Buffalo judge to decide fate of NFL,

CosmicBills · April 15, 2011

very good summary:

N.F.L. and Players See Same Forest, Different Trees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sports/football/15nfl.html

It is an excellent summary and shows that the players have a momentary edge -- but it's one the owners expected and planned for even before the union decertified. Then again, it's the NYT, a very pro-labor paper.

Still, the facts aren't in dispute: the Nelson ruling probably won't affect much. It's the ruling in the Court of Appeals in St. Louis that will probably decide how quickly a deal is struck.

:wallbash:

Edited April 15, 2011 by tgreg99

papazoid · April 21, 2011

UPDATE:

Report: Ruling from Judge Nelson expected on Monday

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/21/report-antitrust-ruling-expected-on-monday/

Ramius · April 21, 2011

So essentially, nothing is going to get resolved after her ruling. She's going to rule the injuction should be lifted, but keep it in place pending an appeal.

Now we're on to waiting for the appeal.

CosmicBills · April 21, 2011

So essentially, nothing is going to get resolved after her ruling. She's going to rule the injuction should be lifted, but keep it in place pending an appeal.

Now we're on to waiting for the appeal.

Which is what most people expected to happen from the beginning. St. Louis Appellate will be the primary battle ground.

Ramius · April 21, 2011

Which is what most people expected to happen from the beginning. St. Louis Appellate will be the primary battle ground.

It alrewady seems like the owners (thankfully) are the favorites there. Vrabel's foot-in-mouth disease will come back to haunt the players. I'd love nothing more than to see this splinter group of players return to the table and negotiate with the owners and say the hell with the "superstars" and de smith.

papazoid · April 26, 2011

In an 89-page ruling issued Monday, a federal judge in St. Paul, Minn., ordered an end to the NFL lockout. The ruling from Judge Susan Richard Nelson raises significant legal questions about the lockout, the relationship between the owners and the players, and the 2011 season. Here are some of the questions and their answers:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110425

K Gun Special · April 26, 2011

It alrewady seems like the owners (thankfully) are the favorites there. Vrabel's foot-in-mouth disease will come back to haunt the players. I'd love nothing more than to see this splinter group of players return to the table and negotiate with the owners and say the hell with the "superstars" and de smith.

The owners are not favorites there, i cant believe you are even saying such a thing. The Court is looking at her ruling for an abuse of discretion, a relatively high standard. I suggest you read up on her decision, particularly the article on SI written by a sports law professor.

The owners have the cards stacked against them. Vrabel's statement has no bearing whatsoever.

papazoid · April 26, 2011

Is the ruling to end the lockout a surprise?

Yes, it is a bit of a surprise. It certainly is a surprise for the owners. Injunctions are granted only in the most compelling of circumstances. The players were required to show the irreparable harm already described. They were required to show that they would prevail in a full trial later on the issues raised by the lockout. And they were required to show that their plea was in the public interest. It was a tough case to make, but the players managed to do it.

advantage players.....

Mr. WEO · April 26, 2011

The owners are not favorites there, i cant believe you are even saying such a thing. The Court is looking at her ruling for an abuse of discretion, a relatively high standard. I suggest you read up on her decision, particularly the article on SI written by a sports law professor.

The owners have the cards stacked against them. Vrabel's statement has no bearing whatsoever.

Actually, the league is arguing that she did not have jurisdition to lift the blackout due to the pending decision on league's complaint filed with the NLRB regarding the decertification of the union.

K Gun Special · April 26, 2011

Actually, the league is arguing that she did not have jurisdition to lift the blackout due to the pending decision on league's complaint filed with the NLRB regarding the decertification of the union.

WEO,

Actually, that is one of their underlying arguments. But on appeal its really about abuse of discretion in hearing the NFL's argument about jurisdiction.

"""Tom Brady and the other plaintiffs will go into the appeal with a big advantage: the Eight Circuit will review Judge Nelson's order under the deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. Under this standard, the Eight Circuit will first evaluate whether Judge Nelson correctly enunciated the proper standard for a preliminary injunction"""

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/04/25/nfl.lockout/index.html#ixzz1KddCWVZd

papazoid · April 26, 2011

The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110425

K Gun Special · April 26, 2011

The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110425

Its the Court's way of forcing them back to the table. The owner's dont have a strong case in court and have treble damages awaiting.

The players need paychecks.

There is incentive to get a deal done so there is a 2011 season.

papazoid · April 26, 2011

“I’m not the commissioner of the National Football League,” Smith said. “He’s the commissioner of the league. And we’re in a world where the owners of the National Football League opted out of a contract that was fine. They went to the Supreme Court to try to stick it to the players and they lost. They tried to keep revenue sharing from happening in 2010 and they lost. A judge ruled that they gamed the TV contracts to lock the players out and they lost. And then they lock the players out and took football from our fans, and yesterday they lost.”

http://profootballta...chaos-to-occur/

advantage players.....

Hplarrm · April 26, 2011

“I’m not the commissioner of the National Football League,” Smith said. “He’s the commissioner of the league. And we’re in a world where the owners of the National Football League opted out of a contract that was fine. They went to the Supreme Court to try to stick it to the players and they lost. They tried to keep revenue sharing from happening in 2010 and they lost. A judge ruled that they gamed the TV contracts to lock the players out and they lost. And then they lock the players out and took football from our fans, and yesterday they lost.”

http://profootballta...chaos-to-occur/

advantage players.....

I think one of the funniest things about this is that without regard whether the players win before Doty, Nelson, or whomever, there are folks who want to simply insist the owners have the upper hand here and that this win means nothing.

