NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

I suspect that the owners would be OK with that as a temporary solution . . .

If that's true, they really shouldn't have opted out of the last CBA early.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law. Without a CBA, the NFL can't operate without opening itself up to further lawsuits. IN such a scenario it seems very reasonable to suspend all operations until a resolution is reached. If a judge were to force the NFL to open for business, that same judge would have to stipulate some conditions and limitations which would in turn provide the owners with at least SOME protection. IE: An order to continue under conditions similar to the last CBA until fruther hearings could be scheduled.

I remember reading somewhere in one of the threads that this is what would probably happen if the players win in reversing the lockout.

I don't think a court would have the authority to order something like that. I think Congress would have to do it.If virtually every aspect of the owners' businesses are violating antitrust laws, the court's job is not to provide protection; it's to provide a remedy.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What the players are arguing, I think, is that you can't collude as a group(owners) to keep people with valid contracts from working. When they had an agreement(CBA) they could have locked them out legally and basically suspended the CBA but since the players decertified and the CBA expired there is nothing tying the players to any rules imposed by the owners. This is my take on the legal situation and trying to simplify it for my own benefit as much as others. If I am wrong, please correct me as I am not, nor have ever been a lawyer or even stayed at the proverbial Holiday inn.

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law. Without a CBA, the NFL can't operate without opening itself up to further lawsuits. IN such a scenario it seems very reasonable to suspend all operations until a resolution is reached. If a judge were to force the NFL to open for business, that same judge would have to stipulate some conditions and limitations which would in turn provide the owners with at least SOME protection. IE: An order to continue under conditions similar to the last CBA until fruther hearings could be scheduled.

Seems the players would have been happy with an extension, but the owners opted out.

Then the owners prepared for the lock out, and negotiated TV contracts unfairly to have leverage over the players. At that point, the players had 2 options, the owners wanted to re-negotiate with the threat of locking the players out as leverage, which would cut off player finances, but the owners had negotiated TV contracts to fund their battle. Only way too fight back was for the players union to decertify which brings everything back to a balance.

Now the owners will be forced to negotiate fairly, come to an agreement, and re-establish the players union, or fall victim to the chaos you've described above.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law.

This is a pretty dangerous argument IMO. If the only way a business can operate is through a host of illegal activities things aren't going to go well for that business.It's like me saying, "but the only way I can make a million dollars is to rob a bank." There's no compelling reason for the state to think I deserve to be a millionaire. And there's no compelling reason for the state to think the NFL deserves to exist.

 

[renesauz]

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law.

This is a pretty dangerous argument IMO. If the only way a business can operate is through a host of illegal activities things aren't going to go well for that business.It's like me saying, "but the only way I can make a million dollars is to rob a bank." There's no compelling reason for the state to think I deserve to be a millionaire. And there's no compelling reason for the state to think the NFL deserves to exist.

draft: illegalRestricted FA: illegal

Trading players under contract: illegal

salary cap: illegal

salary floor: illegal

TV contracts: challengeable

revenue sharing: challengeable

I repeat my original question: HOW can the NFL continue to operate without a CBA? And if the players union can't recertify, HOW can the NFL operate as it has in the past at all?

This is uncharted territory. The owners WANT a CBA. They WANT a lockout to help force a CBA. If a judge orders them back to "business as usual", that order would have to answer the questions above, or it would have to temporarily allow the practices above. IN such a scenario, I imagine that the owners could use a reasonable cap and floor as compared to last years, or perhaps even the same cap and floor.

This wasn't about short term profits for the owners, but about forcing a different model. They were making SOME money, even if it wasn't as much as they'd like. The key part for them was the model, not the immediate figure. Being forced by a judge to use the last model for a single season while everything else gets litigated would not be a devastating blow at all. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think such an order would offer the NFL at least SOME protection.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law.

This is a pretty dangerous argument IMO. If the only way a business can operate is through a host of illegal activities things aren't going to go well for that business.It's like me saying, "but the only way I can make a million dollars is to rob a bank." There's no compelling reason for the state to think I deserve to be a millionaire. And there's no compelling reason for the state to think the NFL deserves to exist.

I repeat my original question: HOW can the NFL continue to operate without a CBA? And if the players union can't recertify, HOW can the NFL operate as it has in the past at all?

Aha... misunderstood your point here. The NFL could operate without a CBA by observing labor laws. There's no intrinsic reason it deserves a pass if it's not willing to engage in collective bargaining to the satisfaction of its employees.

But if the players prevail in court the price they'll pay to get one now is likely to be very high indeed.

As for not being able to recertify... Maurile pointed out in one of these threads there doesn't appear to be anything the would prevent the players from using de- and re- certifications strategically. Unless a court somewhere agrees, calling it a "sham" really doesn't have much legal meaning. The players are using it to increase salaries? So what?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law.

This is a pretty dangerous argument IMO. If the only way a business can operate is through a host of illegal activities things aren't going to go well for that business.It's like me saying, "but the only way I can make a million dollars is to rob a bank." There's no compelling reason for the state to think I deserve to be a millionaire. And there's no compelling reason for the state to think the NFL deserves to exist.

I repeat my original question: HOW can the NFL continue to operate without a CBA? And if the players union can't recertify, HOW can the NFL operate as it has in the past at all?

Aha... misunderstood your point here. The NFL could operate without a CBA by observing labor laws. There's no intrinsic reason it deserves a pass if it's not willing to engage in collective bargaining to the satisfaction of its employees.

