PDA

View Full Version : 8th Circuit Ruling - Lockout Legal


tsiguy96
07-08-2011, 07:28 AM
8th circuit court just ruled that the lockout is legal, and the owners can indefinitely lock out the players.

dont know if this means a whole lot right now given that the players were already locked out in the midst of nearing the finish line of the new CBA, but its possible with this leverage owners can lower offer...

@AlbertBreer
It appears we have a ruling from the 8th Circuit ... Bye dissenting again.

8th circuit has ruled lockout is legal.


@SI_PeterKing
I don't think Goodell will allow owners to step on players' throats w/8th Circ ruling. He has to know how dangerous that'd be.

@MortReport
8th Circuit timing a surprise but actual ruling was expected. That was clear to players/owners when overruled Judge Nelson on lockout

Kaylore
07-08-2011, 07:40 AM
The owners better continue to negotiate in good faith. If they decided they have the upper hand and raise their demands we could see this drag out. Both parties have been hammering things out. This hopefully will put to bed the Lawyers who were trying to talk the NFLPA into pushing through the lawsuit in a effort to win settlement money. It also should force the players to capitulate on whatever they are nit-picking right now in the interest of getting back to work. Now that they know none of them could be getting paid this year if it comes to that.

tsiguy96
07-08-2011, 07:42 AM
this may be huge, gotta see the impact of this:

@AdamSchefter
8th Circuit ruled NFL cannot lockout players not under contract -- i.e. rookies, free agents -- because there is no employment relationship.

i guess everyone on this message board is technically a free agent, and the NFL could talk to us if they wanted. this makes sense, but does it open the door for contact between NFL and guys like von miller to get him a head start on defense?

edit: one guy pointed out this is a ruling that both sides potentially dont like, the lockout is in effect, but not to the extent it was before. teams can probably begin negotiating with free agents, with no contracts yet, rookies can begin learning playbooks etc.

ol#7
07-08-2011, 07:47 AM
This is the proper ruling IMO, the owners can't be compelled to employ the players at whatever cost. I never felt the players had a strong argument with this regard but am suprised they wasted so much time with the tactic. It was as if they didn't realize this was the likely outcome all along.

tsiguy96
07-08-2011, 07:56 AM
and more from albert breer..

"In particular, we express no view on whether the League’s nonstatutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws continues after the union’s disclaimer."

they arent blocking the antitrust lawsuit from the players, so nflpa can continue that line of litigation if they want, with it worth a boat load of money

and final edit:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/08/loophole-in-eighth-circuit-ruling-should-discourage-owners-from-dropping-the-hammer/
PFT:
As to rookies and free agents, lockout is still in effect. But Judge Nelson could lift it later. All the more reason to work things out.

Kaylore
07-08-2011, 08:33 AM
The full ruling is up on the 8th circuit's site: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3805522.0.pdf

I like that they took into account the ruling against American Needle, which determined that the NFL is 32 businesses working in concert and not one business.

At issue is the term "lockout" has never been completely defined so the court went with "a refusal of an employer to furnish work to his employers." Since players not under contract are not technically employees, they are free to ignore the lockout, and likewise the employees of the NFL can speak freely with someone who is not an employee because it would be too broad to say one could not.

Kaylore
07-08-2011, 08:36 AM
It's a very good opinion. They talk about how labor lockouts should be able to be used like strikes to keep the economic balance of power fair for both parties or businesses would have no recourse.

oubronco
07-08-2011, 08:49 AM
Well I can see this dragging out longer now

Cmac821
07-08-2011, 09:07 AM
So can these people without contracts, FA and Rookies, can meet with coaches?

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2011, 09:24 AM
Good. It was the proper ruling.

Bronco Yoda
07-08-2011, 09:31 AM
No surprise with this ruling.

Raidersbane
07-08-2011, 10:10 AM
The owners better continue to negotiate in good faith. If they decided they have the upper hand and raise their demands we could see this drag out. Both parties have been hammering things out. This hopefully will put to bed the Lawyers who were trying to talk the NFLPA into pushing through the lawsuit in a effort to win settlement money. It also should force the players to capitulate on whatever they are nit-picking right now in the interest of getting back to work. Now that they know none of them could be getting paid this year if it comes to that.

I remember a day when it was actually enjoyable and affordable by most to attend these games......suffice to say my enthusiasm for the league has soured over time.

That One Guy
07-08-2011, 10:48 AM
So the teams can presumably sign players but, as soon as signed, have to lock them out? Then what sense does it make to sign them?

What a strange point to make.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-08-2011, 10:54 AM
Hooray Litigation!

SonOfLe-loLang
07-08-2011, 10:57 AM
I dont really see why this should change all that much. I'd think both parties want this to go away as soon as possible (and fairly) so they dont lose money come the preseason.

DrFate
07-08-2011, 11:10 AM
All the legal eagles claimed the original Nelson ruling was 'appeal proof'

And yet - it got tossed. Maybe these talking heads shouldn't comment at all...

