PDA

View Full Version : Stay of Lockout granted: Players' concede, Football soon to follow?


descendency
05-16-2011, 07:05 PM
Per Adam Schefter:

The stay is granted. Lockout is on.

Owners now have the leverage. This is a complete win for the owners. Players are in trouble, based on judge's words in this ruling.


MORE BREAKING (GREAT NEWS):

Sal Paolantonio just reported that the NFLPA asked the NFL to give them a new offer, and that they're going to meet well into the night. Carl Eller said he was very optimistic.

The owners have the leverage now completely on their side and unless the Supreme Court sees an egregious violation or just wants to screw with NFL fans, the legal matter is basically over.

Basically, the players will have to take a deal at this point if they want any say in the matter.

umphrey
05-16-2011, 07:16 PM
I don't see how this translates directly to leverage. I would describe it as another delay (which may or may not be leverage).

Bucs_Rule
05-16-2011, 07:29 PM
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the lockout can remain intact until a full appeal is heard on whether it is legal. That hearing is scheduled June 3 in St. Louis, and it is before the same panel that issued this 2-1 decision.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/05/16/labor-mediation.ap/index.html#ixzz1MZKHSPax

Instead of delivering a knockout blow it just delayed the court fight for a couple weeks.

Now, I have no idea how often the courts would grant a stay and then when appeal reverse it. If it's very often you win stay battle you'll end up winning the full appeal then it is significant. If it's not, this was 2-1, then it's not strong indication of what is to come and players haven't lost too much leverage.

descendency
05-16-2011, 08:09 PM
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/05/16/labor-mediation.ap/index.html#ixzz1MZKHSPax

Instead of delivering a knockout blow it just delayed the court fight for a couple weeks.

Now, I have no idea how often the courts would grant a stay and then when appeal reverse it. If it's very often you win stay battle you'll end up winning the full appeal then it is significant. If it's not, this was 2-1, then it's not strong indication of what is to come and players haven't lost too much leverage.

It's not what happened, but the wording of the decision that lead quite a few people to conclude it's over. Basically, it sounds like nothing the players say on June 3rd will change anything.

This means so much that the players asked for a new proposal. The league apparently has given them something, whether that is an actual new proposal, I don't know but some are reporting it is and some are reporting it's just a list of demands.

phlysac
05-16-2011, 09:16 PM
It's not what happened, but the wording of the decision that lead quite a few people to conclude it's over. Basically, it sounds like nothing the players say on June 3rd will change anything.

This means so much that the players asked for a new proposal. The league apparently has given them something, whether that is an actual new proposal, I don't know but some are reporting it is and some are reporting it's just a list of demands.

It was expected all along that the 8th Circuit would rule this way. This is why the owners pushed for it to be heard by them. They nearly always rule in conservative fashion. There is no more leverage with this (in my opinion) than when the Player's had the judges (Susan Nelson, et al.) they prefered rule in their favor.

What I found most damning was that not a single active player was present for this ruling as well as the quote uttered by DeMaurice Smith...

paraphrasing: This is the first time in major professional sports history where the League has sued to prevent their game from being played!

J-Mike88
05-16-2011, 10:09 PM
I'm so tired of this ****ing ****.
But I am on the side of THE FAN (the CONSUMER).

RaiderNation
05-16-2011, 10:27 PM
Hopefully this is true. Didn't reporters say they were close a month or so ago and look at where we are now.

descendency
05-16-2011, 11:30 PM
It was expected all along that the 8th Circuit would rule this way. This is why the owners pushed for it to be heard by them. They nearly always rule in conservative fashion. There is no more leverage with this (in my opinion) than when the Player's had the judges (Susan Nelson, et al.) they prefered rule in their favor.

Even if expected, the players needed to win this case (or well, the June 3rd case more precisely but that will likely be a similar result) to have any hope of their anti-trust strategy of working. Basically, now they have to file anti-trust lawsuits and hope they both don't destroy the NFL and that they destroy the NFL.

This is a situation now that there is no way to guarantee that the players can get football back without conceding. If they try to pursue anti-trust litigation, they may end up doing irreparable harm to the game. This obviously hurts the players.

As a result of today's case, all the owners have to do is delay any case and appeal (to the conservative 8th Circuit Court of Appeals). This will last long into the season and the players will concede because of the missed game checks. That's why losing today should be the end of this. Players were already starting to organize against the NFLPA* but it will surely be worse now that this victory has gone to the owners.

edit: If you (anyone reading this) want to read how the Court of Appeals basically has said the players can't use decertification to prevent a lockout, here is the actual court document that came out of this appeal: http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2011/0516/opinion_re_stay.pdf

Iamcanadian
05-19-2011, 11:22 AM
Even if expected, the players needed to win this case (or well, the June 3rd case more precisely but that will likely be a similar result) to have any hope of their anti-trust strategy of working. Basically, now they have to file anti-trust lawsuits and hope they both don't destroy the NFL and that they destroy the NFL.