But if the players prevail in court the price they'll pay to get one now is likely to be very high indeed.

As for not being able to recertify... Maurile pointed out in one of these threads there doesn't appear to be anything the would prevent the players from using de- and re- certifications strategically. Unless a court somewhere agrees, calling it a "sham" really doesn't have much legal meaning. The players are using it to increase salaries? So what?

Re-certifying will be one of the conditions in the negotiation. If the sky falls, and the players win in court but both sides still refuse to meet in the middle, then we have a problem. But for now, I think the owners aren't going to let the judge decide. As things look to be swinging in the favor of the players, the owners will be willing to negotiate fairly. But if the judge is allowed to rule on anti-trust laws, the players will have a huge advantage, and at that point it may be the players who become unreasonable.For all involved, I think going back to work under last years conditions and continuing to negotiate might be the best scenario at this point. But I think the owners will only agree to follow that logic if they think they'll lose in court.

The starve them out strategy didn't work.. Time to fall back on plan B.. Hope they had a plan B..

At this point the owners may have over played their hand.

 

[Orange Crush]

draft: illegal starting in 2012

Restricted FA: illegal

Trading players under contract: illegal may be allowed depending on language in the contract

salary cap: illegal

salary floor: illegal

TV contracts: challengeable protected through Congressional exemption to Antitrust Law

revenue sharing: challengeable limited to revenue gained through TV contracts

Fixed.The TV contracts are going to give teams with bad stadium situations some minimum level of team revenue, more than small market teams get in other sports. That alone should keep the NFL more competitive top-to-bottom than other sports. Also, its comforting to see the Chiefs and Bucs both had winning seasons last year in spite of ranking in the bottom 5 in team salaries. Nevertheless, I don't see a judge imposing labor conditions as part of her potential decision to end the player lockout.

The NFL will have to impose rules, and any deviation from what's listed above will be challenged in courts. It may be that they impose rules that cannot be challenged in court, which would dramatically change the league as we know it. Or it could be that they impose rules that are draconian on the players. The owners would most definitely lose in court, but they could drag that out so long that the players would beg for mercy before it ever got that far.

Regardless, we have to get the judge's decision on the injunction first.

 

[Cripster]

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law.

This is a pretty dangerous argument IMO. If the only way a business can operate is through a host of illegal activities things aren't going to go well for that business.It's like me saying, "but the only way I can make a million dollars is to rob a bank." There's no compelling reason for the state to think I deserve to be a millionaire. And there's no compelling reason for the state to think the NFL deserves to exist.

I repeat my original question: HOW can the NFL continue to operate without a CBA? And if the players union can't recertify, HOW can the NFL operate as it has in the past at all?

Aha... misunderstood your point here. The NFL could operate without a CBA by observing labor laws. There's no intrinsic reason it deserves a pass if it's not willing to engage in collective bargaining to the satisfaction of its employees.

But if the players prevail in court the price they'll pay to get one now is likely to be very high indeed.

As for not being able to recertify... Maurile pointed out in one of these threads there doesn't appear to be anything the would prevent the players from using de- and re- certifications strategically. Unless a court somewhere agrees, calling it a "sham" really doesn't have much legal meaning. The players are using it to increase salaries? So what?

Re-certifying will be one of the conditions in the negotiation. If the sky falls, and the players win in court but both sides still refuse to meet in the middle, then we have a problem. But for now, I think the owners aren't going to let the judge decide. As things look to be swinging in the favor of the players, the owners will be willing to negotiate fairly. But if the judge is allowed to rule on anti-trust laws, the players will have a huge advantage, and at that point it may be the players who become unreasonable.For all involved, I think going back to work under last years conditions and continuing to negotiate might be the best scenario at this point. But I think the owners will only agree to follow that logic if they think they'll lose in court.

The starve them out strategy didn't work.. Time to fall back on plan B.. Hope they had a plan B..

At this point the owners may have over played their hand.

Here is my question. I am assuming that the players with get the injunction. They feel that will give them a 2011 season. Will the owners actually be forced to pick their poison in terms of rules with no choice but to play and subject themselves to anti-trust suits.

 

[Cripster]

draft: illegal starting in 2012

Restricted FA: illegal

Trading players under contract: illegal may be allowed depending on language in the contract

salary cap: illegal

salary floor: illegal

TV contracts: challengeable protected through Congressional exemption to Antitrust Law

revenue sharing: challengeable limited to revenue gained through TV contracts

Fixed.The TV contracts are going to give teams with bad stadium situations some minimum level of team revenue, more than small market teams get in other sports. That alone should keep the NFL more competitive top-to-bottom than other sports. Also, its comforting to see the Chiefs and Bucs both had winning seasons last year in spite of ranking in the bottom 5 in team salaries. Nevertheless, I don't see a judge imposing labor conditions as part of her potential decision to end the player lockout.

The NFL will have to impose rules, and any deviation from what's listed above will be challenged in courts. It may be that they impose rules that cannot be challenged in court, which would dramatically change the league as we know it. Or it could be that they impose rules that are draconian on the players. The owners would most definitely lose in court, but they could drag that out so long that the players would beg for mercy before it ever got that far.

Regardless, we have to get the judge's decision on the injunction first.

