I agree completely, I'm glad the lawyers are doing their thing and hope they continue to. But what is stopping the owners and players from meeting at the same time? the owners and players meeting doesnt have to mean that the lawyers have to stop meeting? For the most part the lawyers havent been involved with the other meetings anyway
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Boylan goes on vacation Saturday. I'm pretty sure agreement in principle is reached by Friday.
If not, no panic needed...they wil get this done without missing any regular season games. Only the owners and about 12 fans care about preseason games. The owners will give the players what they want-48%-in the end.
If not, no panic needed...they wil get this done without missing any regular season games. Only the owners and about 12 fans care about preseason games. The owners will give the players what they want-48%-in the end.
jacobo_moses
Footballguy
Yeah I just saw this link too
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/06/mediator-starts-a-vacation-on-saturday/
So if Boylan goes on Vacation Saturday. That means A they are that close and a deal will be done at the end of the week or early next week at the latests.
Or It means B. They are still far enough apart that he can go on vacation and not much will change. What do you guys think?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/06/mediator-starts-a-vacation-on-saturday/
So if Boylan goes on Vacation Saturday. That means A they are that close and a deal will be done at the end of the week or early next week at the latests.
Or It means B. They are still far enough apart that he can go on vacation and not much will change. What do you guys think?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
My thought is (A) Boylan doesn't give a crap about these guys when he goes home. I get the sense he's doing a great job and very invested in the process, but he's far enough advanced in his work and not paid on commission or incentive here, so he isn't going to adjust his schedule according to them--they have to adjust according to him. He's taking his vacation regardless of whether they feel they need him or not. If my read on that is accurate, then good for him. That's the way to do it.My second thought is (B) they are likely very close to a deal. John Clayton thinks the owners are at giving the players 46% total revenue, and the players want 48%. In the end, I think the players prevail, but either way...I think they're close enough (and satisfied on all the other loose ends) to come reach agreement by Friday and use next week to rally the troops to get a vote and secure a new CBA by/around the 15th.Yeah I just saw this link toohttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/06/mediator-starts-a-vacation-on-saturday/So if Boylan goes on Vacation Saturday. That means A they are that close and a deal will be done at the end of the week or early next week at the latests. Or It means B. They are still far enough apart that he can go on vacation and not much will change. What do you guys think?
Last edited by a moderator:
jacobo_moses
Footballguy
Let's hope so Cobalt27 Lets hope so. 
I hope that by July 15th most of us are doing this
And not this
I hope that by July 15th most of us are doing this
And not this
I imagine this is a goos thing. If things blew up today we would have heard by now.It may not.be "ok, we have a deal, what do you think?" But I imagine that it is at least "they made this offer, what tweaks can we make and what will we accept tomorrow?"
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Nope thats how they roll
The district court's order is vacated, meaning that the appellate court sided with the owners and upheld the lockout.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
very odd on the timing, wonder if this means that the talks have stalled?? Wonder if a take it or leave it proposal is coming from the owners.
Some highlights from the opinion:
1. This case involves or grows out of a labor dispute, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act therefore applies. "Whatever the effect of the union’s disclaimer on the League’s immunity from antitrust liability, the labor dispute did not suddenly disappear just because the Players elected to pursue the dispute through antitrust litigation rather than collective bargaining."
2. The Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits courts from issuing injunctions forcing anyone "to remain in any relation of employment," which means that lockouts cannot be enjoined. "[W]e conclude that § 4(a) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives a federal court of power to issue an injunction prohibiting a party to a labor dispute from implementing a lockout of its employees."
3. This one is interesting. The lockout with respect to signed players cannot be enjoined, but the lockout with respect to free agents and rookies (since they are not "in any relation of employment") could possibly be enjoined if the district court holds a hearing about it first. As soon as any free agents or rookies are signed, they would be immediately locked out just like everybody else; but it's possible that teams cannot collectively agree not to sign them in the first place. This issue will go back to the district court.
4. The appellate court did not decide how long the nonstatutory labor exemption lasts. It therefore did not decide whether the lockout is legal, or for how long it might be legal (six months? a year?). It decided only that an injunction against the lockout is not an available remedy. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the players could be awarded damages after the fact.
1. This case involves or grows out of a labor dispute, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act therefore applies. "Whatever the effect of the union’s disclaimer on the League’s immunity from antitrust liability, the labor dispute did not suddenly disappear just because the Players elected to pursue the dispute through antitrust litigation rather than collective bargaining."
2. The Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits courts from issuing injunctions forcing anyone "to remain in any relation of employment," which means that lockouts cannot be enjoined. "[W]e conclude that § 4(a) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives a federal court of power to issue an injunction prohibiting a party to a labor dispute from implementing a lockout of its employees."
