Mickey

I believe that date is also one day after the 6 month anniversary of the decertification. During oral argument last Friday in the Eighth Circuit, one of the judges kept harping on that date when arguing with Paul Clement, the NFL's atty because in the old CBA the league had agreed that the non-statutory exemption from the anti-trust laws would no longer be available 6 months after decertification. One of the weaknesses of the league's argument is that if you accept their view as to what constitutes a "labor dispute", the anti-trust exemption would be eternal, utterly without end. Clement agreed that the exemption could not be endless, that at some point it had to end. Thus, all agree that the exemption will end and the only question is when? That's when the old CBA came up and the 6 month period agreed to back then. I have a feeling that the dissenting judge on the 8th Circuit is going to try and get the other two judges to at least agree to including language that would strongly hint that the injunction, though presently not valid, would become so in September. That would allow the league to continue to try to leverage the lockout in to a reasonable settlement but give the union leverage in negotiations by essentially setting a deadline on the lockout. Both sides then would have a strong incentive to get this done sooner rather than later. The league would want a deal before the lockout is enjoined and the players would want a deal done before they start missing camp and their September paychecks. If the two judges driving the bus won't change their minds on the injunction and won't at least hint at the lockout having a time limit that is less than a whole season long, we could be in trouble. At that point, if the players can go a year without pay, they will. If they can't, then fine, a deal gets done but that is a coin flip and losing that flip means no football until September 2012. Not good. I think the players would, at the very least, wait to see what Judge Doty does with the hearing on damages in the other case still pending on what to do with that $4 billion in TV money. The outcome of that hearing might decide whether the players wait out the lockout which, sooner or later will surely end, the question, again, is simply: when?

I saw both of them play and as much as I value Thurman, OJ was in a class by himself. He wasn't the all around RB that Thurman was and he wasn't much of a receiver. But oh-man could he run.

I am having a tough time understanding what it would look like when the "players eventually give in"? The league wants the anti-trust exemption which they can't get without a CBA. Even if they win the injunction question just argued in court, it won't be permanent. Even the league's lawyer acknowledged that decertification would eventually remove the antitrust exemption during oral argument yesterday. The only debate was whether the players would have to wait 6 months which would be September 11 or so, or for one whole "business cycle" (the lawyer wasn't abel to say what exactly "one full business cycle" meant, presumably one season). Only the union recertifying could put them back under the umbrella of the anti-trust exemption and for that to happen, you would need a player majority vote. Individual players could trickle back and it wouldn't stop the antitrust suit pending before judge Nelson. One thing that ticked me off about yesterday's oral agument was that afterwards, the NFL's atty publicly spoke about the "secret meetings" as proof that there is still a "labor dispute" taking place and thus, the exemption is still in place which bars the injunction. Settlement discussions are not admissible and further, there is no way in heaven the players' atty's didn't require, as a precondition, an agreement that their participation in negotiations wouldn't be used to justify the "ongoing labor dispute" argument. I think it was dirty pool to use that in a public statement and if what the league wants is to negotiate a settlement, I have to wonder why they would do anything to make the players reluctant to have any negotiations at all out of fear it wiould endanger their legal position. One of the problems with litigation is that it can drive the parties further apart than when they started because of the nasty stuff that goes on during a law suit.

"...enjoin...by appropriate proceedings..." That hasn't happened and a lockout would not exactly qualify. That clause is what allows the league to suspend players found in violation of league rules via "approrpriate proceedings". What you are suggesting is that the players quitel literally be shackled so that they can't earn a living for their families, it would be a species of slavery that the law would not countenance. Every contract has an invisible conscionability clause which would allow a court to refuse to enforce a contract clause that shocks the conscience of the court.

Brilliant! I am sure they never thought of that, you should send them a note or something. Oh wait....wouldn't all the rich SOB's in the land who don't have an NFL franchise jump at the chance to start a new league with all the best players ready to display their superior skills for the fans while the new NFL with their ex-bouncers and arena football stars kill all the geese that laid the golden eggs?

