PDA

View Full Version : Judge grants Injunction to Lift Lock Out


TheReverend
04-25-2011, 02:59 PM
Lockout over. Judge granted injuction to lift lock out!

DHallblows
04-25-2011, 03:05 PM
Whoop whoop?

TheReverend
04-25-2011, 03:05 PM
Got a link now:

http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-grants-injunction-to-nfl-players-2011-4

ICON
04-25-2011, 03:06 PM
unless the owners appeal, they will have to open shop.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-25-2011, 03:06 PM
Depends on if the League files a request for a stay so they can appeal it first

TheReverend
04-25-2011, 03:06 PM
@mortreport (http://twitter.com/#%21/mortreport) Chris Mortensen



Filed to ESPN: Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson has ruled for players, lifting lockout, per sources. Owners will seek immediate stay.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-25-2011, 03:06 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084

SonOfLe-loLang
04-25-2011, 03:11 PM
the owners will appeal for sure...ugh, just figure this **** out already

Missouribronc
04-25-2011, 03:12 PM
If they could get an appeals ruling by Thursday, does that mean players could be traded?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-25-2011, 03:16 PM
I doubt any real transactions will be made...but, if youre a bronco...do you show up to the facilities tomorrow to lift?

BroncoMan4ever
04-25-2011, 03:17 PM
If they could get an appeals ruling by Thursday, does that mean players could be traded?

technically yes. but there is no way in hell an appeals ruling comes in any earlier than a month.

BroncoMan4ever
04-25-2011, 03:18 PM
I doubt any real transactions will be made...but, if youre a bronco...do you show up to the facilities tomorrow to lift?

Tebow got the news and is already en route to the facilities

peacepipe
04-25-2011, 03:19 PM
LOL, it seems the decertification did work...for now.

Chris
04-25-2011, 03:22 PM
We gonna trade Orton now while his value's still high?

Crushaholic
04-25-2011, 03:22 PM
This won't likely be settled before the draft. Which would mean that any player deals before the draft is legal...

ICON
04-25-2011, 03:26 PM
The owner's credibility takes a pretty big hit in my book for filing for a stay here. They specifically said they do NOT want to settle this thing in court.

Chris
04-25-2011, 03:27 PM
http://dorkarama.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/300_kick21.jpg

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii124/yourthereal/funny-graphs-300-madness-sparta.gif

ICON
04-25-2011, 03:27 PM
This won't likely be settled before the draft. Which would mean that any player deals before the draft is legal...It really doesn't change anything, no owner is going to go against the rest of the owners and sign/trade players.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-25-2011, 03:30 PM
It really doesn't change anything, no owner is going to go against the rest of the owners and sign/trade players.

then isnt it collusion?

peacepipe
04-25-2011, 03:30 PM
who knows,this may force owners to be more willing to negotiate. assuming they don't get a stay.

Mountain Bronco
04-25-2011, 03:31 PM
The owner's credibility takes a pretty big hit in my book for filing for a stay here. They specifically said they do NOT want to settle this thing in court.

You clearly understand nothing about the legal system then.

peacepipe
04-25-2011, 03:32 PM
You clearly understand nothing about the legal system then.where does it say they have to appeal it? they could accept the ruling. they're making a choice to continue in court.

mkporter
04-25-2011, 03:35 PM
From what I read, there is no language in the ruling regarding a stay of the ruling pending appeal, so contact is currently allowed, until such a stay is granted. It will be interesting to see how this plays out from here. Do the owners go back to business as usual to try and gain a competitive advantage, or do they each decide to not do any business on an "individual" basis? Can we sign free agents right now? Let the mayhem commence!

ICON
04-25-2011, 03:36 PM
You clearly understand nothing about the legal system then.

They specifically said they do NOT want to settle this thing in court.

what part of that dont you understand .

epicSocialism4tw
04-25-2011, 03:41 PM
Paging Brandon Mebane...

