The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-08-2011, 07:28 AM   #1
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,719

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default 8th Circuit Ruling - Lockout Legal

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...

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

8th circuit has ruled lockout is legal.

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

Last edited by tsiguy96; 07-08-2011 at 07:31 AM..
tsiguy96 is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-08-2011, 07:40 AM   #2
Kaylore
Shall we begin?
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
You should have let me sleep!

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,020

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

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.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 07:42 AM   #3
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,719

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.

Last edited by tsiguy96; 07-08-2011 at 07:48 AM..
tsiguy96 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 07:47 AM   #4
ol#7
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 07:56 AM   #5
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,719

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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...ng-the-hammer/
Quote:
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.

Last edited by tsiguy96; 07-08-2011 at 08:18 AM..
tsiguy96 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 08:33 AM   #6
Kaylore
Shall we begin?
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
You should have let me sleep!

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,020

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

The full ruling is up on the 8th circuit's site: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_....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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 08:36 AM   #7
Kaylore
Shall we begin?
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
You should have let me sleep!

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,020

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

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.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 08:49 AM   #8
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 19,957
Default

Well I can see this dragging out longer now
oubronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 09:07 AM   #9
Cmac821
Harden by loss
 
Cmac821's Avatar
 
Can't wait for next year

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern Los Angeles
Posts: 1,171

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Fox Mulder
Default

So can these people without contracts, FA and Rookies, can meet with coaches?

Last edited by Cmac821; 07-08-2011 at 09:13 AM..
Cmac821 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 09:24 AM   #10
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,841

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Good. It was the proper ruling.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 09:31 AM   #11
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,785
Default

No surprise with this ruling.
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 10:10 AM   #12
Raidersbane
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Raidersbane's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Along the Chesapeake
Posts: 801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
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.
Raidersbane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 10:48 AM   #13
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 10:54 AM   #14
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,563

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Hooray Litigation!
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 10:57 AM   #15
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 19,461

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

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.
SonOfLe-loLang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 11:10 AM   #16
DrFate
Lord of Order
 
DrFate's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tower of Fate
Posts: 4,255
Default

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...
DrFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 11:19 AM   #17
Hercules Rockefeller
Ring of Famer
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 16,266

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DJ Williams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFate View Post
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.
Hercules Rockefeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 11:37 AM   #18
cmhargrove
Is this thing on???
 
cmhargrove's Avatar
 
Travis Henry's love child...

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 6,717

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Hillis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oubronco View Post
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.
cmhargrove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 11:40 AM   #19
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,841

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFate View Post
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
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 11:48 AM   #20
BroncoLifer
Living the Dream
 
BroncoLifer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boulder County
Posts: 1,447

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
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.
BroncoLifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 11:52 AM   #21
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,063

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oubronco View Post
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.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 11:59 AM   #22
Kaylore
Shall we begin?
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
You should have let me sleep!

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,020

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
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.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 01:00 PM   #23
DrFate
Lord of Order
 
DrFate's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tower of Fate
Posts: 4,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
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
DrFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 09:44 PM   #24
fdf
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
The full ruling is up on the 8th circuit's site: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_....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.
fdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 09:53 PM   #25
gunns
I WANT DEFENSE!
 
gunns's Avatar
 
Defense, defense, defense

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Always Hoping
Posts: 12,546

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

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.
gunns is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:33 AM.


Denver Broncos