Updated Title: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Reinstated

NFL’s flirtation with contempt of court intensifies | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/27/nfls-flirtation-with-contempt-of-court-intensifies/)

While I question PFT's position to provide legal analysis, it does bring up good points. The NFL is no longer in a position to stall the start of the new league year.

I would imagine, again not a lawyer here, but I'd guess that the law would permit the NFL some time to get its house in order and communicate the new world to its teams. In other words, Judge Nelson has said the lockout is over, and if the NFL were to purposely delay the start of the new year, they could be found in contempt of court. But there still needs to be a few days of lead time for the NFL to communicate with its teams and set a date for the opening of free agency that represents a reasonable time frame for logistically ending the lockout.

The NFL's legal team are probably explaining the situation to the executives as we speak, and teams are all completely in the dark awaiting for direction from the executives. Over the next few days Goodell is going to provide that direction to teams, and from a legal standpoint that direction can only be, "Gentlemen, start your engines."

I'm no lawyer, but with my limited understanding, I think such a move to band together and avoid signing free agents would be considered collusion and would violate US antitrust laws.

It's OK if some teams elect not to sign free agents. But it's not OK if all teams get together and say hey nobody sign anybody until we get what we want. That's effectively the same thing as locking the players out, which is exactly what they were just ordered to stop doing.

In my view, free agency is open for business NOW. It's just all the NFL teams are looking around for guidance. They're all basically wondering "OK, WTF do we do now?"

Unfortunately for the NFL (and fortunately for us as Redskin fans), the answer is free agency bonanza with no salary cap in place. It's just going to take some time for everyone to realize that.

I think your collusion point is dead on, will be interesting to see who makes the first move here

That is how I've felt since the issue was first ordered by Nelson on Monday. On the flip side, if the teams do come up with rules and move forward, the players will file an antitrust lawsuit since 32 individual teams can't arbitrarily establish a set of rules on a non-unionized workforce.

That's why I believe Nelson made the wrong call. The league is damned I'd they do and damned if they don't. It's highly unfair.

And now reading more about it, it appears the players are making the points I'm making, that free agency should start immediately. But at the same time the NFL is standing firm that the league year will not move forward without the stay issue being resolved through the 8th circuit of appeals.

So WTF is going on. I can see why there's so much confusion. On one hand you have a judge siding with the players, basically telling the NFL to get on with it, you're not going to win, you have to end the lockout. And on the other hand you have the NFL saying "we don't have to listen to you, we're taking the case to the 8th circuit."

What a cluster. All these appeals and legal proceedings are ridiculous. A judge said play ball. So shut up and play ball, NFL!!

I gotta say, I never thought I'd be for a union of any kind. I'm a company/management kind of a guy through and through. But the owners are serious bitches on this one. I hope the 8th circuit says talk to the hand, we dont' want to hear it.

Although I am not certain, I would imagine that the standard NFL contract has many clauses that are tied to a CBA by reference. Unless the league decides to adopt those refrences, a lot of contract language will have to be rewritten or created from whole cloth

For example: "Player agrees to the code of conduct and penaltiies set forth in Article !V(a)(1), (2) of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement."

Unless the referenced provision is adopted, the club would need to specifically define all the various infractions and penalties.

Thinking about it, it might be considered collusion if all the clubs adopt the same set of standard clauses. Also, this might present clubs an opportunity for getting very creative, in all sorts of small ways, in their contract language. For example, I believe that, under the old CBA, signing bonuses were guarranteed. Well, maybe clubs could now stick in clauses and/or language that gives them greater leeway in recouping bad signing bonuses.

I am just speculating on this. I have zero experience in anti-trust/labor law stuff - just some semi informed knowledge.

I agree with Schneed in that if this is the end of the lockout then there needs to be a time frame to allow the businesses to get there resources together and there needs to be an opening day that allows fair game of the FA market.

Also like the points on collusion. I have not read the articles posted yet, but you are spot on regarding antitrust laws. Business Law 101 just took it last semester... lol

Although I am not certain, I would imagine that the standard NFL contract has many clauses that are tied to a CBA by reference. Unless the league decides to adopt those refrences, a lot of contract language will have to be rewritten or created from whole cloth

For example: "Player agrees to the code of conduct and penaltiies set forth in Article !V(a)(1), (2) of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement."

Unless the referenced provision is adopted, the club would need to specifically define all the various infractions and penalties.

Thinking about it, it might be considered collusion if all the clubs adopt the same set of standard clauses. Also, this might present clubs an opportunity for getting very creative, in all sorts of small ways, in their contract language. For example, I believe that, under the old CBA, signing bonuses were guarranteed. Well, maybe clubs could now stick in clauses and/or language that gives them greater leeway in recouping bad signing bonuses.

I am just speculating on this. I have zero experience in anti-trust/labor law stuff - just some semi informed knowledge.

Your semi-informed law knowledge is better than my semi-educated guesses. You're probably right, that adds a whole other layer of confusion.

I am guessing that as this confusion begins to get cleared up, the NFL is going to look like a bunch of assholes. Business is going to have to resume at some point, and the league will not be prepared in the least.

Free agency will start at an awkward time, or there will be no salary cap, or teams will be in the dark. OR... the NFL will cave in its negotiations with the players and accept a deal just to keep some rules in place and maintain competitive balance.

The players have all the leverage at this point. What a mess.

I agree with Schneed in that if this is the end of the lockout then there needs to be a time frame to allow the businesses to get there resources together and there needs to be an opening day that allows fair game of the FA market.

Also like the points on collusion. I have not read the articles posted yet, but you are spot on regarding antitrust laws. Business Law 101 just took it last semester... lol

I agree. But from Judge Nelson's point of view, that time frame began Monday, not this evening. The owners should have already been preparing for that eventuality.

Cam Jordan and Matt Hasselbeck?

JJ Watt and Christian Ponder and Ryan Harris and Davin Joseph?

Lolll

Although I am not certain, I would imagine that the standard NFL contract has many clauses that are tied to a CBA by reference. Unless the league decides to adopt those refrences, a lot of contract language will have to be rewritten or created from whole cloth

For example: "Player agrees to the code of conduct and penaltiies set forth in Article !V(a)(1), (2) of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement."

Unless the referenced provision is adopted, the club would need to specifically define all the various infractions and penalties.

Thinking about it, it might be considered collusion if all the clubs adopt the same set of standard clauses. Also, this might present clubs an opportunity for getting very creative, in all sorts of small ways, in their contract language. For example, I believe that, under the old CBA, signing bonuses were guarranteed. Well, maybe clubs could now stick in clauses and/or language that gives them greater leeway in recouping bad signing bonuses.

I am just speculating on this. I have zero experience in anti-trust/labor law stuff - just some semi informed knowledge.

Given the conditions which you so ably describe, the owners should be motivated to re-install last year's rules. Yes, this could still be considered collusion, but since the players agreed on those rules once upon a time, it is a safer stance than new, ad hoc rules.

And, if I am an owner, I see the wisdom of getting back to the bargaining table, compromising, and getting something done.

While the free-for-all which you describe does have some benefits for owners, in the bigger picture owners will lose in a free-for-all situation, and they know it.