OT following the NFL/NFLPA work stoppage; UPD agreement reached

[MaskedSonja]

Call me naive (yes I am that)-with the rejection by the court, I don't see them winning an appeal, really.

And my total gut, total speculation, no proof or knowledge whatsoever-IMO the players are going to win and win big, and the reg season might miss a couple of preseaon games, but I just don't see the players losing.

I don't have a dog in the race, it's just my gut feeling-I suspect the players are going to take the owners to the cleaners in the CBA, and the owners will fold.

 

[kdb209]

Call me naive (yes I am that)-with the rejection by the court, I don't see them winning an appeal, really.

It largely depends on the NLRB. If it upholds the NFL's unfair labor practice claim it would likely invalidate the decertification and completely undercut the basis for Judge Nelsons ruling - that the Norris-La Guardia act (which bars federal injunctions in labor disputes) did not apply because the NFLPA decertified.

Barring that, the Eight Circuit is one of the more business friendly Courts of Appeal and may be more receptive to the NFL's arguments.

 

[kdb209]

SBJLizMullen 2:46pm via Web Brady Class Counsel letter to NFL Players today: Until Judge Nelson or Appeals Court issues another order, the NFL Lockout has been lifted.
Memo to Players "The lockout has been ordered to end immediately & if the NFL does not comply, it would be in contempt of the court order.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/sports/football/26nfl.htm

Players to Respond to N.F.L.’s Request to Preserve Lockout
By JUDY BATTISTA
Published: April 26, 2011

The N.F.L. remained in limbo Tuesday, when United States District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who on Monday night issued a preliminary injunction to stop the lockout, gave players until Wednesday morning to respond to the league’s request for a stay of the injunction. That means the N.F.L. will not get an answer on the stay that could keep the league dormant while an appeal is heard until at least Wednesday afternoon.

If Nelson declines to issue the stay, the league will ask the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to do so. That, though, could take several days, potentially pushing the matter into next week. If no stay is granted by either court, the N.F.L. would have to create rules for operating — they are expected to be similar to the 2010 rules, which included no salary cap and required players to have six years of service before they could become unrestricted free agents — and open its doors to the players.

 

[FlyerFan]

It largely depends on the NLRB. If it upholds the NFL's unfair labor practice claim it would likely invalidate the decertification and completely undercut the basis for Judge Nelsons ruling - that the Norris-La Guardia act (which bars federal injunctions in labor disputes) did not apply because the NFLPA decertified.

Barring that, the Eight Circuit is one of the more business friendly Courts of Appeal and may be more receptive to the NFL's arguments.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/04/25/nfl.lockout/index.html?eref=sihp

 

[Fugu]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/04/25/nfl.lockout/index.html?eref=sihp

A couple of key points:

First, it puts the players in the driver's seat in terms of negotiating a new CBA. They will return to work and cannot be locked-out by the league, which had banked on the lockout as its most threatening negotiation weapon. If the league does not agree on a new collective bargaining agreement, the league would be subject to antitrust violations by placing restrictions on teams signing players.

Second, the players now hold a huge bargaining card in dealing with the owners: Judge Nelson's order indicates that the players would probably win in their antitrust litigation. Successful parties in private antitrust litigation automatically receive treble damages, which in this case could total in the billions of dollars. While most antitrust lawsuits settle, some NFL team owners might thus be worried about the prospect of paying 1/32nd of a billion dollar-plus legal tab. This could cause dissension among some NFL owners, who to date have seemed unified.
Third, players can now demand what they have wanted all along: more transparency in the NFL books

.....

The Eight Circuit may question Judge Nelson's conception of jurisdiction and of "irreparable damages." Here's why: Lack of jurisdiction
The NFL insisted that Judge Nelson should not rule on the Brady lawsuit until the National Labor Relations Board decides on the legality of the NFLPA's decertification, which the NFL has challenged as an unfair labor practice. In making that argument, the NFL focused on the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which disfavors the use of injunctions while labor and management are at impasse. Judge Nelson rejected the NFL's reasoning and characterized the NFL as incorrectly conflating two distinct doctrines: the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which would permit review by a judge and federal agency, and the doctrine of exclusive statutory jurisdiction, which would not. Essentially, Judge Nelson reasoned that the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) review of the unfair labor practice does not stop review of the players' antitrust arguments.