Is the draft illegal because there is no active CBA. I realize basbeball is an exception. But other sports have draft. I assume its okay if its in the CBA.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

draft: illegal starting in 2012

Restricted FA: illegal

Trading players under contract: illegal may be allowed depending on language in the contract

salary cap: illegal

salary floor: illegal

TV contracts: challengeable protected through Congressional exemption to Antitrust Law

revenue sharing: challengeable limited to revenue gained through TV contracts

Fixed.The TV contracts are going to give teams with bad stadium situations some minimum level of team revenue, more than small market teams get in other sports. That alone should keep the NFL more competitive top-to-bottom than other sports. Also, its comforting to see the Chiefs and Bucs both had winning seasons last year in spite of ranking in the bottom 5 in team salaries. Nevertheless, I don't see a judge imposing labor conditions as part of her potential decision to end the player lockout.

The NFL will have to impose rules, and any deviation from what's listed above will be challenged in courts. It may be that they impose rules that cannot be challenged in court, which would dramatically change the league as we know it. Or it could be that they impose rules that are draconian on the players. The owners would most definitely lose in court, but they could drag that out so long that the players would beg for mercy before it ever got that far.

Regardless, we have to get the judge's decision on the injunction first.

Is the draft illegal because there is no active CBA. I realize basbeball is an exception. But other sports have draft. I assume its okay if its in the CBA.

baseball has a draft

 

[plastik]

Interesting site with (i think) the full letter to Goodell posted:

http://www.nfllockout.com/

 

[cobalt_27]

You may or may not be correct, but HOW can the NFL operate? Virtually every aspect of "normal business" violates anti-trust law.

This is a pretty dangerous argument IMO. If the only way a business can operate is through a host of illegal activities things aren't going to go well for that business.It's like me saying, "but the only way I can make a million dollars is to rob a bank." There's no compelling reason for the state to think I deserve to be a millionaire. And there's no compelling reason for the state to think the NFL deserves to exist.

I thought you were kind of silly before, but now it's clear you've absolutely lost your mind.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

A good article on why the NFL alumni suit could be a real problem for the owners.

And a well-articulated opinion piece in support of the players. You don't have to agree, but it's a really good summary of why some of us are more sympathetic to the players.

 

[cobalt_27]

A good article on why the NFL alumni suit could be a real problem for the owners.

And a well-articulated opinion piece in support of the players. You don't have to agree, but it's a really good summary of why some of us are more sympathetic to the players.

If the court upholds the lockout, the players are going to have a hard time of it the rest of the way.Philosophically, there are reasons to support either side (although, I am much less compelled by the players' position). As a practical matter, though, if you're rooting the health of the game and for football to be played this year, you're rooting for the owners. If you like a good fight and don't care if football is played, pick the players.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

A good article on why the NFL alumni suit could be a real problem for the owners.

And a well-articulated opinion piece in support of the players. You don't have to agree, but it's a really good summary of why some of us are more sympathetic to the players.

If the court upholds the lockout, the players are going to have a hard time of it the rest of the way.Philosophically, there are reasons to support either side (although, I am much less compelled by the players' position). As a practical matter, though, if you're rooting the health of the game and for football to be played this year, you're rooting for the owners. If you like a good fight and don't care if football is played, pick the players.

If the players are not a union anymore, why is the union paying players their lockout funds starting soon???? Its a Scham man

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81efe853/article/nflpa-to-pay-players-from-lockout-fund-starting-april-15?module=HP_headlines

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A good article on why the NFL alumni suit could be a real problem for the owners.

And a well-articulated opinion piece in support of the players. You don't have to agree, but it's a really good summary of why some of us are more sympathetic to the players.

If the court upholds the lockout, the players are going to have a hard time of it the rest of the way.Philosophically, there are reasons to support either side (although, I am much less compelled by the players' position). As a practical matter, though, if you're rooting the health of the game and for football to be played this year, you're rooting for the owners. If you like a good fight and don't care if football is played, pick the players.

If the players are not a union anymore, why is the union paying players their lockout funds starting soon???? Its a Scham man

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81efe853/article/nflpa-to-pay-players-from-lockout-fund-starting-april-15?module=HP_headlines

Fiduciary responsibilities will often last beyond the life of an organization. If they still have funds from the players in an account... then paying out the funds back to the layers is a non-issue.

 

[cobalt_27]

A good article on why the NFL alumni suit could be a real problem for the owners.

And a well-articulated opinion piece in support of the players. You don't have to agree, but it's a really good summary of why some of us are more sympathetic to the players.

If the court upholds the lockout, the players are going to have a hard time of it the rest of the way.Philosophically, there are reasons to support either side (although, I am much less compelled by the players' position). As a practical matter, though, if you're rooting the health of the game and for football to be played this year, you're rooting for the owners. If you like a good fight and don't care if football is played, pick the players.

If the players are not a union anymore, why is the union paying players their lockout funds starting soon???? Its a Scham man

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81efe853/article/nflpa-to-pay-players-from-lockout-fund-starting-april-15?module=HP_headlines

It's all pretty silly. I'm sure it's on the up-and-up, but there's no doubt that decertification was a strategy, not a true intent to get rid of the union.I predict this will be over with sooner rather than later. The players have very little left in their chamber. They got the owners to move considerably and prematurely decertified. Only a matter of time before the inmates start telling the wardens to back off and let them play for a LOT of money.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I can't really see how it matters why the players are deciding to decertify. Unless it's illegal (and it doesn't sound like it is) they're completely within their right to use it strategically to improve their position.