3. This one is interesting. The lockout with respect to signed players cannot be enjoined, but the lockout with respect to free agents and rookies (since they are not "in any relation of employment") could possibly be enjoined if the district court holds a hearing about it first. As soon as any free agents or rookies are signed, they would be immediately locked out just like everybody else; but it's possible that teams cannot collectively agree not to sign them in the first place. This issue will go back to the district court.
4. The appellate court did not decide how long the nonstatutory labor exemption lasts. It therefore did not decide whether the lockout is legal, or for how long it might be legal (six months? a year?). It decided only that an injunction against the lockout is not an available remedy. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the players could be awarded damages after the fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
T J
Footballguy
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Maybe Judge Boylan has been giving more info to the courts than we knew about.Players have no leverage at all now, none what so ever, if games are missed it hurts them more as far as lost salary and a worse deal.Owners don't want to lose the money, but with all the leverage again, they dont care.
T J
Footballguy
The owners have the leverage now, but if/when the anti-trust suits are ruled on, they wouldn't.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
The players could win a lot of money from Judge Doty's decision. That might tide them over for a while and would increase the losses suffered by the owners.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Maybe, but the risk in not favorable, in my opinion. Maybe it is to them, who already are struggling to get jobs in other fields as it is.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
True, but then all this talking has been a colossal waste of time.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
8th Cicruit ruling not a total victory for owners, some say. The antitrust case/damages lingers in this ruling, so leaves motive for settlement, but I fail to see how the players can win anything as the judges have been stacked against them at the important levels.
Half of $9 billion is about $4.5 billion . . . trebled damages = about $13.5 billion.The appellate court did not say that the lockout is legal. It said only that an injunction can't be issued against it — for jurisdictional reasons only. Those jurisdictional reasons will not apply to the the players' claim for damages.
The owners are still looking at the possibility of a $12-$13 billion judgment against them if the regular season is missed.
That's at least some leverage.
Last edited by a moderator:
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
The leverage they have has a little confusion with it, Court ruled lockout doesn't apply to unsigned players (rookies/free agents), what that all mean?
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a separate issue that has little to do with any real leverage. But it means that even if the lockout lasts throughout the season, the district court has jurisdictional authority to enjoin the lockout against free agents and rookies as long as it complies with the Norris-LaGuardia Act's procedural requirements, which includes holding a hearing to get some more facts on the table.So the district court could hold a hearing, enjoin the lockout with respect to rookies and free agents, and then teams would be able to sign rookies and free agents even if, once signed, those players are immediately locked out afterwards.
Last edited by a moderator:
Superdbs
Footballguy
The timing of the ruling is troubling to me-- even though the result was expected, they held it back this long so why hand it down now with the negotiations supposedly in the "red zone"? The combination of this ruling being made now plus Boylan leaving the talks for vacation makes me think this whole thing could go south in a hurry. Who's going to keep the talks on point and not lose the momentum? Will the owners try to stick it to the players now, or can worthless Goodell reign them in enough to get to the finish line? Trying to stay positive here, but a little worried that things fall apart at the last minute.
Last edited by a moderator:
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
After disecting all this, maybe they have a little leverage, lol...my bad.Loophole in Eighth Circuit ruling should discourage owners from dropping the hammer.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/08/loophole-in-eighth-circuit-ruling-should-discourage-owners-from-dropping-the-hammer/
Last edited by a moderator:
steelcitysledgehammers
Footballguy
Again, this entire situation was brought about because the owners cannot agree on how to run their business.
It has always been about revenue sharing between owners. Don't you find it odd that information has "leaked" from the negotiations concerning the players/owners split, rookie wages, contract length, etc, but there hasn't been a word breathed about revenue sharing?
The media (Andrew Brandt) finally broached the subject yesterday in his blog. Kudos to him for actually doing some reporting beyond the daily regurgitation of "progress is being made" and "another setback has occurred". The fact is, until you hear something about a revenue sharing deal between the owners, we are no closer to a resolution to this issue than we were 4 months ago.
The appellate courts decision today does nothing to move us closer/further from football. We continue to await the owners to get their own backyards in order before they'll let us have any football.
Screw the owners!
J
It has always been about revenue sharing between owners. Don't you find it odd that information has "leaked" from the negotiations concerning the players/owners split, rookie wages, contract length, etc, but there hasn't been a word breathed about revenue sharing?
The media (Andrew Brandt) finally broached the subject yesterday in his blog. Kudos to him for actually doing some reporting beyond the daily regurgitation of "progress is being made" and "another setback has occurred". The fact is, until you hear something about a revenue sharing deal between the owners, we are no closer to a resolution to this issue than we were 4 months ago.
