a fluid situation.When owners' opted out: Equal-ish bargaining power. Each had a little grasp of the other's nuts. Owner's perhaps a little stronger grip.When court rules TV deal is bad: Players tighten grip. Advantage players (marginal)When players decertify: Players tighten grip more. Advantage players (more significant)When owner's lock out: Owners put on the squeeze. Advantage owners. (Marginal)When the federal district court ruled for the players. Advantage players. (Significant)When the federal district court denied the stay. Advantage players (Ultra significant)When the federal appeals court granted administrative stay - Inconsequential. Still Advantage Players (ultra significant)IF the federal appeals court grants stay - significant move, short term owner advantage, but the probative questions are still in the balance. This is about as neutral a time to negotiate a CBA as there is likely to be in a long time. THIS time, before the federal court of appeals rules, is probably the best time for a CBA that is reasonable to both sides to get negotiated. Problem is, it probably won't happen. The players will probably roll the dice to try to get the district court ruling upheld, thereby giving them a nuclear advantage. The owners will probably roll, hoping to get a favorable ruling and swinging the pendulum their way.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Maybe, just maybe, the 8th circuits tend (assuming the grant the stay) to favor the owners will encourage the players to start negotiating in mediation May 16th? If the players lose the June hearing they will have lost all leverage to negotiate without missing any checks

I dont hink either side will negoiate anything till the appeal is herd on June 3rd and then the decision is given probably after July 4th.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Maybe, just maybe, the 8th circuits tend (assuming the grant the stay) to favor the owners will encourage the players to start negotiating in mediation May 16th? If the players lose the June hearing they will have lost all leverage to negotiate without missing any checks

By negotiating, you mean the players completely fall on their collective swords. Because as it stands now, there is zero motivation for the owners to come to the table any time before June 3rd.

 

[renesauz]

Maybe, just maybe, the 8th circuits tend (assuming the grant the stay) to favor the owners will encourage the players to start negotiating in mediation May 16th? If the players lose the June hearing they will have lost all leverage to negotiate without missing any checks

By negotiating, you mean the players completely fall on their collective swords. Because as it stands now, there is zero motivation for the owners to come to the table any time before June 3rd.

I don't believe this for a second. The players still have the legal advantage. The owners can't operate without a CBA. The owner's advantages are all short term, and both sides know it. The order to lift the lockout took away the only real advantage the owners had (which was short term), and gave the players ALL the negotiating power. The players gambled that they could win that specific battle and gain the SIGNIFICANT upper hand in court. There was no downside to the players gamble, because had they lost, they were in essentially the same place they were at 2 or 3 months ago - either close to even footing or a slight advantage to the owners (depending on your perspective).The owners don't have all that much to gain in this specific court case, because the court isn't ruling on the real underlying issues, just the surface issue of who stands to lose more if there is or isn't football. But they have everything to lose.A protracted dispute is more likely without a lockout. THIS SEASON is more likely without it....but the basic setup of the NFL as we've known it, and come to love, is probably in better shape with the lockout in place. A CBA will (IMO) come much more quickly with the lockout in place, and will be more fair to the owners.IE: Players wanted a lockout ruled illegal so they could dictate terms. They didn't really care to negotiate before.Owners wanted to negotiate before and now, but with a lockout in place to mainatin at least a short term financial advantage since they have no legal advantage.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Brees running OTAs

This is probably legal. But it seems like the players are already breaking ranks with the intent of the lockout. Drew Brees is conducting his own Saints mini-camp at Tulane University for 39 Saints players and footing the bill. For those players that followed the advice of the players association and sat tight awaiting the resolution, they are behind the 8-ball.

Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2011/05/new_orleans_saints_quarterback_96.html

 

[D.J.]

Maybe, just maybe, the 8th circuits tend (assuming the grant the stay) to favor the owners will encourage the players to start negotiating in mediation May 16th? If the players lose the June hearing they will have lost all leverage to negotiate without missing any checks

By negotiating, you mean the players completely fall on their collective swords. Because as it stands now, there is zero motivation for the owners to come to the table any time before June 3rd.

I don't believe this for a second. The players still have the legal advantage. The owners can't operate without a CBA. The owner's advantages are all short term, and both sides know it. The order to lift the lockout took away the only real advantage the owners had (which was short term), and gave the players ALL the negotiating power. The players gambled that they could win that specific battle and gain the SIGNIFICANT upper hand in court. There was no downside to the players gamble, because had they lost, they were in essentially the same place they were at 2 or 3 months ago - either close to even footing or a slight advantage to the owners (depending on your perspective).The owners don't have all that much to gain in this specific court case, because the court isn't ruling on the real underlying issues, just the surface issue of who stands to lose more if there is or isn't football. But they have everything to lose.A protracted dispute is more likely without a lockout. THIS SEASON is more likely without it....but the basic setup of the NFL as we've known it, and come to love, is probably in better shape with the lockout in place. A CBA will (IMO) come much more quickly with the lockout in place, and will be more fair to the owners.IE: Players wanted a lockout ruled illegal so they could dictate terms. They didn't really care to negotiate before.Owners wanted to negotiate before and now, but with a lockout in place to mainatin at least a short term financial advantage since they have no legal advantage.

I think I agree with on most of this. The owners certainly have motivation to negotiate. While they may have a perceived advantage in the 8th circuit, as we have seen, this is no slam dunk. I think this may be the first time in a while that both sides may be motivated to talk. The owners dont care about winning in court, they just want to improve the cba they had before. Winning in court just gives then more time to put pressure on the players. They players need to win in court or they will soon lose a lot of their income (a much higher percent than most owners will lose, I think). I dont care who wins, I just want it to end, for what its worth

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Some will say "good for Brees", but I will argue that this whole thing should be shut down, so everyone is on an even playing field.

It can't really be shut down. During the lockout, the owners have no control over what the players can or can't do on their own. The players don't work for the owners.