Judge Nelson also highlighted that she is not obligated or even encouraged to defer to the NLRB, despite its expertise in labor law. To bolster that contention, she stressed the frequent delay in parties receiving decisions from the NLRB, which has a heavy case load and could take a year to decide on the NFL's unfair labor charge. From that lens, Judge Nelson intimated that if she punted on the case until the NLRB decided, then the NFL would wrongly be in the driver's seat. A continued lockout may have wiped out the 2011 season unless the players' capitulated to the league demands.
Expect Judge Nelson's reasoning, which characterized the law as more interpretative than the NFL believed, to come under fire in the appeal.

Article is a very nice summary of all the steps and legal issues.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.focus.com/fyi/finance/economic-impact-nfl-lockout/

An interesting graphic of the financial impact of the lockout

 

[kdb209]

Judge Nelsen denies NFL's request to stay her order pending appeal

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/04/27/sports/football/AP-FBN-NFL-Labor.html

 

[ARS]

Just wondering, but what are the implications of this ruling for any possible NHL lockout in the future?

Also, I can't help but feel that Judge Nelson made a ruling outside of her jurisdiction, and that the players are not negotiating in good faith but are rather trying to use the law to get their own way. This lockout should be resolved through negotiations, not a lawsuit.

 

[mouser]

Just wondering, but what are the implications of this ruling for any possible NHL lockout in the future?

Also, I can't help but feel that Judge Nelson made a ruling outside of her jurisdiction, and that the players are not negotiating in good faith but are rather trying to use the law to get their own way. This lockout should be resolved through negotiations, not a lawsuit.

Not sure that it would have much of an impact on the NHL or any other league. The immediate question is whether it might impact a possible NBA lockout this summer. One major difference between the NFL and NBA's situation--at least according to public reports--is that all or nearly all of the NFL teams are profitable, while the NBA claims the majority of its teams are losing money. If that's the case I would imagine a judge to be less likely to force the NBA teams to continue business as usual.

 

[Fugu]

Just wondering, but what are the implications of this ruling for any possible NHL lockout in the future?

Also, I can't help but feel that Judge Nelson made a ruling outside of her jurisdiction, and that the players are not negotiating in good faith but are rather trying to use the law to get their own way. This lockout should be resolved through negotiations, not a lawsuit.

Decertification of the union was something that came up as a possibility during the lockout. I think in that context it was considered when the union felt it no longer could negotiate in any form (there were no negotiations taking place). It's always an option, hence all the interest from the other leagues in seeing how this will play out with the NFL.

Both sides are trying to use the law to get their own way. The NFL wants to use a different jurisdiction (NLRB), presumably one it feels would be more favorable to their position. From what I can glean of the expert analyses, the antitrust laws are not something that would ever fall under the jurisdiction of a body whose sole purpose is to regulate labor practices and union elections. The leagues never want to test the antitrust laws either because the only way they can act collectively is if there is a union or association on the other side of the table.

 

[kdb209]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/sports/football/29nfl.html

N.F.L. Says It Will Slowly Reopen for Business
By JUDY BATTISTA
Published: April 28, 2011

The N.F.L. announced Thursday afternoon that it would slowly reopen for business, starting Friday morning. At 8 a.m. players will be allowed to work out at team facilities, meet with coaches, receive playbooks, get medical treatment and otherwise go about the business of the off-season — including participating in voluntary organized workouts and film study.

And by Friday morning the N.F.L. expects to tell teams when free agency will open and what the rules for the year will be. The league is likely to tell teams to prepare for free agency beginning Monday, that there will be no salary maximum and no salary minimum, and that players will need six years before reaching unrestricted free agency. That means that no players can be traded during the college draft that begins Thursday night in New York.

A federal judge on Thursday rejected a request for a delay of her injunction that ended the lockout Monday. The N.F.L. asked the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to give it a temporary stay of the injunction while the court considers a request for a full stay.

The timing of the N.F.L.’s announcement Thursday suggests the league expects to hear about its temporary stay request by Monday, because it does not want to reopen for business only to have to shut down again. If a temporary stay is granted, the doors would close on players once more.

