Ex-players file suit against the NFL

[PromoTheRobot]

LINK

 

Eller v. NFL, obtained by Yahoo! Sports, is similar to the current Brady, et al v. NFL. However, it is based on a potentially clever legal maneuver that could box the league into a corner and prove a significant development in ending pro football’s nearly month-long labor impasse.

 

This lawsuit is coming somewhat out of left field and could throw a wrench in the owners plans. At the very least it could delay the draft indefinitely.

 

PTR

[CosmicBills]

LINK

 

 

 

This lawsuit is coming somewhat out of left field and could throw a wrench in the owners plans. At the very least it could delay the draft indefinitely.

 

PTR

Great find. Hopefully this ends it this month. If this is allowed to be heard in court, especially in Minny, it's going to be tough for the owners to counter without forfeiting some ground. Not worth the risk if you ask me,

[eSJayDee]

Somewhat of a side note (perhaps not). I seem to recall Eller's ex-teammate, Alan Page is a judge.

[CosmicBills]

Somewhat of a side note (perhaps not). I seem to recall Eller's ex-teammate, Alan Page is a judge.

That seems like a mighty big conflict of interest, doesn't it? This is an interesting development I wond if any of the legal minds here can weigh in about it's validity. On the surface it seems like a nice loophole for the players to exploit -- not sure it holds up though.

[AReed Deep For 7]

This could be good news, lets hope so

[Ramius]

Sounds like, instead of bargaining and actually trying to accomplish something, the players (and ex-players) are more concerned with making a giant mess out of the entire situation.

[CosmicBills]

Sounds like, instead of bargaining and actually trying to accomplish something, the players (and ex-players) are more concerned with making a giant mess out of the entire situation.

Or find the quickest resolution possible ... which this would be.

[Ramius]

Or find the quickest resolution possible ... which this would be.

 

If they wanted the quickest solution, they wouldn't have decertified and taken this to court. They would have stayed at the table. Remember, they decertified first. But negotiation was never their intention. Taking it to the courts was, so the blood in on their hands. Now they are simply trying to make a bigger mess.

[Direhard Fan]

I believe they should all take a year off and starve. Biggest bunch of greedy babies in the world. Send them to Japan to help the clean up. See how fast they were back at the table. You bet I'm mad.

[CosmicBills]

If they wanted the quickest solution, they wouldn't have decertified and taken this to court. They would have stayed at the table. Remember, they decertified first. But negotiation was never their intention. Taking it to the courts was, so the blood in on their hands. Now they are simply trying to make a bigger mess.

That's not true. The owners opted out of the CBA. The owners started it ... they could have let it expire in two years. The only choice the players had was to force the owners' hands by decertifying and going to court or roll over and take whatever the owners offered.

 

There comes a point when negotiating is stalling -- which is what the owners were doing. You could argue decertifying actually speeds up the process.

 

And this loophole takes away the owner's primary line of defense -- which could make things go even faster. The players want to play. The owners are the ones who benefit the most from a prolonged work stoppage because they have the means to weather the storm. Make no mistake about that. The owners want to drag this out, wear the players down. The owners don't want a season in 2011 because that will strengthen their position. Even if you agree with the owners' stance (which I don't), it's in the owners' best interest to draw this out as long as possible without any games.

 

I know you hate D.Smith but come on, man. Don't let it cloud the big picture.

 

I believe they should all take a year off and starve. Biggest bunch of greedy babies in the world. Send them to Japan to help the clean up. See how fast they were back at the table. You bet I'm mad.

You're mad at the players for being greedy even though they aren't asking for a raise? If the players had their way, they'd be playing right now. The owners chose to start this and demanded the players take a cut. The players aren't asking for more. They're asking to keep things the same.

Edited March 29, 2011 by tgreg99

[Spiderweb]

If they wanted the quickest solution, they wouldn't have decertified and taken this to court. They would have stayed at the table. Remember, they decertified first. But negotiation was never their intention. Taking it to the courts was, so the blood in on their hands. Now they are simply trying to make a bigger mess.

 

Ramius, you can't keep beating the "de-certification" drum, without giving more than equal thump to the owners planning for a lockout over two years ago or more. Why does this keep eluding you and so many others? To me, it seems as if the owners planned for this, and they may be less inclined than the players to negotiate in earnest.

 

When the owners decided to opt out of the last CBA, you expected all to go swimmingly? That, in and of itself was a major blow to any future agreements.

 

Both sides have room for give and take, yet its the owners who want change. They want to reduce expenses and their offer before negotiations ended was a pretty good cut. It was geared to further reduce the players share of revenue year over year, and eliminated the shared percentage as it was a fixed amount..

 

Sorry, while the players already have more than most of us will ever have a chance to enjoy, I don't see them as the larger problem.

[CosmicBills]

Ramius, you can't keep beating the "de-certification" drum, without giving more than equal thump to the owners planning for a lockout over two years ago or more. Why does this keep eluding you and so many others? To me, it seems as if the owners planned for this, and they may be less inclined than the players to negotiate in earnest.