As for wanting football in 2011... the best outcome is for the lockout to be ruled illegal. Free agency would most likely start immediately and we'd be pretty close to guaranteed a full season.

 

[cobalt_27]

I can't really see how it matters why the players are deciding to decertify. Unless it's illegal (and it doesn't sound like it is) they're completely within their right to use it strategically to improve their position.As for wanting football in 2011... the best outcome is for the lockout to be ruled illegal. Free agency would most likely start immediately and we'd be pretty close to guaranteed a full season.

No one said they weren't in their right. You're paranoid about this. The players have every legal right to do what they've done. Of course, they could have bargained in good faith, and that would have been their right, too. But, they decided to litigate, which was the plan all along.If the lockout is illegal, the NFL will institute its own rules, and the PA will litigate the anti-trust stuff. We'll be in court forever. I can understand aligning one's self with the players here, though. This is the most important human rights issue since we abolished slavery. Just as Adrian Peterson.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

A good article on why the NFL alumni suit could be a real problem for the owners.

And a well-articulated opinion piece in support of the players. You don't have to agree, but it's a really good summary of why some of us are more sympathetic to the players.

If the court upholds the lockout, the players are going to have a hard time of it the rest of the way.Philosophically, there are reasons to support either side (although, I am much less compelled by the players' position). As a practical matter, though, if you're rooting the health of the game and for football to be played this year, you're rooting for the owners. If you like a good fight and don't care if football is played, pick the players.

If the players are not a union anymore, why is the union paying players their lockout funds starting soon???? Its a Scham man

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81efe853/article/nflpa-to-pay-players-from-lockout-fund-starting-april-15?module=HP_headlines

Fiduciary responsibilities will often last beyond the life of an organization. If they still have funds from the players in an account... then paying out the funds back to the layers is a non-issue.

exactly..

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The players have every legal right to do what they've done. Of course, they could have bargained in good faith, and that would have been their right, too. But, they decided to litigate, which was the plan all along.

You assert an awful lot of your personal opinions as fact. No one knows who decided to do what when.I can point to the fact that the NFL opted out of the CBA two years early with much attendant chest beating. Then hired the former NHL labor lawyer that oversaw the lost year in hockey. Then negotiated a deal with the TV networks specifically with an eye towards helping them in event of a lockout.And I can point to those things before the NFLPA took any action at all. For example, the hiring of D. Smith - aka 'The Litigator'. Who wasn't selected to replace Upshaw until after all those actions had been taken.What evidence can you point to that suggests that the lockout/decertification was a strategy initiated and driven by the NFLPA?

 

[roarlions]

I can't really see how it matters why the players are deciding to decertify. Unless it's illegal (and it doesn't sound like it is) they're completely within their right to use it strategically to improve their position.As for wanting football in 2011... the best outcome is for the lockout to be ruled illegal. Free agency would most likely start immediately and we'd be pretty close to guaranteed a full season.

I actually think it does matter why the NFLPA decided to decertify, since there seems to be a lot of false impressions about what the players want to happen. I've seen more than a few comments in various threads about the players wanting the NFL to be more like MLB, with free agency, no salary cap, etc., and that is why the NFLPA decertified. This train of thought seems to ignore that the players were perfectly content with the system that was already in place, which is completely unlike MLB. The last time the NFLPA decertified, the players won antitrust suits in the courts, but rather than remaining decertified and enforcing the gains they won in court, the recertified and agreed to the system that everyone here seems to agree was what made the NFL great. And that recertification is now held against the players by the owners and some fans as a sham and strictly a bargaining tactic. So I suppose the owners and fans would have been happier if the NFLPA had not recertified last time? I have no problem with fans blaming the players for wanting more money than fans think they are worth, but the accusations that the players want the NFL to be like MLB are just unfounded. If any group is trying to push the NFL to be more like MLB it is the big market owners who have consistently pushed to share less of their revenue with other owners and the small market owners who want a salary cap but not a salary floor. Those are both features of MLB which significantly affect the balance of power.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This train of thought seems to ignore that the players were perfectly content with the system that was already in place, which is completely unlike MLB. The last time the NFLPA decertified, the players won antitrust suits in the courts, but rather than remaining decertified and enforcing the gains they won in court, the recertified and agreed to the system that everyone here seems to agree was what made the NFL great.

 

[VTjkru]

I want to make sure I'm clear on a couple of points.

The ownership and the NFL as a whole would rather the players be unionized so that cost controlling measures can be put in place (free agency, draft, etc).

If the players arent unionized, then those cant be in place and players can be in a true free market.

Precedent has already been in place that favors the players in this situation.

The only reason the owners are going to court is to try to discredit the union decertification?

 

[roarlions]

I want to make sure I'm clear on a couple of points.The ownership and the NFL as a whole would rather the players be unionized so that cost controlling measures can be put in place (free agency, draft, etc).If the players arent unionized, then those cant be in place and players can be in a true free market.Precedent has already been in place that favors the players in this situation.The only reason the owners are going to court is to try to discredit the union decertification?

This may be a bit too simplistic, but is basically true. If the owners could get away with cost control measures without the presence of a union, that would probably be fine with them. In the past, that wasn't possible. However, some (most?) owners might feel that if the suits brought by the players are heard by someone other than Judge Doty, the league may not be as bad off as they were the last time the union decertified. If Doty is kept out of the process, the owners might not mind taking their chances in court this time.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

These are big numbers...

MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL players have put a number on how much money the league should pay back if it loses a court fight over $4 billion in television revenue.

Just what that number is wasn't disclosed Thursday in court documents filed by attorneys for the players. Exact amounts were redacted, but the figure certainly is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The players requested revenue "left on the table" in 2009 and 2010 when the NFL renegotiated broadcast contracts. U.S. District Judge David Doty ruled earlier this month that the league failed to maximize revenue for both sides to share when it reached the new deals. Doty scheduled a hearing for May 12 to address the request for damages.

The players also asked Doty for relief from the lockout while acknowledging the power to stop it rests with another judge in a hearing set for next week. Failing a court-ordered resumption of league business, the players requested the $4 billion "war chest" be kept away from the owners so they can't use it to "continue to fund" a lockout against them.

In addition to the first request, the players asked for at least three times the total amount of compensation awarded by the court. They cited precedent for "exemplary damages" because of the NFL's alleged "unconscionable" attempt to tilt the balance of labor talks by rigging the TV deals to build the "war chest" that would bring in money even if no games are played in 2011.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

These are big numbers...

Just what that number is wasn't disclosed Thursday in court documents filed by attorneys for the players.

I'm pretty sure it was disclosed in the documents filed with the court. Maybe not in the redacted copies distributed to the press.

 

[zed2283]

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

See you in court!!!!!

 

[scratcher]

Any updates on the proceedings? Can we trade Kolb yet...

 

[plastik]

Any updates on the proceedings? Can we trade Kolb yet...

Local blog at the philly enquirer:http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-eagles/119343084.html

 

[coolnerd]

Some profootballtalk.com

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-asks-owners-and-players-why-they-arent-in-mediation/

The court has been adjourned for a second time during Wednesday’s antitrust hearing, with session expected to pick back up at 3:00 p.m. ET.

Greg A. Bedard of the Boston Globe has a few interesting facts about the proceedings thus far.

Judge Susan Nelson reportedly mentioned mediation a few times early in the session, and wondered why the owners and players aren’t in mediation now instead.

Nelson also indicated that she’s “having a hard time with is a lockout being legal after a union decertification” according to Bedard.

The NFL’s attorney David Boies spent a lot more time answering questions from Judge Nelson than Jim Quinn, the attorney for the players.

“Nelson was very prepared,” Bedard writes. “Said this is all she’s done for two weeks.”

Perhaps that means we won’t have to wait too long for a decision. Beyond that, we’ll leave the analysis to those with law degrees.

 

[JFurby]

The only NFL game on the schedule kicked off in a St. Paul, Minn., court room Wednesday morning, and it appears the locked out players have taken an early lead.

Judge Susan Nelson, who is presiding over Brady v. NFL - the players' antitrust lawsuit against the league - appeared skeptical about the NFL owners' arguments during Wednesday's hearing on the players' request for an injunction to block the current lockout, according to various reports. She strongly questioned the owners' argument that a federal court has no legal jurisdiction in this labor dispute.

She also was quoted as saying the players "appear to have a strong case" that the lockout is causing them "irreparable harm" and should be ended immediately.

Whether Judge Nelson actually agrees with the players remains to be seen. Though she has the power to legally end the lockout, she is not expected to make a decision until next week at the earliest, though 2-3 weeks seems more likely. Any decision she makes will also likely be tied up in an appeal that may not be heard until sometime this summer.

She also reportedly mentioned mediation several times during Wednesday's hearing, leading some to speculate she'll order the two sides back to the bargaining table. This time the mediation would apparently be presided over by a judge.

NFL owners, though, don't think Nelson has the authority to rule at all on this case. Citing the Norris-Laguardia Act, David Boies, the high-powered lead attorney for the NFL, told the judge she has no jurisdiction and that the dispute belongs with the National Labor Relations Board. The owners filed an unfair labor practice charge against the NFL Players Association last month, claiming their decertification - which is a legal prerequisite for filing an antitrust lawsuit - is "a sham."

Boies added that even though the NFLPA is now technically a "trade association," it continues to act as a union and is the financial muscle behind the players' case.

"They're financing this lawsuit," Boies said of the NFLPA. "They're saying, 'We're no longer a collective bargaining agent, but we're going to continue to do all these things.'"

James Quinn, a lawyer for the players, disagreed.

"It's not some kind of tactic, it's the law," he said. "It's what we're allowed to do."

The hearing was attended by five of the named plaintiffs in the case - Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel, Vikings linebacker Ben Leber, Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson, Vikings defensive end Brian Robison and linebacker Von Miller, a likely first-round pick in the April 28 NFL draft.

Not in attendance were the highest profile plaintiffs: Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora, another one of the plaintiffs, also did not attend the hearing.

Link

I love the irony in seeing Vincent Jackson attend a hearing to prevent a lockout.

 

[Jason Wood]

I'm glad to see Nelson is not only a prepared judge, but also in possession of common sense. It really seems like she was telling both sides, "You really should meet in the middle and get this done on your own, because leaving this in the law's hands could lead to outcomes neither side wants" and yet, she's doing her job and reviewing the merits of the case without any feeling of pressure to rule quickly.

That said, I am not sure this all adds up to a fast resolution. She said she'll like take a few weeks, and then you can be sure the ruling will be appealed by the losing side.