They are wrong.

These wins do not mean everything but it is simply non-sensical to claim they mean nothing.

What they do is simply add to a higher hill that the owners must push out of the way if they ultimately are going to win. The default going into the draft where the broader public begins to pay attention to the NFL again is that the season is on but the next move in play is that the owners are trying to appeal to kill it.

This further brings into light that the original dispute was triggered by the owners opting out of the deal early as they were contractually able to do.

Any "win" by the owners now MIGHT still happen but to do so simply means that they and the power that orders it will be rocking the ship of state even more.

In the face of this, the NFLPA is undoubtedly not sitting still, and my GUESS is that just like occurred with the mid-80s dispute the players will try to reach their goals (more money) with a tactic that minimizes the owners take of the pie.

To me this would seem to be a goal of not killing the NFL but doing anything possible to increase competition bt fostering a new league.

Whether the NewFL fails miserably as the USFL did or succeeds as the AFL did in both cases it jacked up player salaries due to that old American standby competition.

My GUESS as to an end product:

The NewFL led by players such as Brady, et al.

I doubt such an effort succeeds but what would come from this increased competition is higher high profile salaries and increased NFLPA membership as it represents players in both the current NFL and the NewFL.

Mr. WEO · April 26, 2011

I think one of the funniest things about this is that without regard whether the players win before Doty, Nelson, or whomever, there are folks who want to simply insist the owners have the upper hand here and that this win means nothing.

They are wrong.

These wins do not mean everything but it is simply non-sensical to claim they mean nothing.

What they do is simply add to a higher hill that the owners must push out of the way if they ultimately are going to win. The default going into the draft where the broader public begins to pay attention to the NFL again is that the season is on but the next move in play is that the owners are trying to appeal to kill it.

This further brings into light that the original dispute was triggered by the owners opting out of the deal early as they were contractually able to do.

Any "win" by the owners now MIGHT still happen but to do so simply means that they and the power that orders it will be rocking the ship of state even more.

In the face of this, the NFLPA is undoubtedly not sitting still, and my GUESS is that just like occurred with the mid-80s dispute the players will try to reach their goals (more money) with a tactic that minimizes the owners take of the pie.

To me this would seem to be a goal of not killing the NFL but doing anything possible to increase competition bt fostering a new league.

Whether the NewFL fails miserably as the USFL did or succeeds as the AFL did in both cases it jacked up player salaries due to that old American standby competition.

My GUESS as to an end product:

The NewFL led by players such as Brady, et al.

I doubt such an effort succeeds but what would come from this increased competition is higher high profile salaries and increased NFLPA membership as it represents players in both the current NFL and the NewFL.

Each post loses a bit more connection with reality. But I'll play along...

What leads you to believe a guy like Brady, who already has the amongst the highest of "high profile salaries", would be interested in owning or leading, or whatever you are suggesting, a new league?

Hplarrm · April 27, 2011

Each post loses a bit more connection with reality. But I'll play along...

What leads you to believe a guy like Brady, who already has the amongst the highest of "high profile salaries", would be interested in owning or leading, or whatever you are suggesting, a new league?

I do not know him so I really do not know.

However, four things which I would guess are inherently Brady which might impact his decisions:

1. He is a leader who loves to lead. Perhaps leading his fellow players to an even greater position of control has some appeal to him,

2. He is proud and competitive man and the NFL owners have directly challenged all the players and responding in a manner that takes them on pretty directly would seem to be consistent with the character he has shown.

3. Having the respect of his teammates and leading them into battle is what he has done successfully and well throughout his career. Perhaps he has just learned to fake sincerity well and he does not care about his fellow players. Yet, I doubt that and again this would speak to him playing a lead role in a master strategy to take on the owners.

4. I have no idea whether he feels he has enough money (or even if it is possible to have enough). However, my sense is he likely has made a chunk that taking on the league may be a Dom Quixote like exercise he may lose but actually it is likely a relatively low risk move for him to make with a potential of large fiscal benefits.

Perhaps you have a read on him and the et al. that they will simply cave in the face of a pretty direct attack from the owners. Perhaps bending over and saying thank you sir can I have another is what you would do so you assume it is the logical thing for anyone to do.

However, I am influenced strongly by the fact that the NFLPA has been on a roll since the late 80s. They made an unorthodox move of threatening to decertify after the team owners simply kick the butt of the old AFL-CIO union tactics led by Ed Garvey.

This maneuver grasped victory from the jaws of defeat and produced the CBA which essentially forced recognition of the NFLPA as a partner.

Led by Gene Upshaw and a talented tenth of his fellow players (most of whom are steroid and drug infused lemmings but this actually makes it easier for the talented tenth to lead them) led the NFLPA to negotiate the last CBA which he dictated the player portion of the total revenues needed to start with a 6. Indeed, though certainly part of the final calculation was fun with #s, but by most estimates the players do take in les than 60% but still comfortably a majority of the total take,

If I am Brady, et al. the question to me is why should I try to buffalo the team owners again, but actually the question is why not and how am I gonna do it.

In the end, it seems quite clear to me that the athletes make more money any time there is actually competition rather than collusion between the owners. If I am Brady et al. to reach my goal of making the most money possible I am interested in not killing the NFL but defanging the owners quite a bit and introducing a NewFL which through competition allows the players association to represent players in a new league and the NFL.

My thinking is that the key thing here is to be a man and I am gonna make more bucks either way.

So my question to you is why not take on the NFL rather than caving to them. If you agree this is their default reaction then how do you take on the owners?

Hplarrm · April 27, 2011