The appellate courts decision today does nothing to move us closer/further from football. We continue to await the owners to get their own backyards in order before they'll let us have any football.
Screw the owners!
J
I don't think they "held it back." It took three full weeks, remember, simply to grant a stay of the preliminary injunction. Taking five weeks to hand down an opinion resolving the appeal isn't extraordinary.
Last edited by a moderator:
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
The NFL and NFLPA released a joint statement here it is... http://bit.ly/q9qW5N
"While we respect the court’s decision, today’s ruling does not change our mutual recognition that this matter must be resolved through negotiation. We are committed to our current discussions and reaching a fair agreement that will benefit all parties for years to come, and allow for a full 2011 season."
Edited to fix link.
"While we respect the court’s decision, today’s ruling does not change our mutual recognition that this matter must be resolved through negotiation. We are committed to our current discussions and reaching a fair agreement that will benefit all parties for years to come, and allow for a full 2011 season."
Edited to fix link.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think this switches any leverage to the owners. I imagine the players lawyers expected this. They still have the anti-trust suit and the TV-suit. If this deal doesn't get done in 7-10 days, I would not expect much, if any football. I also don't think revenue sharing is going to be the reason a deal doesn't get done. I am thinking it will be court oversight of the proposed new CBA. Owners want to say goodbye to Judges Nelson & Doty.
Not sure what you mean here. There have been numerous reports about the revenue split. I think youre whole outlook on this is scewed.Also, someone pointed out that perhaps boylan is talking to the courts.more than thought. I think he is.telling them everything that is going on, and both sides know that. I think that this ruling was made very deliberatly and that the timing is no coincidence. I know that some of you think it would be wrong for the courts to base their decision on how the talks are going, but I think that is whats happening (i also think its the right thing for them to.do). This ruling really isnt a surprise on the surface but isnt a total win for the owners. Throwing the subject of non-contract employees (rookies and free agents) back to the circuit could be a big win for the players that are desperate for cash during a lockout (if signing bonuses get.paid).
I think the ruling came out today to prove that the.courts really will rule so that no one is happy and settling is the besy option. The ruling really doesnt change anything because the basic assumptions havent changed.
I really think this ruling will help push for a settlement
T J
Footballguy
I am anti-player on this 100%. And when you say "screw the owners", I'm saying kind of the same except it isn't "screw the players". My word starts with an "F".
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
we'll see, Im hopeful but really the business side of sports sucks ###
Ksquared
Footballguy
Well at least you are consistent. If the owners gave the players an 80/20 split you would still be blaming them.
steelcitysledgehammers
Footballguy
You are correct. You don't understand what I mean.I am NOT talking about the revenue split between the owners and the players. I am talking about how the owners plan on sharing their portion of the split amongst themselves. Until the owners come to consensus on revenue sharing between teams, there will be no deal.This is 100% an owner issue, but the players and us fans are the ones suffering.Screw the owners!J
As usual, a bunch of BS. The reason we have no football is not due exclusively to the owners revenue sharing issues. The players clearly got too good of a deal in the last CBA and owners believed that some tweaking of formulas was needed. This is and has always been a search for an equilibrium between the competing interests of the individual teams, NFL as a whole, and the players. When the players felt they had the hammer they were certainly willing to swing it as evidenced by their decision to drop union status and their ensuing court filings even asking for events to occur that supposedly they did not even want to happen. This will be settled when both sides agree to agree but it is asinine to say 100% of the blame belongs to either side.'steelcitysledgehammers said:
Superdbs
Footballguy
I agree with what you're saying, but I have read in a couple of different places that there was a strong sense the ruling had already been decided at an earlier point in time and the opinion written and that the court, who had agreed to expedite a ruling in the first place, had been holding it back to enable the sides to come to an agreement outside of the courtroom. Of course, most of that could just be speculation, but this whole process seems to be such a house of cards, I'm wary of any breeze that could blow it over'Maurile Tremblay said:
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
I think on the contrary, the ruling existed as a formality of sorts but with Boylan about to exit stage left, a legal presence was probably seen as still necessary to ensure a backslide did not occur. Consider that even throughout all of this positive progress, the one thing you continue to hear is that negotations are still fragile/tenuous. It was only 8 days ago that these negotiations almost imploded.With the public ruling, this continues to put pressure on both sides to continue to move forward without Boylan in the room. I will say that the ruling IMO does not represent a win/loss for either side, but the spectre of this disintegrating now with the ruling made public puts pressure on both parties to get the deal done.I agree with what you're saying, but I have read in a couple of different places that there was a strong sense the ruling had already been decided at an earlier point in time and the opinion written and that the court, who had agreed to expedite a ruling in the first place, had been holding it back to enable the sides to come to an agreement outside of the courtroom. Of course, most of that could just be speculation, but this whole process seems to be such a house of cards, I'm wary of any breeze that could blow it over'Maurile Tremblay said:
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Get help somewhere. Please.'steelcitysledgehammers said:
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
I got a bad feeling now.
