8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I wrote a whole post about it, don't feel like rehashing it. But in summary, I don't believe the state of the league is as poor as the owners claim it is, and the NFLPA made several concessions which were rejected by the NFL before March

NFLPA Made Proposals To NFL On How To Split Revenues - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

and we disagree on "dubious means" and the players side was prepared to negotiate multiple times back in the spring, but the owners either wouldn't show up for meetings, would show up but sit in a separate room and not meet face to face, or would show up and leave after a couple of hours.

And from my own discussions with the league, I just don't buy that they're in the dire position they claim to be. And I know how they can bully, totally different circumstances I know.

Yes, both sides are to blame. But I think the owners are being made to look too much like the good guys. Which, I understand, they usually are because people generally have a hard time siding with "millionaires playing a kid's game"

I also don't think I'm as emotionally charged up about this as others appear to be. And heck, it would probably affect me more than most others here. But the only reason I want the issue resolved is for my own selfish reasons as a fan. But realistically, I know that what matters is getting to a long-term agreement that will benefit the players and keep the league moving forward for decades to come, not a quick fix band-aid solution to appease fans.

I'm not so aggravated about the NFLPA preparing for litigation. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have been preparing themselves for worst-case scenarios for a couple of years. That's par for the course.

I agree w/Saden; that's a good post. I've been very optimistic about this whole thing & I think I understand enough of both sides to be somewhat objective. Is greed & power involved? of course, how could it not be? But I'm trying not to get caught up on picking sides.

As a fan, I think this offers a great opportunity for the NFL & players to come up with some creative agreements that can benefit the league long-term. Like it or not, significant changes typically don't happen without some catastrophie or interuption of the status quo.

[SmootSmack]

I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.

But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.

But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA

That one needs to happen. I can live with an NBA lockout mainly because the NBA needs fundamental changes to player movement and acquisition. The NFL system on the other hand works from a competition perspective all it needs is a few tweaks. And unlike the NFL I can in fact believe that the NBA owners are loosing money.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

That one needs to happen. I can live with an NBA lockout mainly because the NBA needs fundamental changes to player movement and acquisition. The NFL system on the other hand works from a competition perspective all it needs is a few tweaks. And unlike the NFL I can in fact believe that the NBA owners are loosing money.

NBA also needs to revamp how their draft works. I just don't get how the worst team doesn't get the #1 pick because they drew ping pong balls to determine who gets the #1 pick.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.

Well...there was a deadline, and some decision had to be made. And the ultimatum offered to the NFL for another extension was, of course, 10 years of audited financials. In the next 15 minutes. Which, depending on your perspective, was either the very first in a series of moves that could be grouped as nothing more than posturing, or another move in the long line of a series of moves aimed at swaying public opinion. I think only someone who was completely delusional would consider that good faith bargaining.

And I don't think that De Smith is delusional. I think he's quite good at his job. But the thing I want to know is, why did the players take this to the District court in Minnesota if they knew it would just be appealed to the 8th Circut anyway? The only logical reason I can fathom is that it's not going to stop here, but it's headed to the Supreme Court. And THAT was the plan since decertification.

But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA

Amen.

[CRedskinsRule]

On Sirius (seriously he was on!) I counted at least three blatant, imo, fallacies that D Smith is trying to get people to believe -

1) the deal on the table at the end of mediation was the worst deal in the history of sports. It is a fallacy because regardless if the deal was a good or bad deal, I am confident that the players from the before the early 80s (you know the ones getting maybe 200 a month if they are lucky) was far worse. Rather than stick with a semi valid line that the deal was worse than any since collective bargaining started or some other line he chooses to demonize the other side and misrepresent the truth when the truth could still be seen favoring his side.

2). The owners are the first to ever sue to lock their doors, or something to that effect, again the players were the plaintiffs and filed suit, the owners appealed that decision but that is not the same as suing to shut the doors and as a legal minded individual D Smith certainly understands that. The owners were definitely seeking to shut their doors, but let's be honest and admit that that is a valid labor tool that has been used before. Also I believe the players have gone on strike in the past so both sides have used their tools when it serves their purpose.

3) the last one is a little more touchy, but basically "the players and fan want football and the owners don't". This, if he truly believes it is lunacy. The owners clearly want football, on their terms, just as much as the players want football, on their terms. Both sides need to drop concern for the fans because it is tangential at best. As for DSmiths statement again it is hyperbole meant to demonize the owners and galvanize the players. I don't see how that leads to a resolution any time soon.

This goes to what JR was saying, D Smith truly wants to dazzle people with grandiose (BS) statements - worst deal ever, first league to sue to shut doors. Rather then speak in terms which draw sides closer, he uses words to widen the gap, and push the sides apart. Granted the nfl may use words without meaning, but when they talk their words are on point about working together, getting a deal done, trying to make something that is good for players and owners. You don't here those words from D Smith right now.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It's not like Smith and Goodell haven't been talking. They spent quite a few hours together today.

...

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

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[GTripp0012]

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.

[SBXVII]

Eighth Circuit tips its hand; Judge Nelson’s ruling is in serious jeopardy | ProFootballTalk

“[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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[Ruhskins]

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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?