SIGH

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'm glad to see Nelson is not only a prepared judge, but also in possession of common sense. It really seems like she was telling both sides, "You really should meet in the middle and get this done on your own, because leaving this in the law's hands could lead to outcomes neither side wants" and yet, she's doing her job and reviewing the merits of the case without any feeling of pressure to rule quickly.That said, I am not sure this all adds up to a fast resolution. She said she'll like take a few weeks, and then you can be sure the ruling will be appealed by the losing side.SIGH

Reports are she seemed to imply she was leaning in favor of ruling in favor of the players. Such statements aren't going to get the parties negotiating. The players are right where they want to be, in federal court in St. Paul. They won't sit at the negotiating table if they think they're winning. The owners, then, will wait and bide their time and appeal to St. Louis or Denver, where things are a little less labor friendly. If the players thought that they had a 50/50 shot or less at prevailing in St. Paul, there might be a chance for negotiation. As is, I don't see it happening.

 

[RUSF18]

The hearing was attended by five of the named plaintiffs in the case - Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel, Vikings linebacker Ben Leber, Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson, Vikings defensive end Brian Robison and linebacker Von Miller, a likely first-round pick in the April 28 NFL draft.

It was only supposed to be four...Vrabel just happened to be at the courthouse that day.

 

[roarlions]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f15b06/article/nfl-refuses-to-meet-with-nflpa-lawyers-ahead-of-hearing?module=HP_headlines?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0407

NFL refuses to meet with NFLPA lawyers ahead of hearing

By Albert Breer NFL Network

NFL Network Reporter

Published: April 4, 2011 at 03:11 p.m.

Updated: April 5, 2011 at 05:22 p.m.

The NFL Players Association offered to meet with the NFL last week in an effort to work out a litigation settlement in the Brady et al v. the National Football League et al case, potentially creating the framework for a new collective bargaining agreement, league and NFLPA sources said Monday.

But the unsettled ground this situation rests on again shook up any chance of that happening.

According to sources with the NFLPA, the trade association representing NFL players, the league declined to meet with the NFLPA's lawyers in advance of Wednesday, when the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit in Minnesota will hear arguments in the players' request for an injunction lifting the lockout.

"We are not interested in discussing a litigation settlement," league spokesman Greg Aiello said Monday. "We are prepared to continue negotiations immediately over the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement and communicated that to the NFLPA two weeks ago."

At issue with these meetings is the pending unfair labor practices charge that the NFL filed with the National Labor Relations Board. The NFL charges that the NFLPA's decertification is a "sham" and that the former union wasn't bargaining in good faith at the time of the filing in February.

The case makes it tricky for any negotiations toward a settlement to take place.

A trade association source claims the NFL "said it would only engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the NFLPA. Since the NFLPA is no longer a union, this is not legally possible, and the league knows this."

On the flip side, the NFL's stance in the NLRB case could hinge on the handling of negotiations with the NFLPA.

"We don't accept that their status is anything but a labor organization," Aiello wrote in an email. "That is our unfair labor practice charge before the NLRB."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm glad to see Nelson is not only a prepared judge, but also in possession of common sense. It really seems like she was telling both sides, "You really should meet in the middle and get this done on your own, because leaving this in the law's hands could lead to outcomes neither side wants" and yet, she's doing her job and reviewing the merits of the case without any feeling of pressure to rule quickly.That said, I am not sure this all adds up to a fast resolution. She said she'll like take a few weeks, and then you can be sure the ruling will be appealed by the losing side.SIGH

Reports are she seemed to imply she was leaning in favor of ruling in favor of the players. Such statements aren't going to get the parties negotiating. The players are right where they want to be, in federal court in St. Paul. They won't sit at the negotiating table if they think they're winning. The owners, then, will wait and bide their time and appeal to St. Louis or Denver, where things are a little less labor friendly. If the players thought that they had a 50/50 shot or less at prevailing in St. Paul, there might be a chance for negotiation. As is, I don't see it happening.

I think the opposite. The players don't really want long-term decertification. They want a new CBA, just like the owners do. But that's going to happen only after the owners and players have a more convergent opinion about the likely outcome of litigation. And in all likelihood, IMO, the owners will probably lose in court. The sooner they realize that, the sooner serious negotiations will occur.David Boies will generally be the best lawyer in whatever courtroom he steps into. But if he got to choose which side he'd rather argue, I suspect he'd rather argue the players' side. The law is more closely aligned with their position in this case, IMO.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f15b06/article/nfl-refuses-to-meet-with-nflpa-lawyers-ahead-of-hearing?module=HP_headlines?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0407NFL refuses to meet with NFLPA lawyers ahead of hearing By Albert Breer NFL Network NFL Network Reporter Published: April 4, 2011 at 03:11 p.m. Updated: April 5, 2011 at 05:22 p.m.The NFL Players Association offered to meet with the NFL last week in an effort to work out a litigation settlement in the Brady et al v. the National Football League et al case, potentially creating the framework for a new collective bargaining agreement, league and NFLPA sources said Monday.But the unsettled ground this situation rests on again shook up any chance of that happening.According to sources with the NFLPA, the trade association representing NFL players, the league declined to meet with the NFLPA's lawyers in advance of Wednesday, when the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit in Minnesota will hear arguments in the players' request for an injunction lifting the lockout."We are not interested in discussing a litigation settlement," league spokesman Greg Aiello said Monday. "We are prepared to continue negotiations immediately over the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement and communicated that to the NFLPA two weeks ago."At issue with these meetings is the pending unfair labor practices charge that the NFL filed with the National Labor Relations Board. The NFL charges that the NFLPA's decertification is a "sham" and that the former union wasn't bargaining in good faith at the time of the filing in February.The case makes it tricky for any negotiations toward a settlement to take place.A trade association source claims the NFL "said it would only engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the NFLPA. Since the NFLPA is no longer a union, this is not legally possible, and the league knows this."On the flip side, the NFL's stance in the NLRB case could hinge on the handling of negotiations with the NFLPA."We don't accept that their status is anything but a labor organization," Aiello wrote in an email. "That is our unfair labor practice charge before the NLRB."

