Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
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.
|
Yeah, but they will look that way b/c the Judge has created a no-win situation for them. No matter what they do, they are at serious risk of being found either in contempt or colluding. Do nothing - contemp. Agree to adopt the old CBA rules - collusion (do they adopt last year's rules which a lot of player's hated or those of some prior year? No matter which they adopt, aren't they colluding to prohibit certain players who are out of contract from moving (what about the undrafted original free agent who would normally be an Exclusive Restrictied Free agent?). The old CBA rules (regardless of year) had multiple areas where, under collective bargaining, the players union could agree on behalf of all players - even it made some players unhappy. Now, with no collective bargaining entity, any agreement by teams to impose across the board restrictions (we will treat all 2nd year players as EFA's) is blatant collusion.
I haven't read the original opinion of J. Nelson, but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it is probably poorly written and a bad case of result oriented (as opposed to law based) judging.