Owners love the union, they made the players reform the union as part of the settlement in the anti-trust case they lost. So long as there is a union, players can't avail themselves of the anti-trust statutes. The presence of a union gives the league what congress has not, a blanket exemption from the laws of the United States. A "threat" to reform the union would be met with popping champagne corks in every owner's office in the league. The result of a pure free market system is a bit of a guessing game. Theoretically the teams that are most successful are going to be the teams that win games. A team with a few stars and everyone else getting minimum wage would lose to more balanced teams because no matter how good Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is, they don't block, they don't kick field goals, they don't cover WR's etc, etc. Football is still about those things, blocking and tackling. People are wrongly concluding that the players are hell bent for leather to get rid of the draft and exclusive rights to players that limit their ability to bid out their services. Yes, in the past they sought to remove limits on player movement but that was at a time where there was no such thing as free agency. They won that argument with court victories in the early 1990's and we were then headed towards an open player market. Because the owners were facing that doomsday scenario, they finally buckled. They cut the players in on the take and allowed for a free agency which, though it was limited, was still light years beyond anything that had gone before. The players have shown that they will give away their freedom to work for whoever they want to for the good of the league but only if they are essentially partners in that league. I also think it is more than a bit paternalistic to say that we know what is best for the players as a whole, that really, they are better off without an open market. And if Peyton Manning can command more money in the market place than the 20 to 30 worst players on the team, why is that unfair? Why does Peyton Manning have to sacrifice his earning power? The ultimate issue really may be just that, owners who don't want to share with owners who aren't making the same $ for whatever reason, be it small markets or whatever. The have-not's want better revenue sharing. That money can either come from the have's or the players. Increased revenue sharing would be a lot more palatable to owners who are flush if its coming from a bigger pie, made so with money formerly going to the players. Isn't that what they are going to do with the extra billion they said they need for expense? They would split it up with equal shares to each franchise, ie, revenue sharing of different sort. Players

I have mixed feelings about Ralph. He is stubborn beyond reason and that flaw has cost him and the team dearly. But it's that same stubborn-as-a-mule personality of his that has kept the team here so long.

That is not a fair comparison. The union didn't ask to look at the books based on a whim and it is misleading to suggest that they did. The owners, not the players, wanted to renegotiate the deal that is the only thing that got them out of the law suits they lost back in the late '80's and early 90's. The owners, not the players, are seeking to monkey with an agreement that has brought growth and prosperity for all concerned for decades. And they justified that by claiming to the players and the public that the numbers were no longer working. The players then said, "okay, if that is true we will work with you but we won't take that on faith, prove it". Any other response would have been, frankly, moronic. The offers by the league are based on percentages of revenues after costs, etc., to evaluate those offers, both sides need to know what the "take" is, not just the percentage of the take. They didn't ask to see the books "on a whim", they did so as a prudent and reasonable request during what are essentially financial negotiations. I have no problem with the league wanting a new deal if the old one was no longer financially viable but I think they should have to prove it first. And if it is the truth, it shouldn't be all that hard to prove. In the meantime, however they work this out, they ought to keep playing. There doesn't have to be a lockout. I am a football fan, not a balance sheet fan. No lockout = football Lockout = no football. And that is why I am for the injunction.

Holy mutha of Gawd

Small businesses and a group of elected officials from various governmental entities from the US Congress to state legislatures filed an amicus brief in support of the injunction against the lockout which can be read here: Amicus Brief The brief is kind of interesting as it focuses on the impact to the public due to the loss of training camps and games. To support that argument, they put in a lot of stats and numbers about how much public money is at stake. A lot of local governments have financed the lion's share of the cost of building stadiums. They did so by borrowing the money and if no games are played, they are hit with a double whammy. They have to service the debt during the lockout and lose the tax revenue generated by the games. In the case of the Bills, Erie County has to pay the team 2.5 million for upkeep and maintenance even if games aren't played. The argument was stated nicely in this passage about the negative effects on the public of the lockout: "Those effects are easily identifiable and indisputable: Jobs will be lost, and government budgets will be left short. And worse still, all of this will occur after taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize the very stadiums that the NFL intends to shutter for its own financial advantage." There is also a list of the elected officials who signed on to the brief including some State Senators from NY. This is the closest thing to the voice of the fans being heard in the current debate over the injunction though it will likely carry next to zero weight with the two Bush appointed judges that are running the show. Calm down guys, just my opinion.