This is a situation now that there is no way to guarantee that the players can get football back without conceding. If they try to pursue anti-trust litigation, they may end up doing irreparable harm to the game. This obviously hurts the players.

As a result of today's case, all the owners have to do is delay any case and appeal (to the conservative 8th Circuit Court of Appeals). This will last long into the season and the players will concede because of the missed game checks. That's why losing today should be the end of this. Players were already starting to organize against the NFLPA* but it will surely be worse now that this victory has gone to the owners.

edit: If you (anyone reading this) want to read how the Court of Appeals basically has said the players can't use decertification to prevent a lockout, here is the actual court document that came out of this appeal: http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2011/0516/opinion_re_stay.pdf

I disagree, while it is a setback for the players, it has zero effect on the antitrust suits where the owners are looking at huge penalties running potentially into the billions of dollars. If the owners try to delay, the players will simply follow through on their lawsuits and the NFL will likely see many more lawsuits coming from individual players.
Worst case scenario, the players end up as millionaires for not playing and the NFL is replaced by another league that moves in to pick up the pieces.
I hardly think the NFL is prepared to put all their eggs into court decisions concerning lawsuits, they will use what little leverage they still have to get a settlement quickly before the court cases see the light of day.
IMO, the leverage still resides with the players while the owners are looking at huge financial losses which could cost each owner a billion dollars or more.
If I'm an owner I want this whole mess settled quickly, I want it all to go away ASAP. Otherwise, the whole future of the NFL could be at stake and that isn't something I planned on when I agreed to cancel the old CBA.
Business when it is sued, stall, stall, stall and stall some more, hoping it will all go away, but if the players stay strong, the owners are looking at triple damages so both sides still have leverage.

FlyingElvis
05-19-2011, 11:46 AM
It seems to me this ruling says . . . well, exactly what it says: Decertification doesn't prevent the NFL from locking out the players.

We already knew that.

Decertification was a long-shot attempt to get a favorable ruling preventing the lockout, but the main goal was to allow anti-trust lawsuits. This ruling doesn't change that, and the players still have the leverage in that case b/c the league clearly is in violation of A/T legislation on several key issues.

Brothgar
05-19-2011, 12:42 PM
I have a feeling that the new CBA will come by the time that game 2 or 3 of the NBA Finals happens.

FlyingElvis
05-19-2011, 12:49 PM
I have a feeling that the new CBA will come by the time that game 2 or 3 of the NBA Finals happens.

Good lawdy let's hope so. Both sides have to see they're just going back and forth w/the only result being more animosity from the fans that support their billion dollar industry.

killxswitch
05-19-2011, 01:33 PM
I think fears of losing the entire season are unfounded. As soon as players start missing game checks they will break ranks and start calling for a deal, or a new NFLPA head, or both. Players were trying to get loans months ago, some of these guys are just not going to be able to handle the lack of incoming cash.

Hopefully it gets resolved before then but I have no faith in Goodell or De Smith. They want to posture and call names and litigate (but say that they don't want to litigate).

Watchman
05-19-2011, 08:48 PM
I'm not ashamed to say that I really don't care. In September, if there isn't any football, I will start caring. I don't side with the owners or players, if there aren't any games come fall I'll be pissed at both for screwing everything up.

Iamcanadian
05-20-2011, 10:03 AM
I'm not ashamed to say that I really don't care. In September, if there isn't any football, I will start caring. I don't side with the owners or players, if there aren't any games come fall I'll be pissed at both for screwing everything up.

That's about the way I feel too.

MidwestJimmy
05-20-2011, 12:01 PM
Here is a theory I have that may sound humorous, but there could be some truth to it: The players may be avoiding a deal to pull a version of a Brett Favre training camp avoidance move. A couple of players have admitted to enjoying the time off from OTAs, and maybe they will attempt to shorten camp.

Also, I think the players hired a lawyer to head the NFLPA instead of a former player (like Gene Upshaw) to annoy the owners as revenge for the suggestion of an 18 game schedule. That was proof that the owners have no regard for their players' well being, and the players were really upset over it. The players HOPEFULLY will end this nonsense before they start losing paychecks. This work stoppage is technically a lockout, but it feels like a strike right now.

Bucs_Rule
05-24-2011, 07:53 PM
I just remind myself that before the lockout happened no one thought there was much of a chance a deal would happen before training camp.