El Minion
04-25-2011, 03:42 PM
Judge Nelson: “The lockout is enjoined.” (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/25/judge-nelson-the-lockout-is-enjoined/)

Posted by Mike Florio on April 25, 2011, 6:23 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/court-case_8.jpg?w=250 AP

We’ve obtained the 89-page ruling from Judge Nelson lifting the NFL’s lockout of the players following decertification of the union.

The decision ends with a simple yet powerful four-word sentence: “The lockout is enjoined.”

Here’s the full text of the final portion of the written decision, under the heading “order.”

“The nation’s labor laws have always applied only where an action involves or grows out of a labor dispute. Such a labor relationship exists only where a union exists to bargain on behalf of its members. Where those employees effectively renounce the union as their collective bargaining agent — and accept the consequences of doing so — and elect to proceed in negotiating contracts individually, any disputes between the employees and their employers are no longer governed by federal labor law. Likewise, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which applies only to preclude some injunctions in the context of ‘labor disputes,’ also no longer applies here to preclude injunctive relief. The NFL urges this Court to expand the law beyond these traditional dictates and argues that the protections of labor law should apply for some indefinite period beyond the collapse and termination of the collective bargaining relationship. In the absence of either persuasive policy or authority, this Court takes a more conservative approach, and declines to do so.

“This Court, having found that the Union’s unequivocal disclaimer is valid and effective, concludes there is no need to defer any issue to the NLRB. Because that disclaimer is valid and effective, the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s prohibition against injunctive relief does not preclude granting the Player’s motion for a preliminary injunction against what the League characterizes as a ‘lockout.’

“Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

“1. The Brady Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 2] is
GRANTED;

“2. The Eller Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 58] is
MOOT; and

“3. The ‘lockout’ is enjoined.”

The ruling says nothing about a stay of the ruling. Presumably, it applies immediately — unless the NFL can get Judge Nelson to modify the ruling, or unless the league can get the U.S. Court of Appeals to issue a stay pending the inevitable appeal.

TheChamp24
04-25-2011, 03:53 PM
The owners from what I hear are willing to negotiate, the players don't. It seems like the both want to win, but the owners are willing to accept a less of a win while the players want a full blown win from my perspective.

BroncoMan4ever
04-25-2011, 04:07 PM
The owners from what I hear are willing to negotiate, the players don't. It seems like the both want to win, but the owners are willing to accept a less of a win while the players want a full blown win from my perspective.

the owners honestly look like the more concerned of the groups. they seem to be the more flexible of the groups and they are not going to be the ones to break first.

the players are wanting to bend the owners over and stick it to them on a deal, when everyone knows, the players are more likely to break first because of personal money issues.

BroncoMan4ever
04-25-2011, 04:09 PM
i hope Elway, Xanders and Fox are trying to get a competitive edge right now. hitting the phones and getting some trades done to accumulate some picks and bringing in some free agents, before the stay is granted.

there has got to be at least 1 GM or front office exec in the league that heard this news and hit the phones.

mkporter
04-25-2011, 04:14 PM
The owners from what I hear are willing to negotiate, the players don't. It seems like the both want to win, but the owners are willing to accept a less of a win while the players want a full blown win from my perspective.

I don't really see that as the case. The players had one big gun in their arsenal, and that was decertification. IIRC, the players had to decertify before the start of the new league year, or they'd have to wait another year to do it. In the last round of productive negotiations with a federal mediator, the owners provided their only productive offer the day of the decertification deadline after mutliple weeks of negotiating. The offer (allegedly) brought the two sides closer, but it wasn't that significant of a leap. The players were left with a choice between using their only significant leverage, or continuing to negotiate without it.

