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

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Let's keep this thread on track

........good luck.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by saden1

To quote an idiot..."Intelligent fan I can read, rambling [stupid] fan I can not."

There is no hope.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

Good job my friend.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I would have to say yes, but I firmly believe that players value fans more than the owners do. Had the players been the one that opted out of this CBA, I would be saying the same thing in regards to them.


It's rare you find a owner like JKC that was pretty much a fan favorite because he gave back to the community. In fact, the majority of his inheritance went to his foundation to give scholarships to needy people. You'll be hard-pressed to find another owner in the NFL like that.

Now I'm confused. I know the owners probably wanted a whole new CBA and to get it meant going past the deadline without an agreement, but...

I don't think the owners were the ones who backed out first. I don't care how much garbage the offer was by the owners, the players still had 6 hrs on the clock to negotiate when they walked out and decertified. In my opinion they walked out of the CBA. It was my understanding that if the owners didn't lockout the players each individual player could file a law suit against the owner which is why they locked out to protect themselves. Plus the players felt they would have the upper hand by decertifying (which is illegal) so the owners locked out to get that upper hand back.

Am I wrong?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Now I'm confused. I know the owners probably wanted a whole new CBA and to get it meant going past the deadline without an agreement, but...

I don't think the owners were the ones who backed out first. I don't care how much garbage the offer was by the owners, the players still had 6 hrs on the clock to negotiate when they walked out and decertified. In my opinion they walked out of the CBA. It was my understanding that if the owners didn't lockout the players each individual player could file a law suit against the owner which is why they locked out to protect themselves. Plus the players felt they would have the upper hand by decertifying (which is illegal) so the owners locked out to get that upper hand back.

Am I wrong?

kinda -
1 -the owners opted out 2 years ago. Had they not done that the current CBA would have been in place for 2 more years, and the 2011 season would not be in jeopardy.

(note that the language to opt out was such that either party could opt out. Clearly the players were not going to because they like the CBA as it was written. The owners took their legal option to opt out, now most on the players' side make it sound like that was the sole cause for where we are)

2 - the CBA included provisions for handling labor law at the expiration:

Section 2. Labor Exemption: In effectuation of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the labor exemption from the antitrust laws applies during the express term of this Agreement and to any conduct of the NFL and the NFLPA taken in accordance with the terms of this Agreement during its express term.

Section 3. CBA Expiration:
(a) Following the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, then, if the NFLPA is in existence as a union, the Parties agree that none of the Class Members (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) nor any player represented by the NFLPA shall be able to commence an action, or assert a claim, under the antitrust laws for conduct occurring, until either: (i) the Management Council and NFLPA have bargained to impasse; or (ii) six (6) months after such expiration, whichever is later; at that time, the Parties reserve any arguments they may make regarding the application of thelabor exemption.

(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.

so basically, in Section 2, both sides agree that Antitrust doesn't apply during the CBA.

then Section 3 deals with AFTER the CBA expires

in Section 3a the owners are promised that no antitrust action will be taken until 6 months or a mediation impasse occur

and in Section 3b the players are assured that the NFL will not declare a decertification (again after the CBA expires) a sham.

(It seems clear to me, that the NFLPA didn't honor this in the spirit it was intended. That is, it gave both sides assurances of good faith behaviour, and the NFLPA circumvented those assurances in order to gain a huge strong arm tactic over the NFL.)

3 - whether the decertification is illegal is at the center of the case before the appeals court. That is why the fact that it will be expedited and ruled on before July is an excellent thing. By the spirit of the above CBA, the decertification certainly exhibits some degree of bad faith to honor the 6 month period both had agreed upon.

In my opinion, the owners violated good faith in the TV deals, and the players violated good faith by decertifying before the CBA expired (note section 2 both sides agreed to maintain Anti-trust protection for the term of the CBA. Basically the owners didn't get the right legal-ese to protect themselves from the NFLPA breaking the spirit of the agreement)

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

kinda -
1 -the owners opted out 2 years ago. Had they not done that the current CBA would have been in place for 2 more years, and the 2011 season would not be in jeopardy.

