8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

I am not alleging for the record that the players should have accepted the March 11th proposal by the league. It wasn't good enough. But they should have extended the deadline and pushed off that framework with the decertification threat as leverage.

Because now that it's gone through the 8th circut, I see the supreme court as the only possible reason the players did any of this in the first place. De Smith, I believe, was smart enough to know that the district court PI ruling wouldn't hold up on appeal, and he more or less alluded to as much in post-ruling interviews.

Eighth Circuit tips its hand; Judge Nelson’s ruling is in serious jeopardy | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/eighth-circuit-tips-its-hand-judge-nelsons-ruling-is-in-serious-jeopardy/)

“[W]e have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.”


In finding that the league was able to satisfy the legal requirements for the issuance of the stay, the Eighth Circuit has in many respects knocked down Judge Nelson’s conclusion that the lockout should be lifted. Most powerful in this regard is the quote pasted above. If the Eighth Circuit believes the NFL has made a strong showing of success as to the application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the present facts, then the Eighth Circuit necessarily believes that the players won’t succeed on that key issue as the lawsuit proceeds. And if the Eighth Circuit believes that the players have no chance of proving that the Norris-LaGuardia Act permits a court-order lifting the lockout later, the Eighth Circuit will not issue a court order lifting the lockout now.

FRPLG: one comment - I think both sides have had a moment(or more ) of bad faith moves. The tv money on the owners side was a highly antagonistic move. The pre-expiration disclaimer/antitrust suit was just as bad faith on the players side. It is hard to believe either has had pure good faith motive but instead both simply have played along fairly predictable lines.

IF there is football next season, it's going to be a piece of sh*t year. I hope both sides are happy about this.

Just out of curiosity SS, are you referring to the boylan mediation or that the 2 met separate and apart from that?

Both, though the details of their supposed conversation apart from the mediation are suspect at best. For the purposes of my argument, I'm going to say they had a few beers at happy hour tonight while shooting some pool..but I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that Smith is just running to the podium at every turn and not doing anything to work toward an agreement.

My beef is as follows.

Owners and Goodell:
- Complain about the split and talk of the players getting 60% when in fact they only get 53% which is less then the NHL, NBA, and I'm pretty sure the MLB.

- Only a small portion of NFL contracts are guaranteed so aside from paying less in salary then the other three leagues the owners can terminate contracts only owing a fraction of what the other leagues pay.

- Goodell talks of fans being excited about the prospect of an 18 game season because the preseason games don't meet the standard set by the NFL for quality. The reality is the majority of fans don't want an 18 game season because they have little interest in increasing the risk of injury to their key players.

- Also sad is the fact that part of the reason the fans hate preaseason games is they have to pay full price. Common sense dictates that the owners should stop charging regular season prices, Owners on the other hand don't want to loose that money and instead propose two extra games even if it means putting key players at risk.

- The total revenue earned by the NFL has increased in a recession ergo proving that for the foreseeable future the NFL is recession proof.

- These stadiums that the owners claim they need more money to build are mostly being paid for by tax payers and cities. Not the owners or the league. IIRC the Bidwells paid something like $9 million for their stadium after cost were covered by the city of Phoenix and the University of Phoenix with sponsorship.

-Using the TV deals and exclusivity contracts as a rainy day fund.

- Threatening the fans with essentially an anarchy system. 'No draft, no parity, etc'

NFLPA, particularly De Smith

- Rather then engage in serious negotiations the NFLPA is simply trying to bully it's way through the courts. They are more interested in power mongering and attempting to acquire leverage rather then act like adults and work towards a CBA thats good for everyone. Collectively the NFLPA has virtually zero idea as to how to approach negotiation. Rather then viewing it as an adversarial form of team work they approach it like a football game where there is a clearly defined winner and looser.

- Lack of counter offers. Just as I've been saying rather then come up with an alternate proposal the NFLPA's solution is simply to storm out and complain to the media about getting a raw deal. The owners have offered deals that at the very least have served as a great starting point. Instead De Smith comes out and calls it "the worst deal in sports."

- Not immediately shooting down the idea of an NFLPA draft event to compete with the draft.

- Decertification. Another attempt to acquire leverage and exploit the legal system. No better then the owners rainy day fund.

- Insisting on seeing the books for themselves. Third party audits aren't good enough for the NFLPA. Again focused more on winning and acquiring leverage rather then moving things along and finding a solution to the lockout.


The owners may have started the lockout but I blame the players for allowing it to continue for as long as it has.


F'ing brilliant. Winner.

Both, though the details of their supposed conversation apart from the mediation are suspect at best. For the purposes of my argument, I'm going to say they had a few beers at happy hour tonight while shooting some pool..but I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that Smith is just running to the podium at every turn and not doing anything to work toward an agreement.

Gotcha. That you know of, has D Smith, or any player given a proposal or negotiating points since they walked away from the mediation?

FRPLG: one comment - I think both sides have had a moment(or more ) of bad faith moves. The tv money on the owners side was a highly antagonistic move. The pre-expiration disclaimer/antitrust suit was just as bad faith on the players side. It is hard to believe either has had pure good faith motive but instead both simply have played along fairly predictable lines.I always felt the tv money contract and going around to all 32 teams to vote on the right to decertify served the same purpose in this standoff. Neither was in good faith or bad faith, but were simply pre-negotiation leveraging. To decertify or lockout before talks broke off would have been the first bad faith move.

If the NFLPA had let the decertification deadline pass and then the owners went, shut off mediation, and locked the union out anyway, then that would have been an act of bad faith and I think the public would be squarely on the players side. But the NFLPA would be caught with far less leverage than they are now (their only play would have been to wait out the owners). And I don't think Smith trusted that the owners wouldn't stab him in the back if he didn't decertify.

A fantastic Prisoner's Dilemma though. And at the end of the day, I suppose that all the March negotiations ended up as was an exercise in game theory.

F'ing brilliant. Winner.

Please note that this has to be the shortest post ever from JR. I want to thank everybody involved in helping him learn how to use a minimum of words effectively!

FRPLG: one comment - I think both sides have had a moment(or more ) of bad faith moves. The tv money on the owners side was a highly antagonistic move. The pre-expiration disclaimer/antitrust suit was just as bad faith on the players side. It is hard to believe either has had pure good faith motive but instead both simply have played along fairly predictable lines.

Honestly I'm not sure it was a bad faith move as much as it was either dumb (as in they didn't ever actually consider that it was wrong) or they weren't convinced it wasn't kosher. But I would certainly concede that neither side has the claim to being totally "right" or even close.