There are different kinds of monopolies and being a monopoly per se isn't illegal. Certain anti-competitive practices are illegal and monopolies are more prone to them because market forces do not operate to limit them. The league was already found to be an illegal monopoly in the USFL case but they were not able to demonstrate damages. Making it impossible for other professional football leagues isn't the only way the NFL's practices could be harmful to consumers. Check out the ruling in the American Needle case which the NFL lost in, I think , 2010. The vote on the Supreme Court was 9-0 against the league which was basically trying to exempt itself from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act sufficiently for it to be able to get any future suits dismissed at the git-go. Rather than selling licenses to market each team's jerseys and what not separately, the league lumped them all together in NFL Properties and licensed one company, Reebok, to sell official NFL team logo hats. The court ruled that the league sometimes acts as individual businesses competing with one another and at other times, as a single entity. But in either guise, the league could act illegally under Sherman and thus, courts would have to take each case as it came and under those circumstances decide whether the league was acting illegally or in a way that was benign under all the circumstances. The American Needle case was remanded to the 7th Circuit for trial which hasn't happened yet. As a result, the league has to deal with occasional suits based on Sherman violations rather than being able to pull out a get out of jail free card on every single case no matter what the situation. You can read the American Needle ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf

You are right of course, it would be more accurate to say that the league itself is not incorporated (though it probably has a corporate entity running various business activities) and in fact, is not identified as one in the legal documents on file in the current dispute with both the US Federal Courts and the NLRB. As for the member clubs, to be members they have to honor certain limits on franchise ownership which essentially limits them to being closely held corporations rather than public ones apart from the Packers who were a public corporation before the applicable rules limiting ownership were instituted. I think that you would have to have an advanced law degree with a concentration on business law along with all the relevant legal documents of each team to try and determine the legal status of each team and their varied financial interests. You would also have to have more time than god to figure it all out. There are probably ways to split up the money earning activities of teams from the entity that is considered to be the "member club" by the NFL. You are also right that the distinction is probably not relevant in this context. The players gave up something they were legally entitled to in order to get something they were not legally entitled to, ie, a percentage of the take. That made them virtual partners in this whole thing we call "professional football" regardless of exactly what that is. In saying that, I am not asserting that they have legal rights that make them "partners" in a technical sense but that hardly matters. The players get a percentage of the take and if they came by that percentage as a typical partner would or by some other means is not all that important. The leverage they had to force the NFL to agree to cutting them in hasn't really changed. Really, doesn't this dispute have the flavor more of two partners going at it over how the partnership pie should be cut rather than a labor-management battle complete with strikes and scabs? I don't think Woody Guthrie would have written a song about this one. (to the tune of Hobo's Lullabye) Go to sleep you weary owners, let the billions pass you by, tonight, you've got a nice warm penthouse, safe from nasty court injunctions. DeMaurice Smith brings you trouble, He causes trouble everywhere, But when you die and go to heaven, There'll be no Dee-Dee there.... And if they opened the books, we would all know exactly what the numbers say and who is being reasonable and who isn't. But they won't. Enter law suit. Enter the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Enter discovery. Books opened. No secrets. Deal done. And we have our football back.

I think the comparison is generally accurate. Standard Oil could have made the same argument, that they can produce a cheaper product which benefits the public (cost to the public being the sole factor you address in determining what benefits the public) if they were allowed to operate as a monopoly able to unilaterally decide what it will pay suppliers, shippers, railroads, refineries, truckers, employees, etc. etc. There would be no need for them to compete with others so there would be no need to spend money on advertising. The money saved could be used to improve the product and other services to customers. Thus, even if you restricted the analysis to costs, its not so clear that the difference between MaBell, Standard Oil, etc and the NFL is vast enough to justify a different set of laws. Cost alone would not be the only criteria in measuring the benefit to the public. In any event, we have a set of laws written to address these issues and there isn't a separate set of rules for football. Its up to the electorate as a whole, through their elected representatives in congress, to change that if indeed it should. Until it is, the league is engaged in activity which, in virtually every case in which the issue has been tested, is in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. To get the players to forfeit those freedoms granted to them by law, you have to give them something that is more valuable to them than those freedoms. The NFL managed to do that once they were forced to by the McNeil decision and others. They need to do it again if they want the players to give up a little bit more, or they need to prove to them that economic conditions require a restructured deal, they haven't done that.