 

When the owners decided to opt out of the last CBA, you expected all to go swimmingly? That, in and of itself was a major blow to any future agreements.

 

Both sides have room for give and take, yet its the owners who want change. They want to reduce expenses and their offer before negotiations ended was a pretty good cut. It was geared to further reduce the players share of revenue year over year, and eliminated the shared percentage as it was a fixed amount..

 

Sorry, while the players already have more than most of us will ever have a chance to enjoy, I don't see them as the larger problem.

Yup. Well said.

 

Look, it's simple. Everyone knows I think the owners forced this work stoppage unnecessarily and were motivated by sheer greed. But the players could have just simply accepted the Owners' first offer and avoided this whole mess. Both are fighting for what they feel is justified. So many people get caught up on taking sides that have nothing to do with the real issues in play.

 

Just take emotion out of it and look at the facts.

 

1. The Owners, not the players, opted out of the CBA early. They did so because they felt it was in their best interest to do so. The Lockout insurance gave them leverage over the players and it was their best shot to strike the best deal possible.

 

2. The players were left with two choices: either take what was offered without a fight or fight for what they feel is their share. They opted for the later.

 

3. Both parties partook in negotiations, but neither side attempted to reach a deal. Both knew a lockout was inevitable. Each side employed their own spin control in the press. On one hand the Owners say they offered a great deal, on the other hand the players say that's a lie. The truth is always in the middle. But the fact that the federal mediator told the press that he feels both sides are too far apart to warrant further mediation sums it up: neither side was ever planning on budging without a fight -- players or owners.

 

4. The owners wanted to keep negotiations going as long as possible because their primary weapon in the labor dispute is being able to financially outlast their players. It makes no sense for the Owners to want a quick resolution. They want to drag this out as long as possible -- even at the expense of games in 2011.

 

5. Knowing point 4, the Players' only chance to get a deal was to go to court as quickly as possible in the hopes of having a federal judge lift the lockout or force the owners back to the table. A prolonged legal battle does not favor the players, so it's a risk. It's the only true weapon in their arsenal. They employed it. The Owners not only expected the players to do this, they hoped for it because a prolonged legal battle helps their cause so long as they prove the decertification is a sham -- which it certainly is.

 

6. This new lawsuit takes away the Owner's primary line of defense and could be the best shot at forcing an early resolution. If it works, there will be football in 2011. If it doesn't, the Owners will drag this out as long as possible to force the best deal possible.

 

Regardless of which side you favor, that's the situation we're in. The Owners want to drag this out as long as possible and sacrifice games to assure themselves the best deal. The Players want to end this quickly because the longer it goes the worse position they will find themselves in when it comes time to negotiate a deal.

 

A deal will be made. It's just a question of when.

Edited March 29, 2011 by tgreg99

[Thoner7]

I still dont see what the deal is. Didnt the Supreme Court make a ruling on the MLB back in the 20's that essentailly exempts pro sports from anti trust laws? Ruling that pro sports could not co-exist with anti trust laws and are thus not bound by them? Courts ruled agaisnt the USFL in their lawsuit in the 80s.

 

The NFL could also either postpone the draft, or end the lockout and not be bound by a cba. They could then decide to institute a rookie wage scale and schedule 2 more games for next season if they wanted.

[Mr. WEO]

The players want to play. The owners are the ones who benefit the most from a prolonged work stoppage because they have the means to weather the storm. Make no mistake about that. The owners want to drag this out, wear the players down. The owners don't want a season in 2011 because that will strengthen their position. .

 

You have to stop repeating this nonsense. The owners want a deal--they were left sitting at the table. They made offers and concessions. They are asking the players to come back to the table right now.

 

Anyway, sicne they haven't been drafted yet, college boys have no standing until draft day, so it's not clear how this suit would change anything before the draft. At least this new lawyer recognizes that the union decertified illegally.

[K-9]

I still dont see what the deal is. Didnt the Supreme Court make a ruling on the MLB back in the 20's that essentailly exempts pro sports from anti trust laws? Ruling that pro sports could not co-exist with anti trust laws and are thus not bound by them? Courts ruled agaisnt the USFL in their lawsuit in the 80s.

 

The NFL could also either postpone the draft, or end the lockout and not be bound by a cba. They could then decide to institute a rookie wage scale and schedule 2 more games for next season if they wanted.

 

Actually, no. The jury indeed ruled that the NFL was an illegal monopoly. They awarded the USFL $1.00 in damages that were trebled to $3.00.

 

DO BILLS!!!

[Ramius]

Ramius, you can't keep beating the "de-certification" drum, without giving more than equal thump to the owners planning for a lockout over two years ago or more. Why does this keep eluding you and so many others? To me, it seems as if the owners planned for this, and they may be less inclined than the players to negotiate in earnest.

 

When the owners decided to opt out of the last CBA, you expected all to go swimmingly? That, in and of itself was a major blow to any future agreements.

 

Both sides have room for give and take, yet its the owners who want change. They want to reduce expenses and their offer before negotiations ended was a pretty good cut. It was geared to further reduce the players share of revenue year over year, and eliminated the shared percentage as it was a fixed amount..