I don't really fault either side for trying to get the best deal for themselves, I just wish they would have started in earnest on this process back when the owners opted to kill the existing CBA. It's not like they didn't see this coming. They just need to go back to negotiating behind closed doors with a gag order so we don't have to hear all of politicking, and insinuations about who said what, and who is willing to deal, and who isn't, blah, blah, blah. Just get the deal done.

lostknight
04-25-2011, 04:19 PM
ICON, I think you are a bit confused. The owners want to settle in negotiations, not in court. That's the proper thing for this, since a court mandated verdict would necessarily end the draft, free agency rules, competition, and TV contracts.

A court imposed ruling without anti-trust exemptions (which the court can't grant) would devastate the NFL.

peacepipe
04-25-2011, 04:36 PM
The owners from what I hear are willing to negotiate, the players don't. It seems like the both want to win, but the owners are willing to accept a less of a win while the players want a full blown win from my perspective.this opinion is based on what? I've seen no evidence to support this.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-25-2011, 04:39 PM
The owners from what I hear are willing to negotiate, the players don't. It seems like the both want to win, but the owners are willing to accept a less of a win while the players want a full blown win from my perspective.

Ummm you realize the players would be ok with the status quo right?

peacepipe
04-25-2011, 04:40 PM
ICON, I think you are a bit confused. The owners want to settle in negotiations, not in court. That's the proper thing for this, since a court mandated verdict would necessarily end the draft, free agency rules, competition, and TV contracts.

A court imposed ruling without anti-trust exemptions (which the court can't grant) would devastate the NFL.they still can,they can accept the ruling & get back to negotiations. they want what either side would would want,leverage to get what they want. up until these past two rulings the owners had the players bent over a barrel. now they are on more equal ground.

NUB
04-25-2011, 05:08 PM
"[T]he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales," she wrote. "And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football -- who have a strong investment in the 2011 season -- is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation."

Sexy.

schaaf
04-25-2011, 05:12 PM
So someone explain to me what this ruling means???

oubronco
04-25-2011, 05:28 PM
This will not end anything its just another jab in the boxing match with more to come

Chris
04-25-2011, 05:28 PM
It means lots of boat parties for the Minnesota Vikings.

El Minion
04-25-2011, 05:30 PM
they still can,they can accept the ruling & get back to negotiations. they want what either side would would want,leverage to get what they want. up until these past two rulings the owners had the players bent over a barrel. now they are on more equal ground.

I think truthfully, the leverage was either/or. Now that the lockout has been lifted the players will no longer have to scramble to make ends meet, advantage players.

People that are sympathetic towards the owners forget that the lockout would have resulted in the cancellation of the season, so in fact the owners held hostage not only the players but the fans as well and all the businesses/employees that are dependent on the 2011 football season.

Missouribronc
04-25-2011, 05:37 PM
I think truthfully, the leverage was either/or. Now that the lockout has been lifted the players will no longer have to scramble to make ends meet, advantage players.

People that are sympathetic towards the owners forget that the lockout would have resulted in the cancellation of the season, so in fact the owners held hostage not only the players but the fans as well and all the businesses/employees that are dependent on the 2011 football season.

The only thing I'm confused by now is that the players are not in a union now, so they are collectively bargaining as individuals. Doesn't that hurt their stance?

Missouribronc
04-25-2011, 05:43 PM
Wingo on ESPN Live saying forced negotiations in May, and the Mortensen reporting the league's "new year" won't occur til after the appeal ruling, and that's when trading and free agency could begin.

He did say that ruling could come before the draft.

mkporter
04-25-2011, 05:48 PM
Sexy.

Agreed. That's a fine piece of jurisprudence right there.

gyldenlove
04-25-2011, 06:08 PM
If they could get an appeals ruling by Thursday, does that mean players could be traded?

yup if the lockout is lifted players under contract can be traded and ALL players not under contract become free agents.

zdoor
04-25-2011, 06:12 PM
Trade Orton ASAP

Missouribronc
04-25-2011, 06:18 PM
yup if the lockout is lifted players under contract can be traded and ALL players not under contract become free agents.