If it was such a terrible deal, why has the league prospered so well and for so long? Where is the financial crisis brought on by this terrible, terrible deal that was made? Why is that when a franchise comes up for sale, the price always sets a new record if the deal was such a disaster? At the time that deal was made, the league had just lost the McNeil case including 1.5 million in damages and 10 million in legal fees, not to mention having had their entire system of free agency declared illegal. Its easy to forget now what the league and the commissioner were dealing with then. And the given the extended period of labor peace and prosperity for all that the CBA brought, I don't see how it can be fairly labeled to be a mistake.

Threatening permanent decertification is a tactic. There is no law that says players have to be in a union and the rulings out of the 8th circuit are only temporary. Remember that the league has already lost the other suit over the tv contract they negotiated where they took less money in exchange for a guarantee that they would get paid even if there is no football. All that is left is a hearing on damages. Exactly what leverage would they have if they negotiated now? Giving in for whatever the owner's decide to give you is not negotiating. Why not wait to see if Judge Doty gives you half or more of the $4 Billion the networks are paying to not show football games?

The league has lost virtually every anti-trust suit brought by players and that is why they agreed to the settlement which was ultimately converted into the CBA which has been so successful over the last 20+ years. If you have enjoyed watching pro football over the last few decades, you can thank that CBA which was the direct result of the Union's decertification in that time period. The league is not going to give up anything they don't have to and without the threat of anti-trust suits, they don't have to compromise one bit. Players don't want a situation where all the wealth goes to a few players but the owners sure as anything don't want to have to get in to a bidding war for every player. There is a free market basement floor for NFL labor, if the league went below that, they will have to compete with another league sooner or later. That is how the AFL happened. You may not "get it" but the league does, they have lost virtually every anti-trust suit brought by the players. What you are advising the league to do is to form a monopoly in the style of Standard Oil and Ma Bell. There is a reason why the league operates as, essentially, a membership association. I believe their rules actually forbid incorporation of a franchise. They avoid certain consequences by operating in that form but doing so creates other difficulties such as collusion in restraint of the free trade of labor. Good point, and yes, they really did require the union to certify. The old CBA started out life as a settlement agreement in the Freeman McNeil case. The SSA in that case was later converted in to the CBA.

To turn it into their own propaganda machine?

Jasper is a work in progress. He hasn't really played NT and his football experience is with small college competition. I like him and I like his potential but I don't see him being much of a factor in his first year, especially without OTA's and/or training camp. He needs all the reps he can get and he needs them badly.

They are an association with their own set of rules governing membership in that association. They also have their own enforcement mechanism for those rules which can include a whole host of measures including membership termination.

I don't think it is realistic to compare NFL players to average American workers of the same age any more than it would be to compare the income of brain surgeons or movie stars to toll booth operators. They have a marketable skill that is exceedingly rare and for which people are willing to pay a lot of money to see. Your premise, that the players are making demands that are causing this problem is not entirely correct. The owners opted out of the CBA, not the players who were willing to go on as they have been since it was reached. The reason the agreement was possible in the first place is that the players had decertified the union and filed anti-trust suits based on the restrictions the league had on player movement. They won those suits which placed the entire business model of the NFL in danger as limitations on player movement was vital to ensure that all teams could compete fairly. To preserve those limitations, the NFL was finally willing to give in to player demands that they had previously refused to compromise on. The players agreed to give away their freedom to sell their services to the highest bidder as can virtually any other employee in the marketplace in exchange for a share of revenues, effectively making them partners of the league. The players got more money and a little bit of freedom (free agency) and the owners got labor peace, no strikes and no lawsuits. That basic deal has held for many years to the benefit of the league, the owners, the players, the networks and the fans. The owners opted out of that agreement, essentially turning the clock back to 1993. They prepared in advance by negotiating a network deal which ensured they would get paid even if there were no games played in the 2011 season. They gave the networks a discounted price in exchange for that sweet deal. Clearly, the owners have long prepared for enforcing a lockout by taking steps to insure that they would suffer minimal financial damage. We have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors while they tried to negotiate a new CBA. We only know what each side chooses to tell, or leak to the press which is all BS, put out there as propaganda by each side as they try to build public support for their position. Not knowing what is going on, I can't say who is being unreasonable and who isn't nor who should be blamed for an agreement not having been reached. Yes, the players decertified, but they were facing a time constraint the owners were not. The players need to save the 2011 season, it is a financial imperative for them. The owners do not, they have long planned for this lockout and the cash flow interruption it would cause by such measures as the network deal. Going through the courts takes time. And although the NFL might be able to preserve the anti-trust exemption post-decertification, they won't be able to do so forever. The more time that passes, the closer the players get to wherever the line is that the 8th Circuit is drawing for the players to be able to go to court. The union thought the there should be a bright line drawn at decertification rather than having some sort of amorphous, arbitrary date in the future where players are finally entitled to act individually. If the players hadn't decertified when they did, it would no longer have been an option that could conceivably save the 2011season. The NFL knew this from the start and I would be that their negotiation strategy reflected this advantage. I think they are playing with fire. What if the players stick to their guns and refuse to decertify? That would allow the anti-trust suit to go forward sooner or later. The rulings out of the 8th circuit certainly do not grant the league a perpetual, non-statutory exemption from having to obey the anti-trust laws of the United States. It just means that the recent decertification hasn't yet moved the matter out from under Norris-Laguardia and back under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is a temporary situation. And don't forget that the players won their suit over the TV deal the owners signed allowing them to get paid even if no games are played. All that remains to be done there is a hearing on damages. The judge in that case very likely will award the players slightly over half of that money, which would give them around $2 billion to use to weather a season without football. Another successful case on the issue of player movement would be a disaster for the league. They would have to immediately agree to an even more player friendly CBA than the old one, just as they did in 1993 in response to the decision in the McNeil case. There are no heroes here. It's the crips and the bloods fighting over $$ and both are using every tool they have at their disposal to win. I side with the player in general because I think they are the underdog here and because they are the reason I like to watch football, not Jerry Jones and not, even though I love the man, Ralph Wilson.