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

 

[David Dodds]

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

I do think this is a dangerous game of chicken though . Yes the players are bleeding a lot more than the owners today. But if this somehow gets to July, I think that pressure definitely flips to the owners. Free agency will take 10 to 14 days. There needs to be some sort of training camp / preseason. So if a deal isn't done by the last week of July, the chance of a shortened (or lost) season definitely comes in play.

 

[cobalt_27]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f15b06/article/nfl-refuses-to-meet-with-nflpa-lawyers-ahead-of-hearing?module=HP_headlines?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0407NFL refuses to meet with NFLPA lawyers ahead of hearing By Albert Breer NFL Network NFL Network Reporter Published: April 4, 2011 at 03:11 p.m. Updated: April 5, 2011 at 05:22 p.m.The NFL Players Association offered to meet with the NFL last week in an effort to work out a litigation settlement in the Brady et al v. the National Football League et al case, potentially creating the framework for a new collective bargaining agreement, league and NFLPA sources said Monday.But the unsettled ground this situation rests on again shook up any chance of that happening.According to sources with the NFLPA, the trade association representing NFL players, the league declined to meet with the NFLPA's lawyers in advance of Wednesday, when the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit in Minnesota will hear arguments in the players' request for an injunction lifting the lockout."We are not interested in discussing a litigation settlement," league spokesman Greg Aiello said Monday. "We are prepared to continue negotiations immediately over the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement and communicated that to the NFLPA two weeks ago."At issue with these meetings is the pending unfair labor practices charge that the NFL filed with the National Labor Relations Board. The NFL charges that the NFLPA's decertification is a "sham" and that the former union wasn't bargaining in good faith at the time of the filing in February.The case makes it tricky for any negotiations toward a settlement to take place.A trade association source claims the NFL "said it would only engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the NFLPA. Since the NFLPA is no longer a union, this is not legally possible, and the league knows this."On the flip side, the NFL's stance in the NLRB case could hinge on the handling of negotiations with the NFLPA."We don't accept that their status is anything but a labor organization," Aiello wrote in an email. "That is our unfair labor practice charge before the NLRB."

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

Not sure how or why you've completely ignored how the NFLPA has behaved throughout. It's as though you've paid no attention to the chain of events here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Not sure how or why you've completely ignored how the NFLPA has behaved throughout. It's as though you've paid no attention to the chain of events here.

That's an interesting point.I'll give you a second chance to address it.

What evidence can you point to that the player weren't reacting to a series of overtly aggressive actions by the owners? Can you point to anything that suggests the players initiated the chain of events beforehand?

 

[Mello]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f15b06/article/nfl-refuses-to-meet-with-nflpa-lawyers-ahead-of-hearing?module=HP_headlines?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0407NFL refuses to meet with NFLPA lawyers ahead of hearing By Albert Breer NFL Network NFL Network Reporter Published: April 4, 2011 at 03:11 p.m. Updated: April 5, 2011 at 05:22 p.m.The NFL Players Association offered to meet with the NFL last week in an effort to work out a litigation settlement in the Brady et al v. the National Football League et al case, potentially creating the framework for a new collective bargaining agreement, league and NFLPA sources said Monday.But the unsettled ground this situation rests on again shook up any chance of that happening.According to sources with the NFLPA, the trade association representing NFL players, the league declined to meet with the NFLPA's lawyers in advance of Wednesday, when the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit in Minnesota will hear arguments in the players' request for an injunction lifting the lockout."We are not interested in discussing a litigation settlement," league spokesman Greg Aiello said Monday. "We are prepared to continue negotiations immediately over the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement and communicated that to the NFLPA two weeks ago."At issue with these meetings is the pending unfair labor practices charge that the NFL filed with the National Labor Relations Board. The NFL charges that the NFLPA's decertification is a "sham" and that the former union wasn't bargaining in good faith at the time of the filing in February.The case makes it tricky for any negotiations toward a settlement to take place.A trade association source claims the NFL "said it would only engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the NFLPA. Since the NFLPA is no longer a union, this is not legally possible, and the league knows this."On the flip side, the NFL's stance in the NLRB case could hinge on the handling of negotiations with the NFLPA."We don't accept that their status is anything but a labor organization," Aiello wrote in an email. "That is our unfair labor practice charge before the NLRB."

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

Not sure how or why you've completely ignored how the NFLPA has behaved throughout. It's as though you've paid no attention to the chain of events here.

The NFLPA has just done the only things it could for the players to retain what they had and try to ensure their players get paid this coming season. Coincidently, that would mean we would have football this year. They went to court early enough in the offseason to hopefully be able to get through the appeals process before the next season.