Apparently, they are still going to wait for the appeal to be ruled upon before they declare the NFL's "new year," so players can't be traded until that happens. I would imagine free agency will have to wait until May when they go into forced negotiations.

El Minion
04-25-2011, 06:23 PM
The only thing I'm confused by now is that the players are not in a union now, so they are collectively bargaining as individuals. Doesn't that hurt their stance?

From my understanding it is merely a negotiating tactic. They could have stayed as a union at the end of the CBA but would have to wait 6 months to decertify if no agreement reached. Why delay the inevitable if the three years after the owners opted out their was no serious negotiating intent from either side and only passing effort during the weeks before the end of the CBA. The unions only real hand was to decertify, you do yourself no favors if you don't use it, in fact you intentionally handicap yourself.

Missouribronc
04-25-2011, 06:26 PM
From my understanding it is merely a negotiating tactic. They could have stayed as a union at the end of the CBA but would have to wait 6 months to decertify if no agreement reached. Why delay the inevitable if the three years after the owners opted out their was no serious negotiating intent from either side and only passing effort during the weeks before the end of the CBA. The unions only real hand was to decertify, you do yourself no favors if you don't use it, in fact you intentionally handicap yourself.

As I watch NFL Tonight, I see that they are still considered a "Trade Association" under the law and have more bargaining ability than just a group of individuals, but they don't hold the full rights that a "Trade Union" holds.

Complicated, to say the least.

gunns
04-25-2011, 06:29 PM
Everything I'm readings says the owners will appeal. Do I go back to being pissed at the owners? I cannot imagine meeting for hours on end and getting nothing done. Bleh.

Missouribronc
04-25-2011, 06:35 PM
Everything I'm readings says the owners will appeal. Do I go back to being pissed at the owners? I cannot imagine meeting for hours on end and getting nothing done. Bleh.

Other than draft interest and player trades on draft day, I think this is a good thing for the fans, and the regular season.

Its my understanding that whether the appeal is granted or not, negotiations will be forced upon the NFL and NFLTA in May.

gunns
04-25-2011, 06:42 PM
Other than draft interest and player trades on draft day, I think this is a good thing for the fans, and the regular season.

Its my understanding that whether the appeal is granted or not, negotiations will be forced upon the NFL and NFLTA in May.

Well, I just read the owners did appeal and the "rules of the lockout" remain in effect. I just wish I knew where it stands or understood it.

Beantown Bronco
04-25-2011, 06:44 PM
From nfl.com: lockout is lifted, but lockout rules remain in place.....classic

NFL teams are still operating uner "lockout rules," league sources told NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora. The league has not issued anything telling teams those rules have been lifted nor is anything of that nature expected by team officials until after the attempts at a stay on Nelson's decision are exhausted.
Teams have not been given any rules regarding a 2011 League Year, and thus have no operating guide with which to make trades or sign players. That process could conceivably begin quickly if both Nelson and the Eightth Circuit of Appeals deny a request for a stay.
As of now, there is no mechanism in place for teams to conduct football business. NFL team officials are thus not allowed to contact players or agents. Also, several agents said they would not advise players to attempt to workout or enter NFL team headquarters Tuesday morning -- which would be conceivable in theory with Nelson not ruling on the stay until Tuesday. Additionally, an NFLPA official said he did not expect players to try to report to teams, given that no OTAs or minicamps are scheduled and there is no official business of that sort generally conducted at this point until after the draft. Though NFL clubs would generally be overseeing workouts by players at the facility in a more informal manner.