I am not all that sure they are getting paid during the lockout. If the injunction by Judge Nelson were to be upheld, everything would be back to normal the next day and its easy to see why coaches would want that to happen. An amicus brief isn't exactly the most persuasive thing in the world, sort of like saying, "what he said". But it has some symbolic value. I have a sinking feeling that we are going to lose some of this season, maybe not all of it but two or three games at least. Damn the 8th circuit. I still don't get it. How long does a union have to not be a union before its not a union any more?

all the briefs, motions and orders are available at that same site. If you ever wanted to become an expert on labor law, now is your chance

The NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the players http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791315.0.pdf

I hope you are right but if that is true, I don't see why they don't announce it. The lockout is only about 30 or 40 days old I think, its not as if anyone needs to save all that much face. Let me take a crack at the press release: "The players and the NFL are both pleased to announce that, for the good of the game, we have agreed in principal to a new CBA so that we can all get back to the business of playing football and entertaining our fans. Neither side got what it wanted but the deal is a fair one and everyone involved can be proud of their hard work and the fair result they achieved for the benefit of our fans." Do me a favor and forward this on to your friends so we don't have to wait until the 7th. Given the typos, no charge. [<img src="http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif" alt="" class="bbc_emoticon"> I hope you are right but if that is true, I don't see why they don't announce it. The lockout is only about 30 or 40 days old I think, its not as if anyone needs to save all that much face. Let me take a crack at the press release: "The players and the NFL are both pleased to announce that, for the good of the game, we have agreed in principal to a new CBA so that we can all get back to the business of playing football and entertaining our fans. Neither side got what it wanted but the deal is a fair one and everyone involved can be proud of their hard work and the fair result they achieved for the benefit of our fans." Do me a favor and forward this on to your friends so we don't have to wait until the 7th. Given the typos, no charge.

They have to get there, they have to eat while they are here and they have to have some place to sleep while they are here. That all costs $. Most will probably get an advance from their agents but I don't know that for certain. And for those that do, they will have to pay them back once this ridiculous lockout is over, if ever. Normally, if this were a typical OTA, the team would pick up all of those expenses. I don't know what these guys do with their own trainers as compared to what they are doing with fellow players but I have to believe that the chance for injury is greater in a group setting during workouts that haven't been planned, and are not being supervised, by professional trainers.The players who are willing to incur these costs and take these risks so that they can minimize the effect of the owner imposed lockout on their on-field performance should be appreciated for the professionals they are showing themselves to be. Oh, I dunno. I guess you're right. There is no choice between traveling to Buffalo, getting a hotel and working out without pay or insurance and sitting on the couch at home eating cake. I see it now, its either come to Buffalo or be a couch potato. If only there were some sort of happy medium, if only they could stay home and work out with their respective trainers as they have been since their last practice in college. If only... *sigh*.