In the meantime, players have been told by the Eighth Circuit court to respond to the request for the stay for the life of the appeal by Friday afternoon. The N.F.L. will then have until Monday morning to reply. The full stay will be decided sometime after Monday afternoon, which is why the N.F.L. is unlikely to start allowing free agent signings and trades before then.

...

In addition to seeking the temporary and full stay, the N.F.L. also asked the Court of Appeals for an expedited appeal of the injunction, which could move the appeal through the court during May and June.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Lockout Stay granted by 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals in midst of 2nd Round of Draft

 

[kdb209]

Not many pieces out there on the temporary stay - not even a decent AP or Times piece.

It looks like it is just a short temporary stay while the Eight Circuit considers the request for a longer stay pending the appeal. The Eighth Circuit is expected to rule again on Monday.

I'll have to lower myself to the NY Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/29/2011-04-29_nfl_lockout_resumes_at_least.html

NFL lockout resumes, at least temporarily after 8th circuit appeals court issued temporary stay

By Gary Myers
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

Friday, April 29th 2011, 7:04 PM

So much for the lifting of the NFL lockout. It's back, at least for a couple of days.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a temporary stay of the injunction that lifted the lockout. That means, at least through the weekend, the lockout is back in place. The Eighth Circuit is expected to rule as soon as Monday whether to grant the NFL's request for a more permanent stay that would remain in place pending the appeal of injunction. The appeal process is expected to take 6-8 weeks.

 

[kdb209]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/sports/football/30nfl.html

Court Ruling Puts Lockout Back in Place Temporarily
By JUDY BATTISTA
Published: April 29, 2011

The normally routine second night of the N.F.L. draft took a dramatic turn Friday when a federal court gave the league a temporary delay of an injunction to stop the lockout, effectively reinstalling it hours after players were allowed to return to their teams for workouts and meetings.

In a 2-1 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the league’s request for the temporary stay while the panel takes more time to decide on a request for a full stay. The court is expected to decide on a full stay next week.

The timing of the decision surprised even league officials, many of whom were assembled at Radio City Music Hall for the draft and who thought they might not hear about the stay until Monday.

“Our attorneys will review the decision and we will advise all clubs as soon as possible on next steps,†the league said in a statement.

On Friday night, the league advised teams to lockout the players.

The court decision frustrated and confused players, who won the injunction on Monday night but were not allowed to work out at team facilities until Friday. They have called for free agency to begin immediately.

The N.F.L. had put off starting free agency — or even announcing when it might start — in the hope that it would get a stay. After the decision was announced, players did not know how to react. Many were curious about how long the stay might last; one Jets player asked if he should still report to the team’s training facility on Monday.

...

Quinn said the players were frustrated by the uncertainty, which they blamed on the league, and added, “The league should not take comfort from the fact the dissenting judge didn’t even want to grant them even a temporary stay for a few days because they can’t show they are hurt in any way.â€

The temporary stay does not necessarily mean that the N.F.L. will be successful in getting a full stay, or that it will win its appeal. But it provided the league, which has sustained a string of sobering court losses in recent months, a long-awaited, albeit small, victory.

The N.F.L. had hoped for greater success at the Eighth Circuit in part because the court is considered, by some legal experts, as the most business-friendly appeals court in the country. It is dominated by appointees of Republican presidents.

...

Bye’s dissent, in addition to saying that the N.F.L. did not persuade him it would suffer irreparable harm if the temporary stay was not granted, said he did not consider the N.F.L.’s situation an emergency, which, he wrote, were the only times he could remember the court issuing a temporary stay.

“Moreover, the initial reason the N.F.L. requested such a temporary stay while we waited to hear from the players, was to prevent the N.F.L. from being forced to undertake post-injunction operations,†Bye wrote.

“The N.F.L. claimed such operations would be ‘a complex process that requires time to coordinate.’ This contention is severely undermined by the fact that the N.F.L. had, within a day of the district court’s order denying a stay, already planned post-injunction operations which would allow the players to have access to club and work facilities, receive playbooks, met with coaches, and so forth.â€

 

[thinkwild]

The N.F.L. had hoped for greater success at the Eighth Circuit in part because the court is considered, by some legal experts, as the most business-friendly appeals court in the country. It is dominated by appointees of Republican presidents.