(note that the language to opt out was such that either party could opt out. Clearly the players were not going to because they like the CBA as it was written. The owners took their legal option to opt out, now most on the players' side make it sound like that was the sole cause for where we are)

2 - the CBA included provisions for handling labor law at the expiration:


so basically, in Section 2, both sides agree that Antitrust doesn't apply during the CBA.

then Section 3 deals with AFTER the CBA expires

in Section 3a the owners are promised that no antitrust action will be taken until 6 months or a mediation impasse occur

and in Section 3b the players are assured that the NFL will not declare a decertification (again after the CBA expires) a sham.

(It seems clear to me, that the NFLPA didn't honor this in the spirit it was intended. That is, it gave both sides assurances of good faith behaviour, and the NFLPA circumvented those assurances in order to gain a huge strong arm tactic over the NFL.)

3 - whether the decertification is illegal is at the center of the case before the appeals court. That is why the fact that it will be expedited and ruled on before July is an excellent thing. By the spirit of the above CBA, the decertification certainly exhibits some degree of bad faith to honor the 6 month period both had agreed upon.

In my opinion, the owners violated good faith in the TV deals, and the players violated good faith by decertifying before the CBA expired (note section 2 both sides agreed to maintain Anti-trust protection for the term of the CBA. Basically the owners didn't get the right legal-ese to protect themselves from the NFLPA breaking the spirit of the agreement)

It was my understanding that as you said there would be no suit AFTER the CBA expired.. as long as the NFLPA (union) was still in place. and as you pointed out nothing can occurr legally until after 6 months which is the mediation process. Then the Union could file suit.

But because the Union/players didn't want to wait the 6 months to file their law suits and wanted to have the upper hand they decertified early prior to the CBA so they could file their law suits. The only thing the owners could do to protect themselves was lock out. Again this is what I'm to understand. I could be wrong. I'm just trying to clarify.

basically the owners were trying to force something the players didn't want, the players decertified in attempts to force the owners to do something they didn't want, then the owners locked out to again force the players to do something they don't want. Now it's in the courts hands. The owners are hoping the courts will be fair and say they can keep the extra billion or atleast split it 50/50. The players are hoping the courts look at it and say no the owners can not take away from what you already have.

[CRedskinsRule]

closer (and again, when I say that I mean to my understanding, which is not legally certified)

By decertifying, the players put the owners in a no win situation. If they lockout, that is legally illegal (meaning it violates anti trust). If they play with any set of agreed rules, it is legally illegal. The only legally legal option would be to remove all barriers to player movement (draft, FA, Franchise tags, salary cap/floor, etc) and allow all movement. The owners will not do that because they then have no position to bargain.

Your last sentence:

Now it's in the courts hands. The owners are hoping the courts will be fair and say they can keep the extra billion or atleast split it 50/50. The players are hoping the courts look at it and say no the owners can not take away from what you already have.

is where you get way off track. The courts cannot, and will not mandate any type of pay, or what is appropriate compensation and/or split of revenue.

Instead, the court will rule on the legality of a) the de-certification, and b) the ensuing lockout. If the courts say the decertification is invalid, or that it is the NLRB's place to make that decision, then the owners get a significant win, and hopefully the players come back more willing to find agreement. If the courts say that the decertification stands, then they will have to say the lockout is invalid, and the owners can follow three options:
1) put temp rules in place and get a deal done to avoid anti trust lawsuits (most likely imo)
2) put no rules in place and allow all movement, no restrictions, and then fight for CBA without as much threat of anti-trust lawsuits(not really likely because of the precedents and weak bargaining position)
3) shut down NFL offices, and void the league, allowing teams to create new and competing leagues (nuclear option if everything goes against the owners, mostly scare tactic with no real chance of happening)

Hopefully, once the Jun 3rd hearing takes place and a decision is made both sides will finally negotiate properly.

[SBXVII]

^ understood. Yeah, I figured both sides are stretching the truth and somewhere in between the truth lies.

[SBXVII]

In a nut shell it still sounds to me like the players should be at fault for the majority of all this.

I know the owners gave a crappy deal. I don't dispute that. But right now no one can say if the negotiations kept going that at the 12 o'clock hour both sides might have agreed to another extention since progress was being made. Just like we really don't know if no progress would have been made and no extention, CBA expires, and the players forced to wait 6 months to do anything. But thats my point, 6 hours might have been a completely different story but the players chose not to sit and even try to work out a deal, they chose to walk out.

