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

[SmootSmack]

Man, we were all saying Mort is Mr. Doom and Gloom yesterday, but he called this

what an unfortunate situation

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Report: Owners get stay of injunction, lockout back on | ProFootballTalk


Lockout could be back on.



I don't get this. How is it one judge sees all these things in the CBA that broke Anti-trust laws, yet now we have another judge allowing the lockout?

****ing retarded.

Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

Judge Nelsons ruling would have forced the NFL to establish some sort of rules. the NFLPA* would have then filed an anti-trust suit, as 32 independant teams could not unilaterally impose any kind of rules on a non-unionized workforce. The ultimate result of this would be a horribly one-sided "CBA" where the owners got an even worse deal than the one they have been in.

As a result, this deal would be VERY short and whenever it expired, we would be right back in the same mess we're in now.

From a logical perspective, consider this - if the union is allowed to strike, then the NFL should be allowed to lock out the players. Anything else is simply unfair. Both sides have to have equal leverage if they are going to negotiate a deal that is fair for both sides. It seems pretty clear that DeMaurice Smith sabotagued the entire process and never once negotiated with the NFL in good faith. His remarks are always to the extreme and border on insanity.

Ultimately, the only way we will have long-term labor peace in the NFL is if both sides negotiate a fair deal. The best chance for that to happen is during the lockout. Both sides have to get back to the bargaining table and continuing the lockout will essentially force both sides to do just that. If the players had any sense, they'd remove Smith from the process ASAP and assign a delegation to talk with the owners and work out a deal, using the last offer the NFL made back in march as a starting point.

[Swarley]

Insider The Insider
8th District Appeals Court Clerk Michael E. Gans says no ruling issued either way. Previous reports of lockout back on are erroneous.

[Monkeydad]

Of course they're erroneous, we're posting reports from PFT here.

[skinsfaninok]

Imagine that

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Of course they're erroneous, we're posting reports from PFT here.

to be fair this one's on ESPN. Don't know where they got their info from.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

Judge Nelsons ruling would have forced the NFL to establish some sort of rules. the NFLPA* would have then filed an anti-trust suit, as 32 independant teams could not unilaterally impose any kind of rules on a non-unionized workforce. The ultimate result of this would be a horribly one-sided "CBA" where the owners got an even worse deal than the one they have been in.

As a result, this deal would be VERY short and whenever it expired, we would be right back in the same mess we're in now.

From a logical perspective, consider this - if the union is allowed to strike, then the NFL should be allowed to lock out the players. Anything else is simply unfair. Both sides have to have equal leverage if they are going to negotiate a deal that is fair for both sides. It seems pretty clear that DeMaurice Smith sabotagued the entire process and never once negotiated with the NFL in good faith. His remarks are always to the extreme and border on insanity.

Ultimately, the only way we will have long-term labor peace in the NFL is if both sides negotiate a fair deal. The best chance for that to happen is during the lockout. Both sides have to get back to the bargaining table and continuing the lockout will essentially force both sides to do just that. If the players had any sense, they'd remove Smith from the process ASAP and assign a delegation to talk with the owners and work out a deal, using the last offer the NFL made back in march as a starting point.

Great post.

[Son Of Man]

Can't find info on web. Is the lockout on or off?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

to be fair this one's on ESPN. Don't know where they got their info from.

Just confusion in the communication with the many moving pieces of this story

[Swarley]

for an off-season that supposed to be locked down, it's been a epic ride of highs and lows lol

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

Judge Nelsons ruling would have forced the NFL to establish some sort of rules. the NFLPA* would have then filed an anti-trust suit, as 32 independant teams could not unilaterally impose any kind of rules on a non-unionized workforce. The ultimate result of this would be a horribly one-sided "CBA" where the owners got an even worse deal than the one they have been in.

This a professional opinion or personal? Not sure any of us can say her judgment was wrong from a legal perspective without being a lawyer or at least somebody with expertise in that field.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

From a logical perspective, consider this - if the union is allowed to strike, then the NFL should be allowed to lock out the players. Anything else is simply unfair.

The difference is, if the players strike, the owners can bring in new players and still get paid from TV contracts, endorsements,etc. The players on the other hand don't get paid. I'd say they aren't even remotely the same.

So should the NFL Players get TV contracts, concessions money and other endorsements during this time when the owners are locking out? The owners would if it were a player strike. You are all about "equality" as you keep saying.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Both sides have to have equal leverage if they are going to negotiate a deal that is fair for both sides. It seems pretty clear that DeMaurice Smith sabotagued the entire process and never once negotiated with the NFL in good faith.

That's not quite true, and misleading to say the least. The owners colluded after signing the last CBA that they were going to opt out, and they were going to make it so they had all the leverage by having the TV contract rights still pay them 4 billion even in the case of a lock out. Sound like a "even playing field" to you"? Stevie Wonder can see how crooked it is, which is exactly why it got shot down in the court of law. You speak about DeMaurice SMith as if you are in these negotiations and he's some evil villain, yet you don't mention Jerry Jones or Jerry Richardson insulting the players at the meeting. That street goes both ways.




I suggest you read this.
NFL owners are wrong, and don’t get it - The Washington Post

[Son Of Man]

Did the NFL release the rules for transactions yet?

[Monkeydad]

They were supposed to at 8 a.m. I believe.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Its simple - Judge Nelson was completely wrong from a legal perspective and horribly short-sighted.

.

Typically when a party seeks a stay/injuction/protective/peace or restraining order the moving party presents it to the Court ex parte, meaning only the moving party (in this case the NFL) is present.

Typically a temporary protective order/stay/injunction is issued, notice for a hearing with all parties to be present is sent out to everyone and the final hearing is held usually a week to 10 days after the temp protective order.

So I wouldnt go thinking this is evidence that Judge Nelson is completely wrong and short sighted. This is a huge issue for America right now, there is no way in heck the 8th Circuit is not going to hear arguments on this case so we can all get to a final non-appealable decision.

The 8th circuit almost had to issue a temp order to maintain status qou until they get a chance to have a full hearing, consider arguments then give an opinion (which really will just remand this thing bakc to Judge Nelson but with instructions/directions on procedurial issues).

Its not hard at all to get a temp protective order. While the 8th circuit could have denied the temp order request and still set this in on for a full hearing, that would seem kinda odd procedurially. 'We deny the temp order b/c we find that you have not presented any evidence that you may suffer immediate irreparable harm but we are going to set this in for a full appeal anyways" just would be weird.

Its in the 8th circuit now, things are frozen until the 8th circuit can hear from the NFLPA on the issue of whether a lockout would cause immediate irreparable harm which will happen at the final protective order hearing within a week. Then we wait until there is a hearing on the actual merits of the appeal. The 8th circuit will not decide this case, it will be remanded back down to Judge Nelson with instructions imo.

Short version is = this has nothing to do with the merits of the appeal, it is a very normal ancillary step in the appellate process. We normally file 2 motions for stays, 1 in trial court and other contemporaneously with the appeal petition itself.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

From ESPN 980, the 8th Circuit Court grants the league a stay of the lockout injunction.

Good job owners, you are giving less time for the players you drafted to get acquainted with playbooks and whatnot.

Butz we needz more of ze luckzery boxez. We don't make enough moneys to cover ze alimony payments. Plus the playerz get 60%, thatz not fair.

"Actually the players get 53%."

"You zay potato i zay lockout."