TheReverend
04-25-2011, 07:08 PM
From nfl.com: lockout is lifted, but lockout rules remain in place.....classic

NFL teams are still operating uner "lockout rules," league sources told NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora. The league has not issued anything telling teams those rules have been lifted nor is anything of that nature expected by team officials until after the attempts at a stay on Nelson's decision are exhausted.
Teams have not been given any rules regarding a 2011 League Year, and thus have no operating guide with which to make trades or sign players. That process could conceivably begin quickly if both Nelson and the Eightth Circuit of Appeals deny a request for a stay.
As of now, there is no mechanism in place for teams to conduct football business. NFL team officials are thus not allowed to contact players or agents. Also, several agents said they would not advise players to attempt to workout or enter NFL team headquarters Tuesday morning -- which would be conceivable in theory with Nelson not ruling on the stay until Tuesday. Additionally, an NFLPA official said he did not expect players to try to report to teams, given that no OTAs or minicamps are scheduled and there is no official business of that sort generally conducted at this point until after the draft. Though NFL clubs would generally be overseeing workouts by players at the facility in a more informal manner.

Theeeeeeese ****in guys man

chawknz
04-25-2011, 07:35 PM
"“@AdamSchefter: NFLPA emailed players tonight suggesting they report to work Tuesday. Email to follow....”"

Hmmm

TheReverend
04-25-2011, 07:36 PM
"@AdamSchefter: NFLPA emailed players tonight suggesting they report to work Tuesday. Email to follow...."

Hmmm

****'s about to get real lol

lostknight
04-25-2011, 07:57 PM
People really don't understand this. Bear in mind, the union is decertified. That means that two teams that trade players are breaking the law. The NFL splitting money from TV contracts is illegal.

Broncobiv
04-25-2011, 08:01 PM
I really don't understand any of this. Wake me up in a few months when everything is settled and I can follow training camp! Just fix it!

It's bad enough waiting hour-by-hour for the draft, going over every possible scenario and arguing over the same 4 players endlessly!

This sucks!!

gyldenlove
04-25-2011, 08:18 PM
People really don't understand this. Bear in mind, the union is decertified. That means that two teams that trade players are breaking the law. The NFL splitting money from TV contracts is illegal.

No.

The NFL has an antitrust exemption when it comes to TV deals and I believe advertising as well so they can act as one and split the money without it being subject to antitrust litigation.

As for trading players as long as those players are under contract teams can trade the rights to those players without breaching antitrust violations, just as Al Michaels got traded for rights to the Ryder Cup, Oscar the lucky rabbit and Olympic highlights so can a player be traded for considerations as long as that player is under contract which has always been a requirement for trading.

epicSocialism4tw
04-25-2011, 08:18 PM
I really don't understand any of this. Wake me up in a few months when everything is settled and I can follow training camp! Just fix it!

It's bad enough waiting hour-by-hour for the draft, going over every possible scenario and arguing over the same 4 players endlessly!

This sucks!!

Post of the day.

LOL

ICON
04-25-2011, 08:36 PM
ICON, I think you are a bit confused. The owners want to settle in negotiations, not in court. That's the proper thing for this, since a court mandated verdict would necessarily end the draft, free agency rules, competition, and TV contracts.

A court imposed ruling without anti-trust exemptions (which the court can't grant) would devastate the NFL.

I can see you dont like my review of your mock draft what ever dude it sucked.

lostknight
04-25-2011, 08:38 PM
No.
The NFL has an antitrust exemption when it comes to TV deals and I believe advertising as well so they can act as one and split the money without it being subject to antitrust litigation.


I'd like to see a reference on this, because every expert is reporting that the only anti-trust rights that the NFL has is that granted by having a union opposite them.

src?

(I'm guessing you are basing it on Conyer's idiotic grandstanding about taking away anti-trust for TV rights - Conyers did that to
a) Look Good
b) Try and convience the NFLPA not to decertify
when the NFLPA certified, every whit of anti-trust protection went away. Revenue sharing is illegal, cap is illegal, RFAs are illegal, etc).



As for trading players as long as those players are under contract teams can trade the rights to those players without breaching antitrust violations


just as Al Michaels got traded for rights to the Ryder Cup, Oscar the lucky rabbit and Olympic highlights so can a player be traded for considerations as long as that player is under contract which has always been a requirement for trading.