Hercules Rockefeller
07-08-2011, 11:19 AM
All the legal eagles claimed the original Nelson ruling was 'appeal proof'

And yet - it got tossed. Maybe these talking heads shouldn't comment at all...

IIRC, neutral observers said she tried to write it in an appeal-proof manner. Only the pro-player people claimed it was appeal-proof.

cmhargrove
07-08-2011, 11:37 AM
Well I can see this dragging out longer now

I think both parties were already under the impression this was the final decision of the court, so it's no surprise. I don't think this influences much. They are still working hard to salvage the estimated $1 billion from the loss of the preseason.

Hopefully, this just solidifies the last few points, and we will have a deal in place next Friday.

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2011, 11:40 AM
All the legal eagles claimed the original Nelson ruling was 'appeal proof'

And yet - it got tossed. Maybe these talking heads shouldn't comment at all...

Nelson shouldn't have made that ruling to begin with

BroncoLifer
07-08-2011, 11:48 AM
IIRC, neutral observers said she tried to write it in an appeal-proof manner. Only the pro-player people claimed it was appeal-proof.

Truthfully, my recollection was that were a couple of people without any education or experience at reading opinions and/or without understanding of the how the Federal courts work that were impressed with her opinion whereas the rest of us recognized how poor it was and the foolishness of the "appeal-proof" notion.

broncocalijohn
07-08-2011, 11:52 AM
Well I can see this dragging out longer now

of course! If it was illegal, they would have to find a way to get everyone back on the field. I think the owners do want to get this going but I am not sure how much compromise they will go with. There is room for it so hopefully it is satisfactory to everyone and we are just working out the legal details in the next few days.

Kaylore
07-08-2011, 11:59 AM
I dont really see why this should change all that much. I'd think both parties want this to go away as soon as possible (and fairly) so they dont lose money come the preseason.

It shouldn't. I mentioned this in another thread, but they set this up to where it doesn't change the dynamics, at least in the short term, all that much. It is set up where both parties have a lot of potential to lose money if they don't agree to a deal. That is the right way to do. Set it up so both sides will hate the current situation enough to work out a deal.

This will delay the issue some, but it shouldn't delay it too much. The owners have a bit more leverage in the short term, but the fear of the "nuclear option" from the players should be enough to keep negotiations moving forward in good faith.

DrFate
07-08-2011, 01:00 PM
IIRC, neutral observers said she tried to write it in an appeal-proof manner. Only the pro-player people claimed it was appeal-proof.

All the ESPN 'legal analysts' are the ones I was thinking of - many sports outlets used that term

fdf
07-08-2011, 09:44 PM
The full ruling is up on the 8th circuit's site: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3805522.0.pdf

I like that they took into account the ruling against American Needle, which determined that the NFL is 32 businesses working in concert and not one business.

At issue is the term "lockout" has never been completely defined so the court went with "a refusal of an employer to furnish work to his employers." Since players not under contract are not technically employees, they are free to ignore the lockout, and likewise the employees of the NFL can speak freely with someone who is not an employee because it would be too broad to say one could not.

Doesn't that mean that the Oakland Raiders could negotiate with Von Miller? We have no relationship with him. The draft is a restraint of trade in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. So we have no exclusive right to sign him. In fact, if other teams WON'T talk to Von Miller, aren't they participating in a restraint of trade? If Denver assumes Von Miller should come in and get his playbook, are they participating in a restraint of trade?

Sounds like a minefield for the owners. They get sued in antitrust no matter what they do with the rookies.

gunns
07-08-2011, 09:53 PM
NFLN just reported that the players side has said they plan no litigations and like where they are at in the negotiations. They need lawyers to look at the language in the rookie salary cap and one sticking point, the players right of first refusal to iron out. A possibility of having this done by next week. We can only hope.

Play2win
07-09-2011, 06:09 AM
It's a very good opinion. They talk about how labor lockouts should be able to be used like strikes to keep the economic balance of power fair for both parties or businesses would have no recourse.

ya think?

Hilarious!

That One Guy
07-09-2011, 06:20 AM
Doesn't that mean that the Oakland Raiders could negotiate with Von Miller? We have no relationship with him. The draft is a restraint of trade in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. So we have no exclusive right to sign him. In fact, if other teams WON'T talk to Von Miller, aren't they participating in a restraint of trade? If Denver assumes Von Miller should come in and get his playbook, are they participating in a restraint of trade?

Sounds like a minefield for the owners. They get sued in antitrust no matter what they do with the rookies.

Hopefully in negotiating for a draft in the last CBA, they also allowed for the teams to restrict rights for those players. Otherwise, what is a draft? Just a get together to call out people's names?

Beantown Bronco
07-09-2011, 06:43 AM
NFLN just reported that the players side has said they plan no litigations and like where they are at in the negotiations. They need lawyers to look at the language in the rookie salary cap and one sticking point, the players right of first refusal to iron out. A possibility of having this done by next week. We can only hope.

Until I hear it from someone who knows someone who knows the SD special teams coach, or read it on wikipedia, I ain't buying it.