 

[cobalt_27]

The NFLPA has just done the only things it could for the players to retain what they had and try to ensure their players get paid this coming season. Coincidently, that would mean we would have football this year. They went to court early enough in the offseason to hopefully be able to get through the appeals process before the next season.

You're kidding, right? This bolded statement reflects either (a) you are suffering from amnesia or (b) you deliberately tuned out all of the events that immediately preceded their decision to trash the negotiations and decertify.

 

[cobalt_27]

Not sure how or why you've completely ignored how the NFLPA has behaved throughout. It's as though you've paid no attention to the chain of events here.

That's an interesting point.I'll give you a second chance to address it.

What evidence can you point to that the player weren't reacting to a series of overtly aggressive actions by the owners? Can you point to anything that suggests the players initiated the chain of events beforehand?

They decertified.

 

[cobalt_27]

The players have every legal right to do what they've done. Of course, they could have bargained in good faith, and that would have been their right, too. But, they decided to litigate, which was the plan all along.

You assert an awful lot of your personal opinions as fact. No one knows who decided to do what when.I can point to the fact that the NFL opted out of the CBA two years early with much attendant chest beating. Then hired the former NHL labor lawyer that oversaw the lost year in hockey. Then negotiated a deal with the TV networks specifically with an eye towards helping them in event of a lockout.And I can point to those things before the NFLPA took any action at all. For example, the hiring of D. Smith - aka 'The Litigator'. Who wasn't selected to replace Upshaw until after all those actions had been taken.What evidence can you point to that suggests that the lockout/decertification was a strategy initiated and driven by the NFLPA?

See above.What apparently has been quickly forgotten is that the owners made tremendous concessions prior to that black friday when the NFLPA made the legal maneuver to decertify. Whether or not it was a deal to accept or not is irrelevant. If they were serious about negotiating a deal, they would have taken that offer, agreed to an extension, and worked out a counter-offer. This isn't their first rodeo, nor should it be yours in at least observing how negotiations work. Instead, the players decided to litigate. They decertified. The NFL thinks it's a sham (which it is, and they soon will become a union again when the dust settles because it is in their best interests). The players know they got a sweetheart deal in 2006. They knew the NFL would opt out in 2008 because it was a terrible business model, but...it solved the short-term dilemma of ensuring football would be played. Nevertheless, it's not like the opt-out clause came out of thin air. The players agreed to this and knew it was going to happen. They are going to end up losing and losing bad here. Nelson may very well rule in their favor here in a few weeks, and they'll pat themselves on the back and feel good about their accomplishments. The NFL is going to appeal this and win that appeal. And, then they will have nothing...except for losing face and eventually accepting a worse deal than what they could get from negotiations.But, let's not get all confused about who started this mess. D Smith is a terrible chess player here and advised them terribly here. Regardless, they decertified, pulled the plug on negotiations, so here we are.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The players have every legal right to do what they've done. Of course, they could have bargained in good faith, and that would have been their right, too. But, they decided to litigate, which was the plan all along.

You assert an awful lot of your personal opinions as fact. No one knows who decided to do what when.I can point to the fact that the NFL opted out of the CBA two years early with much attendant chest beating. Then hired the former NHL labor lawyer that oversaw the lost year in hockey. Then negotiated a deal with the TV networks specifically with an eye towards helping them in event of a lockout.

And I can point to those things before the NFLPA took any action at all. For example, the hiring of D. Smith - aka 'The Litigator'. Who wasn't selected to replace Upshaw until after all those actions had been taken.

What evidence can you point to that suggests that the lockout/decertification was a strategy initiated and driven by the NFLPA?

See above.What apparently has been quickly forgotten is that the owners made tremendous concessions prior to that black friday when the NFLPA made the legal maneuver to decertify. Whether or not it was a deal to accept or not is irrelevant. If they were serious about negotiating a deal, they would have taken that offer, agreed to an extension, and worked out a counter-offer. This isn't their first rodeo, nor should it be yours in at least observing how negotiations work. Instead, the players decided to litigate. They decertified. The NFL thinks it's a sham (which it is, and they soon will become a union again when the dust settles because it is in their best interests).

The players know they got a sweetheart deal in 2006. They knew the NFL would opt out in 2008 because it was a terrible business model, but...it solved the short-term dilemma of ensuring football would be played. Nevertheless, it's not like the opt-out clause came out of thin air. The players agreed to this and knew it was going to happen.

They are going to end up losing and losing bad here. Nelson may very well rule in their favor here in a few weeks, and they'll pat themselves on the back and feel good about their accomplishments. The NFL is going to appeal this and win that appeal. And, then they will have nothing...except for losing face and eventually accepting a worse deal than what they could get from negotiations.

But, let's not get all confused about who started this mess. D Smith is a terrible chess player here and advised them terribly here. Regardless, they decertified, pulled the plug on negotiations, so here we are.

Are you schtick like 'stroma is in the political threads?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

I do think this is a dangerous game of chicken though . Yes the players are bleeding a lot more than the owners today. But if this somehow gets to July, I think that pressure definitely flips to the owners. Free agency will take 10 to 14 days. There needs to be some sort of training camp / preseason. So if a deal isn't done by the last week of July, the chance of a shortened (or lost) season definitely comes in play.

Hell yeah its dangerous... but they very willing to make the attempt at getting as much money as they can from the product.They don't care until they take massive financial hits. They are after BILLIONS of revenue and future revenue.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The NFL is going to appeal this and win that appeal.

How?