Under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1966 (which becomes the governing law under a non anti-trust protected NFL) that's no longer true. That law explictly held that pooling of rights by the NFL was illegal, and that blackout rules were illegal.

The anti-trust in the NFL derives from a single solo place - the combined unionization of the workforce. The same is true for Al Michaels, who also works for a industry that is completely unionized.

You can make a arguement that a player could be subcontracted, but not traded.

lostknight
04-25-2011, 08:40 PM
I can see you dont like my review of your mock draft what ever dude it sucked.

Huh?

Given that you repped my mock draft, I didn't think there was a problem ;-)

Bottom line from my perspective is that if the NFL has to play under true free market rules without anti-trust exemption, the NFL will be a dramatically less competitive and interesting game.

Chris
04-25-2011, 08:43 PM
I is understanding this not very much at all

eddie mac
04-25-2011, 08:47 PM
Load of wankers the lot of them. The real losers are the fans here but they couldn't give a **** about the people who pay their salaries or give them a market for their franchises.

My favourite part of the year from early March to the draft has been ruined by these self-centred ****ers.

That's the personal viewpoint, from the Denver Broncos team perspective it's even worse, of all the seasons to have a lockout it had to be the one straight after Denver finished the previous season with it's worst record in my lifetime and more importantly with the weakest roster in a long time.

Not only have we not been able to focus on a starting QB (hopefully by trading Orton and getting Tebow familiar with yet another new offense) we haven't been able to look near free agency to get some people who can actually defend on our defense. It's shambolic I tell ya in more ways than one and the longer this **** goes on it just makes the job far harder for Fox to even attempt to fix the the crap McDaniels left this franchise with. Fair enough later this week he can pick some guys who he hopes can contribute to turning the franchise around but I dont expect dick from rookies in year 1 if there even will be a year 1.

TheReverend
04-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Load of wankers the lot of them. The real losers are the fans here but they couldn't give a **** about the people who pay their salaries or give them a market for their franchises.

My favourite part of the year from early March to the draft has been ruined by these self-centred ****ers.

Spell like an American please

gyldenlove
04-25-2011, 09:00 PM
I'd like to see a reference on this, because every expert is reporting that the only anti-trust rights that the NFL has is that granted by having a union opposite them.

src?





Under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1966 (which becomes the governing law under a non anti-trust protected NFL) that's no longer true. That law explictly held that pooling of rights by the NFL was illegal, and that blackout rules were illegal.

The anti-trust in the NFL derives from a single solo place - the combined unionization of the workforce. The same is true for Al Michaels, who also works for a industry that is completely unionized.

You can make a arguement that a player could be subcontracted, but not traded.

The Sports Broadcasting ACT of 1961 (Title 15 of USC paragraph 1291-95) reverses previous court ruling that pooling of TV rights is illegal, that act specifically allows pro sports to have joint broadcasting agreements.

The sports broadcasting act was around for 7 years before the NFLPA recieved collective bargaining rights and was in place between 87 and 93 when the NFLPA did not exist as a union.

Under section 17 of the standard player contract that all players currently under contract have signed:

Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, Club may assign this contract and Player's services under this contract to any successor to Club's franchise or to any other Club in the league. Player will report to the assignee Club promptly upon being informed of the assignment of his contract and will faithfully perform his services under this contract. The assignee Club will pay Player's necesary traveling expenses in reporting to it and will faithfully perform this contract with Player.

So every player with a few exeptions have agreed that they can be traded, it is in every contract.

ICON
04-25-2011, 09:00 PM
Huh?

Given that you repped my mock draft, I didn't think there was a problem ;-)

Bottom line from my perspective is that if the NFL has to play under true free market rules without anti-trust exemption, the NFL will be a dramatically less competitive and interesting game.Repped your mock for your effort and I felt sorry for you I give you an F- but E for effort.