Off topic, but as a Canadian, im aghast at such statements. I dont understand how Americans can stand prostituting their judicial system like this. Surely that there is even this perception from purported academia no less is giant flashing neon sign? But im just a frozen, canadian, caveman unfamilar with your ways.


It does seem a sort of dangerous game the players are playing by decertifying, now im in, now im out, and i'd worry the owners are going to exploit that somehow.

From the article above, i thought there were some other sorta interesting points.

Judge Nelson was convinced that players would suffer irreparable harm -- meaning a harm that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages, including even trebled damages in antitrust lawsuits -- if they lost the 2011 season.

This was used successfully against the NHL players, because they didnt break that union. But with the union broken/decertified interesting how it turns around.

So many still see unions especially in pro sports as unneeded. Unneeded by athletes i guess to be specific?

But once they do decertify, the owners immediately want to file an unfair labour practice suit, and want i9t heard by the grizzella's, i mean the NLRB?

For one, the NFL's legal argument has been hampered by the fact that not one NFL team can show that it is losing money. The inability of a team to do so suggests that enjoining the NFL lockout would not force an NFL team to lose money. The NBA, in contrast, asserts that 22 of its 30 teams will lose money in the 2010-11 season, and the league is willing to open the books to prove it. [..]

Second, irreparable harm may be more difficult for NBA players to show, since unlike NFL players who can play nowhere else and earn an NFL-quality income, some NBA players would be able to secure lucrative contracts in Europe and elsewhere during a lockout.

Hampered by the fact that not one team can show its losing money. I suppose its good that's relevant to someone.

But i think its kind of funny that basketball players cant show irreparable harm, because basketball, like hockey, is i suppose a real sport played throughout the world, and so they could find jobs elsewhere, whereas the nfl is simply an american trash sport no one else plays?

 

[kdb209]

The Eighth Circuit hasn't ruled on extending the temporary stay yet - but it is expediting the appeal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/sports/football/04nfl.html

Court Agrees To Expedite N.F.L.’s Appeal
By JUDY BATTISTA
Published: May 3, 2011

A federal court said Tuesday that it would expedite the appeal that will probably determine which side in the labor dispute between N.F.L. owners and players will have the most leverage. The good news for fans is that the hearing on the N.F.L.’s appeal of the injunction that stopped the league’s lockout was set for June 3. Although it is impossible to determine when a decision by a three-judge panel would come, it is logical to assume the decision will be expedited as well, said Michael Gans, the clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis.

That means a ruling will probably be made at least several weeks before training camps are scheduled to open and nearly two months before the regular season begins, giving both sides plenty of time to work out a deal that would allow the season to start on time.

The expedited schedule, which sets up a series of briefs and responses from the league and players throughout May, could make it easier for the Court of Appeals to give owners a stay through the appeals process.

United States District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who issued the injunction April 25, cited the possibility that an appeal could take many months to be resolved, causing irreparable harm to players who would remain locked out of training facilities and free agents who are unable to sign contracts. The expedited schedule could ease that concern for the three judges who will decide the stay and the appeal. They are the same three who voted, 2 to 1, last Friday to give the N.F.L. a temporary stay that reinstated the lockout.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=365327

NFLPA head thinks there will be football in the fall.

 

[Dado]

One of the local yappy heads claimed that one if the league's levers in the talks was to threaten handing drug testing over to the WADA folks. Seemed like a curious thing to make, since it can only be a viable threat if we accept that NFL enforcement policy is weak.

 

[kdb209]

In a 2-1 ruling, the Eighth Circuit grants permanent stay against the district courts ruling, pending appeal.

The lockout will remain in force until the 8th Circuit hears the case (scheduled for June 3) and and makes a ruling (expected late June).

Two of the three judges showed great skepticism over Judge Nelsons ruling and her interpretation of the Norris-La Guardia Act, which prohibits federal injunctions in labor disputes - telegraphing that they may be very likely to uphold the NFLs position when they rule.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/sports/football/nfl-wins-full-delay-in-lockout-case.html

Owners Win Delay in Case, Keeping N.F.L. Shut
By JUDY BATTISTA
Published: May 16, 2011

A federal appeals court gave N.F.L. owners a critical victory over players in their labor battle Monday, granting owners a delay of an injunction that would have stopped the lockout that began March 12.