In almost any negotiation even though one side says this is the final offer, it can be negotiated and in this case it sounds or looks like it was never attempted.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

In a nut shell it still sounds to me like the players should be at fault for the majority of all this.

I know the owners gave a crappy deal. I don't dispute that. But right now no one can say if the negotiations kept going that at the 12 o'clock hour both sides might have agreed to another extention since progress was being made. Just like we really don't know if no progress would have been made and no extention, CBA expires, and the players forced to wait 6 months to do anything. But thats my point, 6 hours might have been a completely different story but the players chose not to sit and even try to work out a deal, they chose to walk out.

In almost any negotiation even though one side says this is the final offer, it can be negotiated and in this case it sounds or looks like it was never attempted.

I agree with this.

The problem from the players perspective is that for 6 months they would have had near zero leverage, while the owners still could have, and likely would have locked them out. So the question for the union was will their membership withstand a 6 month lockout and still be in the mood for a lengthy legal battle. The leadership figured no.

Both sides had 2+ years to sit and truly negotiate, and instead spent most of that time posturing, and angering the other side's leadership. That animosity isn't just going to disappear...

(I will add a jab at the out of whack judiciary that has basically emboldened the players union to try tactics that have never been used before (that I could find), and that will only continue when Doty rules in the next week that the players are due some humongous damage settlement which the NFL will then put back in the 8th district court of appeals. I would not be shocked for Doty to rule that the players are due the whole 4Billion, 1.5 Billion as split of revenue, and 2.5B as damages) with the whole amount put in escrow pending resolution.)

[SBXVII]

I don't know why I feel totally different. I have no connections so I more than anything else will most likely be wrong, but personally I feel the owners have a case. Given the players even announced they were decertifying in order to have the upper hand, plus the failure to stay the whole time to try to work out an agreement. I just have a feeling that had the Union stayed the rest of the time, let the CBA expire, waited the 6 months (no matter how inconvenient), and filed to decertify, the owners would have little to stand on.

I'm just guessing but I could see the 8th Circuit telling the players they illegally decertified and force them back as a Union, then tell the owners to lift the lockout, and force mediation. No one pays a fine, no one gets blamed, all parties forced back to the bargening table. Maybe even force both parties to work under a court modified CBA (that neither party likes) until a permenant one is agreed upon

[CRedskinsRule]

I feel the same way you do SBXVII. I am just trying to explain what I understand the process to be. IMO the players, led by D Smith, are in the wrong, but more to my feeling, is that D Smith is trying to make his mark, and that most players bought into his line, and now are not constructively engaged in the process. Philip Rivers last Saturday (and I don't have a link) said as much, that he and his team mates don't have an idea of what's going on, and that they are just getting ready for football. If the 8th District Court of appeals upholds the stay, then a lot more players will be asking why they went this route.

Just want to point out also, that the 8th District Court of appeals will not force the players to be a Union, most likely what they would do is uphold the stay, and send the case back to Judge Nelson with instructions on how to deal with the NLRB and Decertification issue, for example they could tell her that she has to re-consider her ruling with the view that decertification was not legally valid. Or something like that. I couldn't afford the Holiday Inn last night...

[CRedskinsRule]

One other thing, I think if Troy Vincent had been elected instead of D Smith, negotiations would have continued, and we would be very close to a good deal for all involved. I can't prove it, but I believe it

[Longtimefan]

Is [in your opinion] the disposition DeAngelo Hall is taking in regards to the lockout and what he's doing with his down time setting an adverse precedent to what the players are trying to accomplish as a whole?....or, by Hall proclaiming himself a team leader should he project an image that's more team oriented?

DeAngelo Hall has the audacity to enjoy himself during lockout - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports

[Alvin Walton]

Yep, he'll prolly weight 270 when he reports.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

In a nut shell it still sounds to me like the players should be at fault for the majority of all this. .

Absolutely and totally 100% false. No idea where you are coming up with that crap, but the federal mediator that was overseeing this bargaining even stated that there obviously no use in continuing the discussions because they were both at sticking points that neither were budging on. I posted this a while back when it was said. So this whole notion that the players didn't try to negotiate till the final hour is a bit misguided.


Again, they would still be under the same CBA and rules had the owners not opted out 2 years ago. This squarely is on the shoulders of the owners, not the players.