Dedhed
04-25-2011, 09:03 PM
I don't care about anything other than getting a 2nd rounder for Orton.

Chris
04-25-2011, 09:08 PM
Spell like an American please

You are my favourite ponce. I love your colour commentary like some grey poupon.

Recognise.

eddie mac
04-25-2011, 09:26 PM
Spell like an American please

English muther****er, do you speak it.LOL

TheReverend
04-25-2011, 09:35 PM
You are my favourite ponce. I love your colour commentary like some grey poupon.

Recognise.

http://img3.visualizeus.com/thumbs/08/05/02/blew,my,mind,exploding,head,funny,nt,scanners-962c0c30733e427cae03ef5e3fa0f0e3_m.jpg

*WARHORSE*
04-26-2011, 12:42 AM
Trade Orton immediately.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2011, 04:11 AM
"@AdamSchefter: NFLPA emailed players tonight suggesting they report to work Tuesday. Email to follow...."

Hmmm

Bizarre considering, if there was no lockout to begin with, none of these guys would be anywhere near the teams' facilities on April 26th anyway. They'd all be in freaking Mexico or somewhere else on vacation at this point in a "normal" year. But they're going to report now because the nflpa told them to, no doubt to solely stir the pot. Unreal.

Boomhauer
04-26-2011, 04:12 AM
Trade Orton ASAP
I don't care about anything other than getting a 2nd rounder for Orton.
Trade Orton immediately.
Just do it.

TheChamp24
04-26-2011, 07:49 AM
this opinion is based on what? I've seen no evidence to support this.

The owners originally wanted $2 billion off the top, but went down on that offer. Thats negotiating.

Ummm you realize the players would be ok with the status quo right?

Because the status quo is a win for the players currently in the short term.

I'm not siding with the owners, but to me I haven't seen or heard much from the player's side on negotiations. All I've heard is basically "Open the books." when the owners operate a private business and they don't have to, or should have to.

I mean, from what I could tell, the owners want to basically cut rookie contracts drastically and give that money to vets and retired players. Seems like a win to me.

PS, obligatory Trade Orton Now comment

Mountain Bronco
04-26-2011, 11:32 AM
They specifically said they do NOT want to settle this thing in court.

what part of that dont you understand .

Not wanting to settle in court and protecting your legal rights are two entirely different things. Appealing is the only way to protect those rights and a stay is standard to ask for in these circumstances. There are many people who don't WANT to get in legal battles, but find themselves there for any number of reasons. If you don't understand that it is not likely I can get you there.

BroncoInferno
04-27-2011, 08:52 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6439599

MINNEAPOLIS -- The NFL is falling behind in its court fight with the players over the future of the $9 billion business.

The federal judge who lifted the NFL lockout two days ago dealt another blow to the league late Wednesday, denying its request to put her ruling on hold pending appeals and guaranteeing more limbo for the 32 teams, thousands of players and millions of fans.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson wrote that the NFL "has not met its burden for a stay pending appeal, expedited or otherwise." She dismissed the NFL's argument that she didn't have jurisdiction and that it is facing irreparable harm because of her decision to end the 45-day lockout.

"In short, the world of 'chaos' the NFL claims it has been thrust into -- essentially the 'free-market' system this nation otherwise willfully operates under -- is not compelled by this court's order," Nelson wrote.

The judge acknowledged that her decision will be appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis and the NFL has promised that step.

The ruling means the league has no rules in place, shelved since the collective bargaining agreement ended on March 11 and the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 was imposed shortly afterward. But Nelson said that needn't be the case.

"The league may choose to act in accordance with its expressed belief that the players remain a union and that they have reached a state of impasse, or the League may choose to chart a different course, implementing a version of the 2010 player system, or something different altogether," she wrote. "Like any defendant in any lawsuit, defendants themselves must make a decision about how to proceed and accept the consequences of their decision."