 

Sorry, while the players already have more than most of us will ever have a chance to enjoy, I don't see them as the larger problem.

 

Planning IN CASE OF a lockout is not the same as planning TO lockout. The owners were making plans in case (they correctly predicted), the ignorant asshat demaurice would not want to bargain and wanted to go the litigation route all along.

 

Remember, the owners were negotiating until the very end. They were the ones giving in, and changing their offer. It was the players standing fast (because they had no intent to ever strike a deal). The PLAYERS left the negotiating table and subsequently did their sham "decertification." At that point, the owners had no other alternatives but to lock out them out. The players brought them on themselves. They could have stayed until the last hour trying to get a deal done.

 

But again, striking a deal was never their plan. Douchebag was intent on taking this to litigation from the second he was elected by the NFLPA.

[mattsox]

That's not true. The owners opted out of the CBA. The owners started it ... they could have let it expire in two years. The only choice the players had was to force the owners' hands by decertifying and going to court or roll over and take whatever the owners offered.

 

There comes a point when negotiating is stalling -- which is what the owners were doing. You could argue decertifying actually speeds up the process.

 

And this loophole takes away the owner's primary line of defense -- which could make things go even faster. The players want to play. The owners are the ones who benefit the most from a prolonged work stoppage because they have the means to weather the storm. Make no mistake about that. The owners want to drag this out, wear the players down. The owners don't want a season in 2011 because that will strengthen their position. Even if you agree with the owners' stance (which I don't), it's in the owners' best interest to draw this out as long as possible without any games.

 

I know you hate D.Smith but come on, man. Don't let it cloud the big picture.

 

 

You're mad at the players for being greedy even though they aren't asking for a raise? If the players had their way, they'd be playing right now. The owners chose to start this and demanded the players take a cut. The players aren't asking for more. They're asking to keep things the same.

 

I really don't give a rats ass about the players or the owners.

 

I don't want to hear any of their propaganda. It's all BS. I care about the fans. WE'RE THE ONES THAT MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

 

All this comes down to is greed on both parts.

 

The owners and current players suck in this regard. It's all about where they can go get the biggest contract then it is about having pride and giving it all for the teams they were selected to play. It's about players ego and owners wallets.

 

Fans should boycott the preseason games. We should not be paying a dime for these games. They're garbage that have absolutely no meaning. These coaches and GMs already know who can play football. They can BS us all night and long, but it's crap. If you can play ball you can play.

 

The offseason programs are garbage too. Back in the 70s and 80s it wasn't a big deal. They didn't need it and they were able to compete. The reason for all the offseason crap is because, teams keep changing like the weather. The 2005 Bills team looks nothing like the 2010 Bills team. Go back to the 70s and 80s, and the teams were consistant. This all again comes in with the owners and players greed to make big money to go play for other teams.

[Mr. WEO]

Planning IN CASE OF a lockout is not the same as planning TO lockout. The owners were making plans in case (they correctly predicted), the ignorant asshat demaurice would not want to bargain and wanted to go the litigation route all along.

 

Remember, the owners were negotiating until the very end. They were the ones giving in, and changing their offer. It was the players standing fast (because they had no intent to ever strike a deal). The PLAYERS left the negotiating table and subsequently did their sham "decertification." At that point, the owners had no other alternatives but to lock out them out. The players brought them on themselves. They could have stayed until the last hour trying to get a deal done.

 

But again, striking a deal was never their plan. Douchebag was intent on taking this to litigation from the second he was elected by the NFLPA.

 

You are correct. Anticipating the possiblilty of a work stoppage (strike or lockout) accompanying the expiration of the CBA is a stroke of common sense. Also, despite ongoing "negtiations", the players had the papers for decertification drawn up days before the CBA expired (and filed them 7 hours before it expired).

 

In sum, the owners were wisely prepared for the event of a lockout, whereas the players had long decided that they would decertify and sue.

 

If the April 6th hearing results in an injunction agaisnt the lockout, why does anyone believe the players will then negotiate (which means "entertain offers and make counter offers until a mutually acceptable deal is reached"--none of which they were doing recently) with the owners? Why should they?

[Saint Doug]

I don't understand how being drafted automatically means you're locked-out. They can't be part of the NFLPA because (a) they've never played a game and most importantly, (b) the NFLPA doesn't exist anymore.

[CosmicBills]

The owners want a deal--

That's true ... but you're leaving off the key point. The owners want the BEST DEAL THEY CAN GET.

 

The best way to get that is to wear down the opposition until they have no choice but to accept. And the best way to accomplish that? Not play a single down in 2011 until the missed game checks start piling up and forces the players to a resolution.

 

There's no way the owners were going to get the deal they want with three weeks of negotiations in FEBRUARY. Or March. Or April. Or May. Or June. Or July. Or August. They knew that going in. So did the players.

 

But come September, October or November ... then it's a different story. A deal made before the season starts will favor the players. That's not what the owners want. At all.

 

It's not rocket surgery, dude. But I forget, logic isn't your strong suit.

 

 

But again, striking a deal was never their plan.

Neither side planned on striking a deal in February.