The court made this ruling, no boylan in the room to keep everything straight.
why are they not working this weekend?
this isnt getting done anytime soon, me thinks
The court made this ruling, no boylan in the room to keep everything straight.
why are they not working this weekend?
this isnt getting done anytime soon, me thinks
cobalt_27
Footballguy
I'm not terribly worried. Backs still are not against the wall, as much as we feel they are. We'll get an agreement next week. Wednesday, in fact, when there is absolutely nothing going on in sports. It will dominate the tv and radio airwaves with nothing but positive vibes. Never underestimate the media manipulation factor in all this.
Fire the Fat Man
Footballguy
I agree this is starting to look like this could last into August. Which is complete bull rap. Both parties are greedy and equally are the problem. This is really starting to piss me off. They could care less about the fans, who are the ones that made this game so profitable. Plus, they could care less about all the people that rely on them for income. How about the towns that hold training camps? If this doesn't get settled next week most if not all of the towns will lose training camp for this season and will never be able to recoup that lost income. Also, how about all the employees that work for these teams that are already losing income. Teams have already stated if they lose preseason games they won't repay the employees, which is complete crap.I am starting to not give a crap about the NFL anymore and part of me hopes they miss regular season games, bc if that happens I am pretty sure the fans won't flock back and this could turn into what happened to MLB
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness
Footballguy
linkThat is why the ruling creates no particular leverage for either side.
I give them another week or 2 of continued negotiations, and I think they'll have a deal by then. If they don't have one in a week or 2 we'll be looking at major financial losses and I think negotiations may then fall apart.
second source
Last edited by a moderator:
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
I aint gonna deny it, I kinda hope that they miss a few games, cuz when they come back...they will regret it. And I would love to watch the league eat crow, players and owners both, cuz they both will suffer financial and popularity loss. In this day in age with a sensitive public, if they miss games, I promise that it will not turn out well for the league...it never does.
That's an odd thing for two separate stories to say. Unless I'm missing something, the players have no reason to re-file. They've already filed. The case is still pending. The preliminary injunction against the lockout is vacated, but the rest of the case is set to go forward after it's determined whether the full 8th Circuit will rehear the appeal en banc. (I don't think the players will appeal to the Supreme Court at this stage. What would be the point? It'd take longer to get a ruling from the Supreme Court on the injunction than it would to get a judgment for damages.)I generally don't do federal stuff. But my understanding is that the district court will get this case back within 21 days if the players do not request a rehearing en banc. If they do request one, the district court will get this case back 7 days after the request is denied, or after the full panel rules if the request is granted.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness
Footballguy
Well I certainly don't know all the legalities of it as you do. But I do know I read that same information in 4 or 5 sources today, and filed it away mentally under "OK, nobody gets any real advantage from this court decision; I guess the court is just putting pressure on both sides to keep negotiating by issuing the decision now."
Keep in mind that the sides still do.not have their backs against the wall. Until they do, they will fight over the last couple pieces. This is a game of chicken and they are still 50 yards from crashing. not to say that the wont crash, but they still have time. I hoped that they would figure it out today, but a deal early next week will have the same results as a deal today.
The ruling could have been better for either party. I agree that it doesn't change the balance of power all that much. There's still a ton of risk for both sides. The owners have to be happy that the lockout can remain in place, but they got no assurance that the lockout is legally allowed. They still face potentially huge damages as a result of continuing the lockout, so the pressure is on to get a CBA done.I just thought the language about "re-filing" was weird. I've never heard of having to re-file a lawsuit that wasn't dismissed. But it's kind of a weird error to spread across multiple stories like that.
Not sure how this really changes anything in the power balance, as this ruling was pretty much what was already expected.
IN a lost season, the owners lose just as much as the players. The idea that owners WANT to lock out a season is ludicrous.
Enjoining the lockout and forcing the NFL to open without a CBA would have been far more harmful to the NFL as we've come to know (and love) it.
IN a lost season, the owners lose just as much as the players. The idea that owners WANT to lock out a season is ludicrous.
Enjoining the lockout and forcing the NFL to open without a CBA would have been far more harmful to the NFL as we've come to know (and love) it.