Whether that includes free agency or other rules drawn up even as the draft gets under way Thursday was anyone's guess. There was no immediate word from the league after Nelson's decision.

The NFL had argued that Nelson had no jurisdiction and that she shouldn't make a decision while a complaint of bad-faith negotiation against the players was still pending with the National Labor Relations Board. The league also argued that it shouldn't be subject to some of the antitrust claims leveled by the players with the collective bargaining deal barely expired.

The judge shot all of those down.

The league's plea to Nelson for the stay was also based on a purported fear that an immediate lifting of the lockout would result in a free agency free-for-all that could create a mess that would be difficult to undo should a new collective bargaining agreement lead to different rules.

Nelson called that an "incorrect premise." She insisted that her order was simply an end to the lockout, not a prohibition of the player constraints like franchise and transition tags that help the league maintain competitive balance.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, during an earlier predraft event in New York, said he wasn't worried about the state of confusion tarnishing the league's image but stressed his desire to "remove" the uncertainty.

"It's one of the things I don't think is healthy for the players, the clubs and most importantly our fans," he said.

Attorneys for the players had ridiculed the NFL's argument that it risks either violating antitrust laws by coming up with new league rules without a CBA in place or harming its competitive balance by allowing unrestricted free agency.

"If the NFL defendants are faced with a dilemma, they put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," the attorneys wrote. "Any alleged predicament is of their own making."

The solution, the players argued, is to simply implement a system that does not violate antitrust laws.

Nelson agreed.

"Again, the NFL argues it will suffer irreparable harm because it is now 'forced to choose between the irreparable harm of unrestricted free agency or the irreparable harm of more treble damages lawsuits,' " Nelson wrote. "But no such Scylla-or-Charybdis choice exists here. There is no injunction in place preventing the NFL from exercising, under its hoped-for protection of the labor laws, any of its rights to negotiate terms and conditions of employment, such as free agency."

At an April 6 hearing, Nelson -- while pushing both sides to resume negotiating a new agreement -- recognized the urgency of the situation and declared that both sides had a lot "at risk." Nelson's orders have indicated her respect of the public's interest in a settlement to keep the 2011 season on track.

When the league asked to respond to the bond request by the players, she demanded it by the end of the day, one hour before the NFL's own response to the clarification request was due. Then came Nelson's denial of the stay, long after sunset and long after the courthouse normally closes.

The NFL will now place its hopes with the 8th Circuit, viewed as a more friendly venue to businesses like the league than the federal courts in Minnesota.

Goodell said the surest way for the league to operate without running afoul of antitrust laws is to get back to bargaining with the players. The two sides had 16 days of talks with a mediator earlier this year and four more with a federal magistrate. Little progress has been seen, though the two sides are scheduled to meet again May 16.

"That's how we've been successful. That's how other leagues have been successful, and it should continue that way," Goodell said.

Most players again stayed away from team headquarters for a second day Wednesday, working out on their own.

"What we're looking for is a little clarity as far as what the rules are, so we can operate on the same page. So we'll just have to wait and see what those rules are," coach Mike Shanahan said.

fdf
04-27-2011, 11:52 PM
unless the owners appeal, they will have to open shop.

I don't understand. This means the owners have to keep putting on games even if they don't want to? So my business would have to keep selling stuff even if I decided not to if this judge had his/her say?

That sounds like what the court is saying is that, if you have a union, and they decertify, you have to continue doing business no matter what. I think the owners could come to a perfectly reasonable decision that without a contract with the players and given the US antitrust laws, there is no profitable business model for professional football. Is the Court going to make that kind of judgment and force the owners to keep conducting an unprofitable business?

That's especially troubling since anything the owners do in terms of conducting games, signing players etc will be used as the basis for an antitrust lawsuit against the owners by the players. For example, if the owners conduct a draft and then sign the players they drafted, don't the players sue them if the other teams refuse to deal with a player that the Broncos drafted?