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

[CRedskinsRule]

Well the last CBA in effect was the 2006, so I imagine that is why they refer to it. The 2010 rules were a part of the 2006 CBA so I imagine if they wanted to follow those regarding player movement and salary arrangements they would refer to this as an extension of the 2006 CBA portion that governs uncapped years.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well the last CBA in effect was the 2006, so I imagine that is why they refer to it. The 2010 rules were a part of the 2006 CBA so I imagine if they wanted to follow those regarding player movement and salary arrangements they would refer to this as an extension of the 2006 CBA portion that governs uncapped years.

Thanks CRed. That makes sense.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well the last CBA in effect was the 2006, so I imagine that is why they refer to it. The 2010 rules were a part of the 2006 CBA so I imagine if they wanted to follow those regarding player movement and salary arrangements they would refer to this as an extension of the 2006 CBA portion that governs uncapped years.

And, of course, be open to treble damages for colluding to prevent player movement.

If I am the NFL's attorney I advise them to do exactly what they are doing, wait until the Judge makes an unequivocal statement, then slowly and incrementally comply. Drag your feet but keep moving forward, then plead the "gosh jeepers" defense to the Judge: "Gosh Geepers judge, we're trying to comply, but we want to make sure whatever we do is legal." All the while prepping and doing all you can to expedite the appeal of Nelson's order.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And, of course, be open to treble damages for colluding to prevent player movement.

If I am the NFL's attorney I advise them to do exactly what they are doing, wait until the Judge makes an unequivocal statement, then slowly and incrementally comply. Drag your feet but keep moving forward, then plead the "gosh jeepers" defense to the Judge: "Gosh Geepers judge, we're trying to comply, but we want to make sure whatever we do is legal." All the while prepping and doing all you can to expedite the appeal of Nelson's order.

exactly, I don't even begin to know the legalities involved in all this, but how the league can be told on one hand, you must open, but on the other say, any rules will be subject to anti-trust threats. I just don't get it.

[JoeRedskin]

Well, all the owners are evil and don't deserve sound legal rulings anyway. The "Rule of Law" only applies to the folks we like.

[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.

[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."

[CRedskinsRule]

And for conspiracy theorists around the world, how does the fact that the NFL got to do all the meet greets with their 1st rounders fit into our judicial branch's timing. Mighty suspicious if you ask me :cheeky-sm

[Ruhskins]

So can the teams sign the players they have drafted? And if they do, do they say: "okay you've signed on the dotted line, now we can't speak to you" after they sign the rooks?

[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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

Well basically, it takes players type money to pay off State level judges, but it takes owner type money to pay off Appellate level judges.






I keeed, I keeed

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well basically, it takes players type money to pay off State level judges, but it takes owner type money to pay off Appellate level judges.






I keeed, I keeed

Probably closer to the truth than you know. Justice in this country is bought and paid for.

[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.

[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.

[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