The N.F.L. will remain closed for business — with no free agency, trades or minicamps permitted — through the duration of the owners’ appeal of the injunction that was granted by a district court judge last month and that briefly forced teams to allow players to return to work.

Oral arguments on the appeal will be heard June 3 in St. Louis. A decision is expected several weeks later, perhaps coming in late June, about a month before training camps are scheduled to open and little more than two months before the regular season begins in September.

...

But the language of the two judges who voted in favor of keeping the stay in place, both of them appointees of President George W. Bush’s, rejected many of the district court’s interpretations of the law when it granted the injunction. The two judges’ language also gave a strong indication that the owners have a good chance to win the appeal, which would keep the lockout in place and put pressure on players, who have not received bonuses and would not receive paychecks if games are missed. Many of the arguments that the league used in seeking the stay mirror the ones it will use in its appeal, and so the decision on the stay provides a forecast of how the same three-judge panel might view the appeal request.

The Eighth Circuit said it had “considerable doubt†about how United States District Judge Susan Richard Nelson interpreted the Norris-La Guardia Act, which says that a federal court cannot issue an injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute. Norris-La Guardia is one of the cornerstones of the league’s argument in the appeal.

“We 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,†the majority opinion stated.

...

“This is powerful opinion for the owners and another leverage-shifter in the negotiations,†said Gabe Feldman, of Tulane Law School, who has appeared as an analyst on the NFL Network. “A majority of the panel expressed great skepticism that a district court has the power to enjoin a lockout.

Although it is only a preliminary ruling, a majority of the panel made it clear that they side with the owners on a critical, threshold legal issue that will determine the fate of the N.F.L. lockout.â€

...

The two sides engaged in mediated talks Monday and they will meet again on Tuesday, although expectations for immediate movement are low. And the leverage could shift again, if there is a ruling on damages in the television-contract negotiation case currently before United States District Judge David Doty in Minneapolis. Doty could award players billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, a decision that owners would appeal to the Eighth Circuit.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Like I said, I'm Naive -this seems to be an interesting turnaround.

Interesting the interpretation of the "tone" of the judges is they are likely to side on the Owners side-now I see the dangers about the players Decertifying-if during the hearing the courts DO side with the owners, the players could indeed be in for some serious hurt.

 

[hatterson]

As best I understand it here is the current layout in laymans terms. Can someone confirm this is more or less accurate?

- NFL and NFLPA attempt to negotiate a new CBA.
- The NFLPA determines that a new CBA will not be in place before the lockout deadline so they decertify in order to pursue anti-trust litigation.
- The NFL locks the players out.
- The NFL appeals the players union decertification on the grounds that it is not fair labor practices.
- The players file an anti-trust lawsuit that claims the NFLs position as a monopoly and their subsequent lockout prevents the players from earning a living
- The league counters this claim by saying that the dispute arose from a standard labor dispute and should fall under the Norris-La Guardia act thus meaning the court could not issue a forced end to the lockout
- Judge Nelson sides with the players and the lockout is temporarily lifted
- The League appears to the Eighth Circuit court.
- The Eighth Circuit court issues a temporary stay until full arguments on a permanent stay can be held
- The Eighth Circuit court hears arguments on a full stay and issues a full stay until it can render a final verdict on the case

As best I can tell the crux of the arguments is:
Players:
- Typical anti-trust issues. Owners are preventing them from earning a living
Owners:
- Anti-trust isn't valid due to the Norris-La Guardia act thus court has no jurisdiction to stop it
- NLRB should give ruling on validity of decertification. If the court is to interfere it should be after this.

 

[LadyStanley]

ESPN_NHL 2:12pm via ESPN News MLB, NBA, NHL unions file brief in lockout suit - http://es.pn/mj0q0B

 

[LadyStanley]

http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/LAT_Sports_Blog/~3/5yIVjykv9Vs/nfl-cancels-rookie-symposium-lockout.html

NFL cancels June Rookie Symposium due to lockout. (1st league event)

 

[LadyStanley]

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters...QJ4/us-nfl-dispute-fans-idUSTRE74O7ET20110525

Fans starting to lose interest in league, per NFL commish

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=366895

NFL Coaches Association files brief on behalf of players.